Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝐏𝐚𝐨𝐥𝐨 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐨" 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞" 🍀🇵🇹 The Portuguese midfielder drops a fresh training video working with Belgian coach 𝐒𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐭 — who specialises in personalised athletic training for pros. After a tough campaign with very limited game time (𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟐𝟔 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝟎 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝟎 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧),... show more

𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐄𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 🍀

1,961 subscribers

45,908 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness Bildung Sport

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭." Triangle Business Journal is reporting what everyone here in North Carolina and the rest of the baseball world is starting to realize... Nashville may not be the 'front-runner' for MLB expansion in the East after all. And that's not just opinion anymore... - 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 $𝟏.𝟐𝐁 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 to building a brand new NFL stadium for the Tennessee Titans. A stadium which will likely not have hosted a single game by the time MLB Expansion kicks off. - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝. Nashville just approved the East Bend redevelopment rezoning, which prohibits stadium or arena use on the property. - In an interview on WKRN radio in Nashville, Mayor Freddie O'Connell said in response to landing an MLB expansion team, "𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐋𝐁 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞." - 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩, and they've publicly stated they are hoping MLB provides them with one. So if Nashville is not the front-runner, then who is? 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐚𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 for East Coast MLB expansion. And here's why 👇 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥. - A billionaire owner who just won a Stanley Cup in our market + another with pro sports ownership experience that has publicly stated interest - Multiple land options (w/ districts) ready to go - Bipartisan support in the government which has put forth the initial framework for a stadium funding plan 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭... - 5M MORE people in our state (largest in the US without MLB) - 1.2M MORE people within 60 miles of our city center - #22 media market in the country; they are #27 - 3 Top-50 media markets in our state; they have 1 It's only a matter of time before people start digging and begin to realize that the past 8 years haven't just been a fun social media campaign... It's been a strategic, non-stop statewide collaboration to bring every single piece of the puzzle together, at the right time, to make it nearly impossible for MLB to say no to expansion in North Carolina. Great reporting from Dane Huffman and the tbj, and we're pretty sure in the coming months you'll hear a WHOLE lot more of the same from outlets all over the country. #RaleighOnDeck #MLB2NC

MLB2NC

12,593 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I really love this from Molly Miller, head coach of Grand Canyon Women’s basketball… A psychological breakdown… “𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” Directing attention onto technique by lowering physical and mental activation (intensity). Drawing on Deliberate Practice (Anders Erickson)…highlight a specific area to focus on - affords the player the opportunity to increase awareness of technique and change it if necessary. Affords the coach the opportunity to critique technique (feedback). “𝐎𝐧𝐞, 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫…𝐭𝐰𝐨, 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞” Tech/tac attentional cues (specific, controllable cues). Reinforcement…but also a bit of checking for understanding (whilst keeping rapid pace of instruction)…demands on player activation (alertness and readiness) in order to keep track of instructions “𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐟 𝐍𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐆𝐚𝐩, 𝐠𝐚𝐩, 𝐈 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩” 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐚𝐮𝐫𝐚?” Reinforcing the importance of listening during the game - improving the understanding of in-game information for better interactions. Interactions influence actions (cultivating player listening and attention) “𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥 - 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞” Goal-setting - human beings always have hierarchical goals. Linking tech/tac/phys (pace) with mental (dialogue). Putting these hierarchically first (perhaps more so than performance) “𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐲” Technical cue (perhaps an external focus - handsy ON ball) “𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 - 𝐈’𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐧𝐨 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞, 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞” “𝐉𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐣𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐣𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥” “𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐰, 𝐈’𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥 - 𝐡𝐞’𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐩, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐩 𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐭. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭? 𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲” A broader comment on the instructions here. As a sport psychologist here I’m working with Molly to ensure players are able to process this information deeply and durably into long-term memory. This will help them better learn these actions and interactions…in order to be better at exploiting opportunities and dealing with dangers (anticipation-decision-making). This could include different types of instructions, activity design, the use of motor imagery, utilising video

I really love this from Molly Miller, head coach of Grand Canyon Women’s basketball… A psychological breakdown… “𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” Directing attention onto technique by lowering physical and mental activation (intensity). Drawing on Deliberate Practice (Anders Erickson)…highlight a specific area to focus on - affords the player the opportunity to increase awareness of technique and change it if necessary. Affords the coach the opportunity to critique technique (feedback). “𝐎𝐧𝐞, 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫…𝐭𝐰𝐨, 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞” Tech/tac attentional cues (specific, controllable cues). Reinforcement…but also a bit of checking for understanding (whilst keeping rapid pace of instruction)…demands on player activation (alertness and readiness) in order to keep track of instructions “𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐟 𝐍𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐆𝐚𝐩, 𝐠𝐚𝐩, 𝐈 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩” 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐚𝐮𝐫𝐚?” Reinforcing the importance of listening during the game - improving the understanding of in-game information for better interactions. Interactions influence actions (cultivating player listening and attention) “𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥 - 𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞” Goal-setting - human beings always have hierarchical goals. Linking tech/tac/phys (pace) with mental (dialogue). Putting these hierarchically first (perhaps more so than performance) “𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐲” Technical cue (perhaps an external focus - handsy ON ball) “𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 - 𝐈’𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐧𝐨 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞, 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞” “𝐉𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐣𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐣𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥” “𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐰, 𝐈’𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥 - 𝐡𝐞’𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐩, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐩 𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐭. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭? 𝐈’𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲” A broader comment on the instructions here. As a sport psychologist here I’m working with Molly to ensure players are able to process this information deeply and durably into long-term memory. This will help them better learn these actions and interactions…in order to be better at exploiting opportunities and dealing with dangers (anticipation-decision-making). This could include different types of instructions, activity design, the use of motor imagery, utilising video

Daniel Abrahams

17,526 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A recent video shows Bafel Talabani at a weapons auction with two American YouTubers known for firearms content. What stands out is how openly they goad him into bidding higher, hyping him up with military bravado: “charge,” “take no prisoners,” “eat their wounded.” They coach him through the auction like handlers working a fight, and he plays along until the hammer drops at $11,000. They are essentially treating him as a fool, and he does not seem to realize it. These appear to be the same YouTubers Talabani previously filmed with in Iraq, where he mobilized his entire commando force to test weapons on camera, turning a public security apparatus into a prop for online entertainment. The $11,000 is not the point. Everyone knows these families hold wealth in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. What matters is not just the optics but what it reveals about the man himself. At home, Talabani projects the tough, militaristic leader who rules through force. Yet put him in a room with two YouTubers and he becomes pliable, eager to please, visibly pushed around. That contrast says something about the personality behind the strongman act. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a leader befriending foreigners, and there is nothing wrong with having hobbies. Leaders are human. They need downtime, and no one begrudges them that. But there is a difference between having a private interest and performing it like this, on camera, being pushed around while your own people watch. That is not a leader enjoying a hobby. That is a terrible look. The timing compounds all of it. The economic crisis is deepening. Salary payments remain erratic. Talabani’s own media channel has been weaponizing the salary issue to project solidarity with ordinary citizens. Yet here is their leader, on camera, being goaded into throwing money around at a foreign auction. After that, the populist messaging becomes very hard to take seriously.

A recent video shows Bafel Talabani at a weapons auction with two American YouTubers known for firearms content. What stands out is how openly they goad him into bidding higher, hyping him up with military bravado: “charge,” “take no prisoners,” “eat their wounded.” They coach him through the auction like handlers working a fight, and he plays along until the hammer drops at $11,000. They are essentially treating him as a fool, and he does not seem to realize it. These appear to be the same YouTubers Talabani previously filmed with in Iraq, where he mobilized his entire commando force to test weapons on camera, turning a public security apparatus into a prop for online entertainment. The $11,000 is not the point. Everyone knows these families hold wealth in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. What matters is not just the optics but what it reveals about the man himself. At home, Talabani projects the tough, militaristic leader who rules through force. Yet put him in a room with two YouTubers and he becomes pliable, eager to please, visibly pushed around. That contrast says something about the personality behind the strongman act. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a leader befriending foreigners, and there is nothing wrong with having hobbies. Leaders are human. They need downtime, and no one begrudges them that. But there is a difference between having a private interest and performing it like this, on camera, being pushed around while your own people watch. That is not a leader enjoying a hobby. That is a terrible look. The timing compounds all of it. The economic crisis is deepening. Salary payments remain erratic. Talabani’s own media channel has been weaponizing the salary issue to project solidarity with ordinary citizens. Yet here is their leader, on camera, being goaded into throwing money around at a foreign auction. After that, the populist messaging becomes very hard to take seriously.

Kurdistan Watch

63,166 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I first met Saud Abdulhamid on my very first trip to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. I had gone there to see Odion Ighalo, back when he was still playing for Al Hilal. That day, I was standing outside the training ground, just waiting, taking everything in. Then suddenly, a beautiful white G-Wagon pulled up. The windows were fully tinted, so you couldn’t see who was inside. For a moment, I was convinced it had to be Ighalo. As the window rolled down, I got ready to greet him—only to be met by Saud, flashing his trademark smile. He waved at me, and I waved back, even though, truthfully, I had no idea who he was at the time. Not long after, Ighalo arrived, and we headed into the training ground. That’s when I properly met Saud, along with his brother. We had a brief chat before training started, and that was the beginning. Our paths crossed again when Saudi Arabia played Nigeria in a friendly match in Portugal. After the game, in the middle of the crowd, I heard someone shout, “Ighalo!”—it was Saud. From there, we stayed connected, following each other online, keeping in touch in our own way. Then came another reunion, this time in Lens, inside his small but tastefully furnished apartment in the heart of the city. Back then, things were still uncertain for him. He wasn’t playing regularly, but I remember him telling me clearly that he wanted to stay in Europe, stay with Lens, and fight for his place. There was a quiet determination about him. I could feel it. And today, looking at his journey, that belief has paid off. He has grown into an important player for the club, playing his part in helping them secure a Champions League spot. He’s become one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest ambassadors in Europe. And life keeps moving forward. He just got married too. Big congratulations to you, my brother. My next video will be dedicated to him. What a guy!

I first met Saud Abdulhamid on my very first trip to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. I had gone there to see Odion Ighalo, back when he was still playing for Al Hilal. That day, I was standing outside the training ground, just waiting, taking everything in. Then suddenly, a beautiful white G-Wagon pulled up. The windows were fully tinted, so you couldn’t see who was inside. For a moment, I was convinced it had to be Ighalo. As the window rolled down, I got ready to greet him—only to be met by Saud, flashing his trademark smile. He waved at me, and I waved back, even though, truthfully, I had no idea who he was at the time. Not long after, Ighalo arrived, and we headed into the training ground. That’s when I properly met Saud, along with his brother. We had a brief chat before training started, and that was the beginning. Our paths crossed again when Saudi Arabia played Nigeria in a friendly match in Portugal. After the game, in the middle of the crowd, I heard someone shout, “Ighalo!”—it was Saud. From there, we stayed connected, following each other online, keeping in touch in our own way. Then came another reunion, this time in Lens, inside his small but tastefully furnished apartment in the heart of the city. Back then, things were still uncertain for him. He wasn’t playing regularly, but I remember him telling me clearly that he wanted to stay in Europe, stay with Lens, and fight for his place. There was a quiet determination about him. I could feel it. And today, looking at his journey, that belief has paid off. He has grown into an important player for the club, playing his part in helping them secure a Champions League spot. He’s become one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest ambassadors in Europe. And life keeps moving forward. He just got married too. Big congratulations to you, my brother. My next video will be dedicated to him. What a guy!

Oma Akatugba

82,015 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I've been asked to review and provide thoughts on the question of a potential targeting call in the Hardin-Simmons Cowboy Football / UMHB Football🏈 #d3fb game Saturday. I have synced up two videos -- one from UMHB's broadcast and one posted by In The (D3FB) Huddle contributor Riley Conlee (Riley Conlee) (if he could provide credit to the videographer of it, I'd appreciate it). There is a full-speed view and a 20% speed view of the central action included in the video. To evaluate targeting, we have to review both aspects of the rule to see what, if anything, qualifies. I want to provide the entire set of rules (9-1-3 & 9-1-4): "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: - Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. - A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. - Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. - Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: - A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. - A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. - A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A player on the ground. - A player obviously out of the play. - A player who receives a blind-side block. - A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped. - A quarterback any time after a change of possession - A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet- first. - A player attempting to recover a loose ball." We need to start at Note 2 to see if Kyle Brown qualified here as a "defenseless player." If not, then 9-1-4 would not apply to him here. Kyle was not a receiver or a passer per se here -- he was clearly a runner downfield and was not in the grasp of any player. As a result, he was not "defenseless" by definition. That means that the only way targeting can be called here is if the provisions of Rule 9-1-3 were violated. Rule 9-1-3 is VERY specific about the initial requirement before we can go to the question of a required indicator: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet." The crown of the helmet is "the top segment of the helmet, specifically the circular area with a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." In the videos, we see a couple of telling signs. First, Kyle appeared to actually lower HIS helmet as the contact became imminent, which is something coaches advise against for a variety of reasons, including self-preservation. But what is telling is that the UMHB defender attempted to peel off as he saw the angle of the contact he was heading toward with Brown. Specifically, he appeared to end up perpendicular to Brown, perhaps catching Brown's facemask enough to cause the helmet to fly. Yet, that contact was NOT with the defender's crown. As a result, since Brown was not defenseless by rule and because the crown of the helmet was not used for forcible contact to the head/neck area, the picking up of the flag by the officials was appropriate. That said, I spoke with an official who reviewed the videos without commentary and who landed in the same spot as I did concerning the above. They stated that if immediate replay review was available, crews will generally throw the flag and go to review (here, it likely would have been overturned by review, preserving the defender's eligibility). Since the ASC is not providing the on-field replay review yet, the officials' decision would have impacted the game by ejecting a player for the last 6 minutes of the first half until a Halftime review would have been available. For those wondering about how replay is impacting the game, I think this is a good reminder of the nuances it can impact.

I've been asked to review and provide thoughts on the question of a potential targeting call in the Hardin-Simmons Cowboy Football / UMHB Football🏈 #d3fb game Saturday. I have synced up two videos -- one from UMHB's broadcast and one posted by In The (D3FB) Huddle contributor Riley Conlee (Riley Conlee) (if he could provide credit to the videographer of it, I'd appreciate it). There is a full-speed view and a 20% speed view of the central action included in the video. To evaluate targeting, we have to review both aspects of the rule to see what, if anything, qualifies. I want to provide the entire set of rules (9-1-3 & 9-1-4): "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: - Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. - A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. - Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. - Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: - A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. - A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. - A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A player on the ground. - A player obviously out of the play. - A player who receives a blind-side block. - A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped. - A quarterback any time after a change of possession - A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet- first. - A player attempting to recover a loose ball." We need to start at Note 2 to see if Kyle Brown qualified here as a "defenseless player." If not, then 9-1-4 would not apply to him here. Kyle was not a receiver or a passer per se here -- he was clearly a runner downfield and was not in the grasp of any player. As a result, he was not "defenseless" by definition. That means that the only way targeting can be called here is if the provisions of Rule 9-1-3 were violated. Rule 9-1-3 is VERY specific about the initial requirement before we can go to the question of a required indicator: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet." The crown of the helmet is "the top segment of the helmet, specifically the circular area with a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." In the videos, we see a couple of telling signs. First, Kyle appeared to actually lower HIS helmet as the contact became imminent, which is something coaches advise against for a variety of reasons, including self-preservation. But what is telling is that the UMHB defender attempted to peel off as he saw the angle of the contact he was heading toward with Brown. Specifically, he appeared to end up perpendicular to Brown, perhaps catching Brown's facemask enough to cause the helmet to fly. Yet, that contact was NOT with the defender's crown. As a result, since Brown was not defenseless by rule and because the crown of the helmet was not used for forcible contact to the head/neck area, the picking up of the flag by the officials was appropriate. That said, I spoke with an official who reviewed the videos without commentary and who landed in the same spot as I did concerning the above. They stated that if immediate replay review was available, crews will generally throw the flag and go to review (here, it likely would have been overturned by review, preserving the defender's eligibility). Since the ASC is not providing the on-field replay review yet, the officials' decision would have impacted the game by ejecting a player for the last 6 minutes of the first half until a Halftime review would have been available. For those wondering about how replay is impacting the game, I think this is a good reminder of the nuances it can impact.

Frank Rossi

10,688 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

A GRIEVING MOTHER FOUGHT THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT FOR 24 YEARS AND PROVED IT WRONG FROM THE GRAVE Kevin Williams was 15 when he died at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. The original inquest ruled every single death happened by 3.15pm and refused to consider any evidence after that point. Convenient cutoff. It meant nobody ever had to explain why an ambulance never reached him, or whether he could have survived. His mother Anne Williams was not satisfied with convenient. She had medical evidence suggesting Kevin was alive well after the official cutoff. South Yorkshire Police had a simpler version of events, one that blamed dying fans for their own deaths and altered statements to fit it. So Anne spent the next two decades doing the job the police, the coroner, and the government should have done properly the first time. She set up Hope For Hillsborough, then chaired the Hillsborough Justice Campaign HJC Official. She petitioned the Attorney General three times. Over 118,000 people signed her call for a fresh inquest. The establishment's strategy was simple. Wait her out. It didn't work. In 2012 the Hillsborough Independent Panel confirmed what campaigners had said for years, the original verdicts were built on doctored evidence. The verdicts were quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered into all 96 deaths. Anne died of cancer in April 2013, two weeks before that fresh inquest began. She never lived to hear the 2016 verdict that all 96 were killed. Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram Steve Rotheram, who has campaigned for a Hillsborough Law ever since, called her fight a symbol of unbreakable maternal love. BBC gave her a posthumous award later that year. A nice gesture, 24 years late. The lesson is not complicated. One mother with no legal training out-investigated a police force, a coroner, and most of Whitehall, just by refusing to accept a story that didn't add up. If the truth had been told in 1989, none of this would have been necessary. It wasn't, so she made them tell it anyway. Next time someone tells you to drop it and move on, think of Anne Williams. She didn't, and the country is still catching up to what she proved. Sources: The Guardian BBCNews Channel 4 News Liverpool Echo

A GRIEVING MOTHER FOUGHT THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT FOR 24 YEARS AND PROVED IT WRONG FROM THE GRAVE Kevin Williams was 15 when he died at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. The original inquest ruled every single death happened by 3.15pm and refused to consider any evidence after that point. Convenient cutoff. It meant nobody ever had to explain why an ambulance never reached him, or whether he could have survived. His mother Anne Williams was not satisfied with convenient. She had medical evidence suggesting Kevin was alive well after the official cutoff. South Yorkshire Police had a simpler version of events, one that blamed dying fans for their own deaths and altered statements to fit it. So Anne spent the next two decades doing the job the police, the coroner, and the government should have done properly the first time. She set up Hope For Hillsborough, then chaired the Hillsborough Justice Campaign HJC Official. She petitioned the Attorney General three times. Over 118,000 people signed her call for a fresh inquest. The establishment's strategy was simple. Wait her out. It didn't work. In 2012 the Hillsborough Independent Panel confirmed what campaigners had said for years, the original verdicts were built on doctored evidence. The verdicts were quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered into all 96 deaths. Anne died of cancer in April 2013, two weeks before that fresh inquest began. She never lived to hear the 2016 verdict that all 96 were killed. Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram Steve Rotheram, who has campaigned for a Hillsborough Law ever since, called her fight a symbol of unbreakable maternal love. BBC gave her a posthumous award later that year. A nice gesture, 24 years late. The lesson is not complicated. One mother with no legal training out-investigated a police force, a coroner, and most of Whitehall, just by refusing to accept a story that didn't add up. If the truth had been told in 1989, none of this would have been necessary. It wasn't, so she made them tell it anyway. Next time someone tells you to drop it and move on, think of Anne Williams. She didn't, and the country is still catching up to what she proved. Sources: The Guardian BBCNews Channel 4 News Liverpool Echo

Artur Nadolny

60,171 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I usually don’t go after people like Andrew Bustamante (Andrew Bustamante). My stance on guys like him is simple, let them talk. The more they talk, the more people see exactly how stupid they are. Eventually, they make themselves irrelevant. So normally I’d stay quiet. But this guy decided to go after my very good friend John Kiriakou, a few times. Let’s be clear, John doesn’t need defending. He already wiped the floor with Bustamante in their debate. It was so bad I figured Bustamante would disappear after that. But that’s the thing about grifters, they never go away. They’ll chase cameras and attention no matter how bad it is. John Kiriakou is a hero. He refused to torture people. He blew the whistle on the CIA for torturing people. And for that, he went to prison for telling the truth. That’s the American way - tell the truth, and you get punished. Same story with Julian Assange and others like him. Bustamante, on the other hand, is a company man. He doesn’t challenge anything, doesn’t risk anything. He plays the game safe, for money and visibility. Put a camera in the room, and he’ll be there. Guaranteed anything for airtime. Let me tell you something about Bustamante, he was a special operations officer, It sounds impressive, but in reality it means - he was an assistant to officers like John. He brought people like John coffee and dealt with their paperwork. He was a paperboy at the agency. He flunked out Ops training. :)) So Bustamante got destroyed in a debate with John and instead of responding with substance, he defaulted to calling John a Russian propagandist. That’s what people do when they have no arguments left. Calling someone a propagandist. His big point? That John worked for RT, so he must be a propagandist. There are plenty of Americans who’ve work with RT, including extremely respected voices. When you’ve been blacklisted by the system like John was after he came out of prison, your options get limited fast. The CIA made sure no-one would hire him. RT was the only one that gave him a platform. That’s not some gotcha Bustamante, that’s harsh reality veterans and hero whist-blowers face. Something you will never understand, you supports the system fully. John is America's favorite spy. That's what they call him now, I think. Then there’s his 'analysis' of my Erika Kirk post, which I enjoyed beyond words can express. I laughed a lot, so I guess I have to thank you for that. The guy who 'worked' for the CIA says, it’s subjective. Omg that's genius where did you get that from? What a perfectly trained young man, he just identified it so well. Oh wait, I literally opened with “This is my opinion” and closed with the same thing. Congratulations the CIA taught you how to read. :)) Then he, without ever watching a single episode of Candace Owens , called me a source of Candace O, which I am not, but will happily be anytime she needs me to. She's one of very few truth tellers left. But to answer your idiotic questions: she referred to my post because it went viral and because so many people felt the same way, including Candace. Then she went ahead and did what Candace does best: backed it up with facts. You seem a little slow, so I’ll repeat: she took a post that resonated with millions of people, including Candace herself, because of the overwhelming red flags Erika left us with and then Candace backed those feelings and assumptions up with facts. Not posts on X. A competent intelligence officer would’ve asked a real question: why did this post resonate to so many people? Why did millions of people connect with it? What exactly triggered that response on this posts? Instead Bustamante when with - It hurts :)) Oh I'm sure it hurts buddy! He says: “attractive enough for what?'' Bustamante asks “sell what?” Since the CIA didn’t do a great job training you boy, let me spell it out. Attractive enough for men to want to fuck her and women to want to be her and to believe every word she says because of that. I did not use the F-word in the post, she is a widow after all, but if you insist. Sell what? - sell that she’s a grieving widow. Did you even read the text?. Dear Bustamante, You’re a great example of why the CIA keeps getting caught for the shitty things it does. Imagine if much smarter people worked there, we’d all be in serious trouble. Have you been on the ground at UVU? Have you talked to the authorities or reviewed any tapes? have you watch Candaces series at all? Have you attended even a single court hearing or looked at any real evidence at all? The answer to all these things is - NO. Because if you had I would have seen you there. I didn't. And I have done all those things. Here’s my offer: come on my show, you clearly don’t mind the spotlight. I’ll walk through every red flag in this case, one by one. If you can’t give a clear, reasonable explanation for why these aren’t suspicious and why there’s no valid reason to suspect this was an assassination carried out by a state and not a weird kid from Utah, then you publicly apologize to Candace, to me, and to John. No excuses! Can't wait!

I usually don’t go after people like Andrew Bustamante (Andrew Bustamante). My stance on guys like him is simple, let them talk. The more they talk, the more people see exactly how stupid they are. Eventually, they make themselves irrelevant. So normally I’d stay quiet. But this guy decided to go after my very good friend John Kiriakou, a few times. Let’s be clear, John doesn’t need defending. He already wiped the floor with Bustamante in their debate. It was so bad I figured Bustamante would disappear after that. But that’s the thing about grifters, they never go away. They’ll chase cameras and attention no matter how bad it is. John Kiriakou is a hero. He refused to torture people. He blew the whistle on the CIA for torturing people. And for that, he went to prison for telling the truth. That’s the American way - tell the truth, and you get punished. Same story with Julian Assange and others like him. Bustamante, on the other hand, is a company man. He doesn’t challenge anything, doesn’t risk anything. He plays the game safe, for money and visibility. Put a camera in the room, and he’ll be there. Guaranteed anything for airtime. Let me tell you something about Bustamante, he was a special operations officer, It sounds impressive, but in reality it means - he was an assistant to officers like John. He brought people like John coffee and dealt with their paperwork. He was a paperboy at the agency. He flunked out Ops training. :)) So Bustamante got destroyed in a debate with John and instead of responding with substance, he defaulted to calling John a Russian propagandist. That’s what people do when they have no arguments left. Calling someone a propagandist. His big point? That John worked for RT, so he must be a propagandist. There are plenty of Americans who’ve work with RT, including extremely respected voices. When you’ve been blacklisted by the system like John was after he came out of prison, your options get limited fast. The CIA made sure no-one would hire him. RT was the only one that gave him a platform. That’s not some gotcha Bustamante, that’s harsh reality veterans and hero whist-blowers face. Something you will never understand, you supports the system fully. John is America's favorite spy. That's what they call him now, I think. Then there’s his 'analysis' of my Erika Kirk post, which I enjoyed beyond words can express. I laughed a lot, so I guess I have to thank you for that. The guy who 'worked' for the CIA says, it’s subjective. Omg that's genius where did you get that from? What a perfectly trained young man, he just identified it so well. Oh wait, I literally opened with “This is my opinion” and closed with the same thing. Congratulations the CIA taught you how to read. :)) Then he, without ever watching a single episode of Candace Owens , called me a source of Candace O, which I am not, but will happily be anytime she needs me to. She's one of very few truth tellers left. But to answer your idiotic questions: she referred to my post because it went viral and because so many people felt the same way, including Candace. Then she went ahead and did what Candace does best: backed it up with facts. You seem a little slow, so I’ll repeat: she took a post that resonated with millions of people, including Candace herself, because of the overwhelming red flags Erika left us with and then Candace backed those feelings and assumptions up with facts. Not posts on X. A competent intelligence officer would’ve asked a real question: why did this post resonate to so many people? Why did millions of people connect with it? What exactly triggered that response on this posts? Instead Bustamante when with - It hurts :)) Oh I'm sure it hurts buddy! He says: “attractive enough for what?'' Bustamante asks “sell what?” Since the CIA didn’t do a great job training you boy, let me spell it out. Attractive enough for men to want to fuck her and women to want to be her and to believe every word she says because of that. I did not use the F-word in the post, she is a widow after all, but if you insist. Sell what? - sell that she’s a grieving widow. Did you even read the text?. Dear Bustamante, You’re a great example of why the CIA keeps getting caught for the shitty things it does. Imagine if much smarter people worked there, we’d all be in serious trouble. Have you been on the ground at UVU? Have you talked to the authorities or reviewed any tapes? have you watch Candaces series at all? Have you attended even a single court hearing or looked at any real evidence at all? The answer to all these things is - NO. Because if you had I would have seen you there. I didn't. And I have done all those things. Here’s my offer: come on my show, you clearly don’t mind the spotlight. I’ll walk through every red flag in this case, one by one. If you can’t give a clear, reasonable explanation for why these aren’t suspicious and why there’s no valid reason to suspect this was an assassination carried out by a state and not a weird kid from Utah, then you publicly apologize to Candace, to me, and to John. No excuses! Can't wait!

ELIZABETH LANE

20,708 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

Brian Roemmele

72,312 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

M.A. Rothman

85,434 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$Look at how giddy certain individuals are when they get to cheerlead for Greg Abbott and rub how much (probably) dirty money he has in your face. Meanwhile the rest of us are out here struggling to make ends meet or face losing their home under the very conditions that Greg has caused. These people are completely removed from reality. That's what they think of us. They view us all as dumb cattle that have to vote for whoever has the most money. Because candidate X has more special interest big donor money, We The People get stuck with the special interest approved candidate? Notice how they never talk about the issues or the competition of ideas. It's never about who has a better vision or plan for Texas, it's always pot shots about money or some other ridiculous attack. We are running this thing, in many ways, like an unconventional warfare operation. Without disclosing tactics, techniques, and procedures, those operations do not require nearly the expenditure in dollars to achieve results as opposed to something more conventional. What’s being done and communicated about money is a method of voter suppression. It’s meant to demoralize voters on one side to make it appear that their support for a candidate is isolated and they’re all alone…that the candidate they support could never win because “look at the numbers”. This is called Bandwagon Effect and Demoralization. It’s a psychological manipulation tactic meant to suppress voters that exploit the conformity bias. It leads to people thinking “my vote won’t matter”. Greg and his sycophantic supporters are counting on this to be effective. If things were as hopeless as these idiots lead folks to believe, why would Greg be actively campaigning leading up to the Republican primary? I mean if there really is no chance for any challenger, why is Greg and his campaign doing the things they’re doing? There’d be no need to waste the time and resources on campaigning, it’d be better to save that for the general election against the democrat machine. But that’s not what we see is it? Greg is actively making the rounds and campaigning; his campaign staff is active and working. They may not be using the words primary (because doing so does nothing but hurt them), but they are out there and working every day. Greg is constantly getting in front of MSM or sympathetic State and national radio/podcast hosts. He’s utilizing known paid influencers on social media to echo his more recent “actions” to build the illusion of support and reinforce that Bandwagon Effect. He’s reaching out to members of the Texas legislature to desperately get them to sign on to his ridiculous big-nothingburger of a property tax plan…and then very publicly posting up when one of them signs on and “supports” it. Every time Doc attends a Republican committee event at the county level to talk (or has someone there on his behalf), Greg Abbott has a surrogate there actively campaigning for Greg in response. Greg and his team are so concerned with the numbers and what’s happening inside the party, they have to try and wrestle back control and narrative within the party. Just on social media, we’ve seen a 250% increase in activity on Greg’s campaign account since the summer. On multiple occasions Greg has either lifted direct sections of Doc Pete Chambers plans and policy or the concepts. Suddenly he’s figured out how to take action on the things that people are up in arms about, right before the primary election? On more than one occasion Greg and his campaign have been forced to put out a statement or propose some new “action” (optics) less than 24 hours after Doc or Doc’s campaign has posted about something. Ladies and gentlemen, those are not the actions of a candidate who has it in the bag and “there’s no threat”. Think about it this way. We admittedly have a fraction of the resources that Greg Abbott has, after he’s spent decades in politics…but little ole Doc with “no money” and “no chance” is forcing the leader of the 2nd largest State in the country and 8th largest economy in the world to sweat, forcing him to take actions he otherwise wouldn’t be taking…that is very significant and telling about how Greg and his team view Doc. So let the naysayers scream into the void and expose their true nature to everyone. We will continue on making Greg’s team backpedal and take actions they otherwise wouldn’t be taking. Anyone who’s ever participated in maneuver warfare at the operational and strategic level will know exactly what we are talking about. #TexasNeedsADoc$

Look at how giddy certain individuals are when they get to cheerlead for Greg Abbott and rub how much (probably) dirty money he has in your face. Meanwhile the rest of us are out here struggling to make ends meet or face losing their home under the very conditions that Greg has caused. These people are completely removed from reality. That's what they think of us. They view us all as dumb cattle that have to vote for whoever has the most money. Because candidate X has more special interest big donor money, We The People get stuck with the special interest approved candidate? Notice how they never talk about the issues or the competition of ideas. It's never about who has a better vision or plan for Texas, it's always pot shots about money or some other ridiculous attack. We are running this thing, in many ways, like an unconventional warfare operation. Without disclosing tactics, techniques, and procedures, those operations do not require nearly the expenditure in dollars to achieve results as opposed to something more conventional. What’s being done and communicated about money is a method of voter suppression. It’s meant to demoralize voters on one side to make it appear that their support for a candidate is isolated and they’re all alone…that the candidate they support could never win because “look at the numbers”. This is called Bandwagon Effect and Demoralization. It’s a psychological manipulation tactic meant to suppress voters that exploit the conformity bias. It leads to people thinking “my vote won’t matter”. Greg and his sycophantic supporters are counting on this to be effective. If things were as hopeless as these idiots lead folks to believe, why would Greg be actively campaigning leading up to the Republican primary? I mean if there really is no chance for any challenger, why is Greg and his campaign doing the things they’re doing? There’d be no need to waste the time and resources on campaigning, it’d be better to save that for the general election against the democrat machine. But that’s not what we see is it? Greg is actively making the rounds and campaigning; his campaign staff is active and working. They may not be using the words primary (because doing so does nothing but hurt them), but they are out there and working every day. Greg is constantly getting in front of MSM or sympathetic State and national radio/podcast hosts. He’s utilizing known paid influencers on social media to echo his more recent “actions” to build the illusion of support and reinforce that Bandwagon Effect. He’s reaching out to members of the Texas legislature to desperately get them to sign on to his ridiculous big-nothingburger of a property tax plan…and then very publicly posting up when one of them signs on and “supports” it. Every time Doc attends a Republican committee event at the county level to talk (or has someone there on his behalf), Greg Abbott has a surrogate there actively campaigning for Greg in response. Greg and his team are so concerned with the numbers and what’s happening inside the party, they have to try and wrestle back control and narrative within the party. Just on social media, we’ve seen a 250% increase in activity on Greg’s campaign account since the summer. On multiple occasions Greg has either lifted direct sections of Doc Pete Chambers plans and policy or the concepts. Suddenly he’s figured out how to take action on the things that people are up in arms about, right before the primary election? On more than one occasion Greg and his campaign have been forced to put out a statement or propose some new “action” (optics) less than 24 hours after Doc or Doc’s campaign has posted about something. Ladies and gentlemen, those are not the actions of a candidate who has it in the bag and “there’s no threat”. Think about it this way. We admittedly have a fraction of the resources that Greg Abbott has, after he’s spent decades in politics…but little ole Doc with “no money” and “no chance” is forcing the leader of the 2nd largest State in the country and 8th largest economy in the world to sweat, forcing him to take actions he otherwise wouldn’t be taking…that is very significant and telling about how Greg and his team view Doc. So let the naysayers scream into the void and expose their true nature to everyone. We will continue on making Greg’s team backpedal and take actions they otherwise wouldn’t be taking. Anyone who’s ever participated in maneuver warfare at the operational and strategic level will know exactly what we are talking about. #TexasNeedsADoc

DocPeteChambersForTexas

17,547 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The Trojan Horse Within: Toby Tiangco’s Long Game to Break Away From PBBM A political drama is being scripted right under the administration’s nose. Toby Tiangco, who now threatens to “break politically” with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. if charges are not filed against former Speaker Martin Romualdez, is merely setting up the final scene of a play that began long ago. His so-called “principled stand” is nothing but a pretext the planned exit narrative for a politician who has been operating as Sara Duterte’s Trojan Horse inside the Marcos administration from the start. What looks like a sudden burst of moral outrage is, in fact, the culmination of a months-long infiltration strategy. And the signs were always there. I. The First Red Flag: Sabotaging the Administration Ticket From Within As campaign manager of the administration’s Alyansa senatorial slate, Tiangco held one of the most sensitive, strategically critical roles in the 2025 midterm campaign. Yet his decisions now appear less like miscalculations and more like deliberate acts of quiet sabotage. •He surrendered Mindanao without a fight. Despite the administration’s strong candidates and early survey dominance, Tiangco inexplicably abandoned ground operations, messaging pushes, and alliance building in Mindanao the Duterte bailiwick. This single decision handed the region’s votes to the opposition on a silver platter. •The results? Administration candidates who started in the Top 12 nosedived, while opposition-backed contenders surged. Political insiders now whisper what no one said aloud during the campaign: the defeats were preventable unless the defeats were intentional. Looking back, it’s increasingly clear: Tiangco’s campaign stewardship was not negligent. It was engineered. And it served only one bloc — the Duterte bloc. II. The Second Red Flag: Aligning With Anti-PBBM Disruptors in Congress After the elections, Tiangco’s behavior only confirmed the pattern. Instead of repairing the administration’s political flank, he doubled down — aligning himself with congressmen who have openly attacked, undermined, and destabilized PBBM. One name stands out: Kiko Barzaga. Barzaga, whose conduct was the subject of a House ethics committee recommendation for suspension, has consistently launched vitriolic broadsides against the President. And in a stunning move last Monday, Toby voluntarily yielded his plenary time to Barzaga, giving him a national spotlight to once again attack the President on the very day Congress sought to enforce discipline. That wasn’t loyalty. That wasn’t coincidence. That was coordination. No administration ally would have done that. But a Trojan Horse would. III. The Third Red Flag: Manufacturing a Breakaway Narrative Now, in his latest political performance, Tiangco pretends to be taking a righteous stand threatening to sever ties with PBBM over the alleged “failure” to file charges against Martin Romualdez. But the facts are clear: •The ICI report found no adverse finding against Romualdez. •There is no evidence to justify charges. •Tiangco knows this. Yet he chooses this fabricated grievance as the catalyst for his “break.” Why? Because he needed an excuse. He needed a storyline. He needed a way to justify a pre-planned political divorce one that aligns him squarely with Sara Duterte as she positions herself for the next political cycle. The “failure to file charges” is not the cause of his breakaway. It is merely the scripted justification for a move decided long before. IV. The Pattern Is Now Impossible to Ignore Across campaign missteps, legislative alliances, and now his public theatrics, a coherent pattern emerges: •Toby undermined the administration’s electoral base. •He empowered administration critics inside Congress. •He provided platforms for anti-PBBM narratives. •He is now manufacturing a moral conflict as his exit line. Each move benefits only one person: Sara Duterte.

The Trojan Horse Within: Toby Tiangco’s Long Game to Break Away From PBBM A political drama is being scripted right under the administration’s nose. Toby Tiangco, who now threatens to “break politically” with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. if charges are not filed against former Speaker Martin Romualdez, is merely setting up the final scene of a play that began long ago. His so-called “principled stand” is nothing but a pretext the planned exit narrative for a politician who has been operating as Sara Duterte’s Trojan Horse inside the Marcos administration from the start. What looks like a sudden burst of moral outrage is, in fact, the culmination of a months-long infiltration strategy. And the signs were always there. I. The First Red Flag: Sabotaging the Administration Ticket From Within As campaign manager of the administration’s Alyansa senatorial slate, Tiangco held one of the most sensitive, strategically critical roles in the 2025 midterm campaign. Yet his decisions now appear less like miscalculations and more like deliberate acts of quiet sabotage. •He surrendered Mindanao without a fight. Despite the administration’s strong candidates and early survey dominance, Tiangco inexplicably abandoned ground operations, messaging pushes, and alliance building in Mindanao the Duterte bailiwick. This single decision handed the region’s votes to the opposition on a silver platter. •The results? Administration candidates who started in the Top 12 nosedived, while opposition-backed contenders surged. Political insiders now whisper what no one said aloud during the campaign: the defeats were preventable unless the defeats were intentional. Looking back, it’s increasingly clear: Tiangco’s campaign stewardship was not negligent. It was engineered. And it served only one bloc — the Duterte bloc. II. The Second Red Flag: Aligning With Anti-PBBM Disruptors in Congress After the elections, Tiangco’s behavior only confirmed the pattern. Instead of repairing the administration’s political flank, he doubled down — aligning himself with congressmen who have openly attacked, undermined, and destabilized PBBM. One name stands out: Kiko Barzaga. Barzaga, whose conduct was the subject of a House ethics committee recommendation for suspension, has consistently launched vitriolic broadsides against the President. And in a stunning move last Monday, Toby voluntarily yielded his plenary time to Barzaga, giving him a national spotlight to once again attack the President on the very day Congress sought to enforce discipline. That wasn’t loyalty. That wasn’t coincidence. That was coordination. No administration ally would have done that. But a Trojan Horse would. III. The Third Red Flag: Manufacturing a Breakaway Narrative Now, in his latest political performance, Tiangco pretends to be taking a righteous stand threatening to sever ties with PBBM over the alleged “failure” to file charges against Martin Romualdez. But the facts are clear: •The ICI report found no adverse finding against Romualdez. •There is no evidence to justify charges. •Tiangco knows this. Yet he chooses this fabricated grievance as the catalyst for his “break.” Why? Because he needed an excuse. He needed a storyline. He needed a way to justify a pre-planned political divorce one that aligns him squarely with Sara Duterte as she positions herself for the next political cycle. The “failure to file charges” is not the cause of his breakaway. It is merely the scripted justification for a move decided long before. IV. The Pattern Is Now Impossible to Ignore Across campaign missteps, legislative alliances, and now his public theatrics, a coherent pattern emerges: •Toby undermined the administration’s electoral base. •He empowered administration critics inside Congress. •He provided platforms for anti-PBBM narratives. •He is now manufacturing a moral conflict as his exit line. Each move benefits only one person: Sara Duterte.

🇵🇭 Laitera🇵🇭

59,494 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

#IronyWritLargeAndLies Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa's former adviser Trevor Ncube, a local media publisher who owns Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) with the President's son-in-law Gerald Mlotshwa, has raised new controversy with fresh attacks on main opposition CCC leader Nelson Chamisa whom he says does not listen to anybody. Ncube has been consistently lambasting Chamisa calling him all sorts of names, going as far as insinuating he is a tribalist and dictator, but the CCC leader typically does not reply. Ncube owns AMH, publishers of NewsDay, Zimbabwe Independent, The Standard and online broadcasting platform Heart & Soul. NewsDay and Heart & Soul are names of Ncube's media platforms derived from BBC programmes. Although he postures as a neutral political observer who only wants to fix Zimbabwe's problems, Ncube - who behaves as if he has a God-ordained mission to do that - is actually a partisan political player operating in the dark shadows and an opportunist who hops from one party to another. He has been all over the place politically - from Zapu to MDC, then Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn, Alliance for People's Agenda (APA) and most recently Zanu PF by association. He is also a longtime Mnangagwa ally. Ncube's politics is not based on discernible ideological and policy ideation, values and principles, but opportunism and self-interest. He is also not principled. For instance, Ncube just went AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) in 2017 when he was APA chair only to emerge as Mnangagwa’s adviser after the November 2017 coup without even officially resigning from his party. Ncube joined Mnangagwa’s coup project and became its media mouthpiece in a bid to revive his faltering publishing business interests after losing control of the Mail & Guardin in South Africa. He wanted radio and television licences to expand his media interests, while repaying a US$2 million debt to the Media Development Investment Fund, an American fund which provides debt and equity finance for independent media in countries where access to reliable news and information is under threat. APA had been formed in June 2017, with prominent business executive and academic Nkosana Moyo as the leader. Ncube's jumping ship and joining the coup gravy train led to Moyo to reflect and tellingly say that he had sadly come to realise that some Zimbabweans are not fighting to change the system, but to be part of it. Ncube went on to become a vocal and enthusiastic member of Mnangagwa’s Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) in his ill-fated political adventure. Ironically, Ncube keeps on complaining about Chamisa not taking his advice when he was Mnangagwa’s adviser. Ncube says Chamisa does not listen and repeatedly keeps on referring to a photo he took with him seven years ago as evidence of their meetings to discuss local political issues, justifying his conclusion and attacks on the CCC leader on the basis of one interaction seven years ago. However, The NewsHawks has checked the facts and found out that Ncube is conveniently manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa in 2016 to make it appear as if they have been meeting when Chamisa was already a party political leader in the context of what is currently happening in Zimbabwe. A Chamisa adviser told The NewsHawks: "We have seen the video and remarks by Mr Trevor Ncube in which he attacks our leader Nelson Chamisa and says all sorts of things about him. We have no problem with Ncube or anyone for that matter legitimately criticising Chamisa as a leader, a hugely popular one at that. Ncube has a constitutional and legitimate right to criticise him and other political leaders. That's what should happen in a democracy. "However, Ncube must stop crudely misrepresenting and manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa seven years ago for cheap political capital, publicity and relevance. In fact, he must stop lying about it. We have kept quiet throughout his lies and drama for far too long. I think we now need to set the record straight in the public interest and stop this charade. "The facts are very clear on this issue. Ncube invited Chamisa to his office in Graniteside, Harare, where AMH operates from on 5 August 2016 to discuss local political issues, including the formation of APA. Ncube wanted Chamisa to be part of that process led by Nkosana Moyo. At that meeting Ncube told Chamisa that he had held many consultative meetings in Zimbabwe and South Africa on the APA project, which he claimed was supported by telecoms mogul Strive Masiyiwa and many other prominent business people, some of whom ended up with him as Mnangagwa's advisers. "At the time, Chamisa had just been appointed one of the three vice-presidents of the MDC-T by the late Morgan Tsvangirai the month before, that is in July 2016. So he was not the leader of the MDC-T at that time and didn't even know one day he will lead the party. In that meeting, Chamisa told Ncube upfront that while he appreciated the invitation to join APA he was not able to do so because he wanted to help Tsvangirai rejuvenate the MDC-T post the 2013 elections and prepare for the 2018 elections. So Chamisa politely declined Ncube's offer to join APA. The idea was to use Chamisa's growing social base to back Moyo as APA leader in his presidential election bid in 2018. "The meeting, which ran for close to two hours from around 9am to just before 11am (that photo was taken at that time), ended on a somewhat sour note with fake smiles because Chamisa had rejected the APA invitation, saying he is a loyal MDC-T member and one of the leaders. Interestingly, it ended with a prayer. "Ncube gave Chamisa a book by Harvard Business School professor Bill George with Peter Sims titled True North, which is about leadership. Since then, Ncube has not spoken to Chamisa, not even once, except on 14 July 2021 when he sent a condolence message to him after a family bereavement. So Ncube is lying that he has engaged Chamisa on political issues and he doesn't listen. There is no such thing; it's just a needless malicious campaign and posturing. Chamisa talks to many people and takes ideas and proposals from them. He implements what is strategic and practical for the CCC given political conditions and circumstances. The claim that Chamisa doesn't listen, does not have structures, works alone and is a dictator is nonsense. He is a democratic leader who believes change can only be secured through democratic elections. Some may not like his style, but that is normal in politics. There is a difference between style, strategy and substance. In any case, why should Chamisa listen to advice coming from his rival's advisers? Ncube is a known Mnangagwa ally and now he works with his son-in-law at his media business. So why on earth would Chamisa listen to advice from that sort of a dishonest person who even lies about a meeting held seven years ago in a totally different setting, time and space? That's ridiculous. Let's must learn to discuss ideas, not people and events; this noisy mediocrity which pervades our polity masquerading as insightful leading lights of our politics is now part of the problem rather than the solution. He has his own system and team that he works with. It's ridiculous to suggest that Chamisa won 44% of the vote going by official results, which we reject as a fraud, and all those seats in parliament alone. How is that possible really? Is he superhuman? He works with others, but it is also true that other people are not happy. That's what happens in politics. He is also fully aware of critical issues that he needs to address urgently, that is the limitations and weaknesses from a political, structural, organisational and strategic point of view. Chamisa welcomes ideas and criticism from well-meaning people, not some malicious malcontents and bullies. He is a bona fide opposition leader who genuinely wants a solution to the country's problems and he is open to working with other people who seriously want to resolve national issues, not noise-makers and impostors. It's time we challenge these false and negative narratives by people who are more opposed to the opposition than the ruling party. Chamisa is an opposition leader trying to help a find a solution to our country's problems, he is not the leader of the country and the problem. He is the alternative to a failed leadership and its policies that have ruined the country with devastation consequences for all, especially the poor and vulnerable. He may have his own weaknesses like all of us, but he is the best alternative at the moment. Anything else is just mere wishful thinking and drama."

#IronyWritLargeAndLies Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa's former adviser Trevor Ncube, a local media publisher who owns Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) with the President's son-in-law Gerald Mlotshwa, has raised new controversy with fresh attacks on main opposition CCC leader Nelson Chamisa whom he says does not listen to anybody. Ncube has been consistently lambasting Chamisa calling him all sorts of names, going as far as insinuating he is a tribalist and dictator, but the CCC leader typically does not reply. Ncube owns AMH, publishers of NewsDay, Zimbabwe Independent, The Standard and online broadcasting platform Heart & Soul. NewsDay and Heart & Soul are names of Ncube's media platforms derived from BBC programmes. Although he postures as a neutral political observer who only wants to fix Zimbabwe's problems, Ncube - who behaves as if he has a God-ordained mission to do that - is actually a partisan political player operating in the dark shadows and an opportunist who hops from one party to another. He has been all over the place politically - from Zapu to MDC, then Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn, Alliance for People's Agenda (APA) and most recently Zanu PF by association. He is also a longtime Mnangagwa ally. Ncube's politics is not based on discernible ideological and policy ideation, values and principles, but opportunism and self-interest. He is also not principled. For instance, Ncube just went AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) in 2017 when he was APA chair only to emerge as Mnangagwa’s adviser after the November 2017 coup without even officially resigning from his party. Ncube joined Mnangagwa’s coup project and became its media mouthpiece in a bid to revive his faltering publishing business interests after losing control of the Mail & Guardin in South Africa. He wanted radio and television licences to expand his media interests, while repaying a US$2 million debt to the Media Development Investment Fund, an American fund which provides debt and equity finance for independent media in countries where access to reliable news and information is under threat. APA had been formed in June 2017, with prominent business executive and academic Nkosana Moyo as the leader. Ncube's jumping ship and joining the coup gravy train led to Moyo to reflect and tellingly say that he had sadly come to realise that some Zimbabweans are not fighting to change the system, but to be part of it. Ncube went on to become a vocal and enthusiastic member of Mnangagwa’s Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) in his ill-fated political adventure. Ironically, Ncube keeps on complaining about Chamisa not taking his advice when he was Mnangagwa’s adviser. Ncube says Chamisa does not listen and repeatedly keeps on referring to a photo he took with him seven years ago as evidence of their meetings to discuss local political issues, justifying his conclusion and attacks on the CCC leader on the basis of one interaction seven years ago. However, The NewsHawks has checked the facts and found out that Ncube is conveniently manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa in 2016 to make it appear as if they have been meeting when Chamisa was already a party political leader in the context of what is currently happening in Zimbabwe. A Chamisa adviser told The NewsHawks: "We have seen the video and remarks by Mr Trevor Ncube in which he attacks our leader Nelson Chamisa and says all sorts of things about him. We have no problem with Ncube or anyone for that matter legitimately criticising Chamisa as a leader, a hugely popular one at that. Ncube has a constitutional and legitimate right to criticise him and other political leaders. That's what should happen in a democracy. "However, Ncube must stop crudely misrepresenting and manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa seven years ago for cheap political capital, publicity and relevance. In fact, he must stop lying about it. We have kept quiet throughout his lies and drama for far too long. I think we now need to set the record straight in the public interest and stop this charade. "The facts are very clear on this issue. Ncube invited Chamisa to his office in Graniteside, Harare, where AMH operates from on 5 August 2016 to discuss local political issues, including the formation of APA. Ncube wanted Chamisa to be part of that process led by Nkosana Moyo. At that meeting Ncube told Chamisa that he had held many consultative meetings in Zimbabwe and South Africa on the APA project, which he claimed was supported by telecoms mogul Strive Masiyiwa and many other prominent business people, some of whom ended up with him as Mnangagwa's advisers. "At the time, Chamisa had just been appointed one of the three vice-presidents of the MDC-T by the late Morgan Tsvangirai the month before, that is in July 2016. So he was not the leader of the MDC-T at that time and didn't even know one day he will lead the party. In that meeting, Chamisa told Ncube upfront that while he appreciated the invitation to join APA he was not able to do so because he wanted to help Tsvangirai rejuvenate the MDC-T post the 2013 elections and prepare for the 2018 elections. So Chamisa politely declined Ncube's offer to join APA. The idea was to use Chamisa's growing social base to back Moyo as APA leader in his presidential election bid in 2018. "The meeting, which ran for close to two hours from around 9am to just before 11am (that photo was taken at that time), ended on a somewhat sour note with fake smiles because Chamisa had rejected the APA invitation, saying he is a loyal MDC-T member and one of the leaders. Interestingly, it ended with a prayer. "Ncube gave Chamisa a book by Harvard Business School professor Bill George with Peter Sims titled True North, which is about leadership. Since then, Ncube has not spoken to Chamisa, not even once, except on 14 July 2021 when he sent a condolence message to him after a family bereavement. So Ncube is lying that he has engaged Chamisa on political issues and he doesn't listen. There is no such thing; it's just a needless malicious campaign and posturing. Chamisa talks to many people and takes ideas and proposals from them. He implements what is strategic and practical for the CCC given political conditions and circumstances. The claim that Chamisa doesn't listen, does not have structures, works alone and is a dictator is nonsense. He is a democratic leader who believes change can only be secured through democratic elections. Some may not like his style, but that is normal in politics. There is a difference between style, strategy and substance. In any case, why should Chamisa listen to advice coming from his rival's advisers? Ncube is a known Mnangagwa ally and now he works with his son-in-law at his media business. So why on earth would Chamisa listen to advice from that sort of a dishonest person who even lies about a meeting held seven years ago in a totally different setting, time and space? That's ridiculous. Let's must learn to discuss ideas, not people and events; this noisy mediocrity which pervades our polity masquerading as insightful leading lights of our politics is now part of the problem rather than the solution. He has his own system and team that he works with. It's ridiculous to suggest that Chamisa won 44% of the vote going by official results, which we reject as a fraud, and all those seats in parliament alone. How is that possible really? Is he superhuman? He works with others, but it is also true that other people are not happy. That's what happens in politics. He is also fully aware of critical issues that he needs to address urgently, that is the limitations and weaknesses from a political, structural, organisational and strategic point of view. Chamisa welcomes ideas and criticism from well-meaning people, not some malicious malcontents and bullies. He is a bona fide opposition leader who genuinely wants a solution to the country's problems and he is open to working with other people who seriously want to resolve national issues, not noise-makers and impostors. It's time we challenge these false and negative narratives by people who are more opposed to the opposition than the ruling party. Chamisa is an opposition leader trying to help a find a solution to our country's problems, he is not the leader of the country and the problem. He is the alternative to a failed leadership and its policies that have ruined the country with devastation consequences for all, especially the poor and vulnerable. He may have his own weaknesses like all of us, but he is the best alternative at the moment. Anything else is just mere wishful thinking and drama."

TheNewsHawks

153,304 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

"If you watch 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Ki!!er' (1986) often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy." --- John McNaughton Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: Henry isn’t entirely unsympathetic, is he? McNaughton: I think of Henry as being a monster, but Ottis is the beast. Henry’s a bit like Frankenstein’s monster – there might just be that little bit of goodness somewhere deep inside that might come out. But once Ottis starts following Henry’s “teachings”, so to speak, he just gives way to his worst impulses and he becomes the beast. Henry is the “better” of the two, if you can make that comparison. It’s not like in most serial-ki!!er films, where what they normally do is present the ki!!er as some evil creature who will not be redeemed, so the audience doesn’t have to bother thinking any deeper thoughts. With Henry, no moral judgement is provided, so you have to think for yourself. Now that’s always been a tough sell in Hollywood. Interviewer: And there’s also a surprising amount of humour in the movie, albeit mostly very black humour. McNaughton: If you watch it often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy. Tom Towles, who plays Ottis, his training was with the Second City group – improvisational comedy. He’s great at playing buffoons, and I’ve used him several times since. The relationship between Henry and Ottis is, at certain points, a little like a bickering couple – like when Ottis smashes the TV in, or when the video-camera breaks and they have their little argument in the car. The way they played those scenes makes me laugh – but of course there’s a lot about the film that’s so shocking that if somebody saw it just once they might think you were crazy to even think of laughing at it. Interviewer: Do you think the film still has the same power to shock, 18 years after you made it? McNaughton: I think it does, yes, though not quite as much as when it first came out – because this kind of thing really hadn’t been seen before. And we were trying to do something different with the presentation of the violent scenes. If you take the early scene where they ki!! the TV man – he’s this repulsive man who goads them until they attack him. It’s a quite traditional setup of introducing a distasteful character, and you’re rooting for the hero to dispatch him. And of course he gets the TV smashed over his head – it’s a kind of gratifying use of violence. Then later we have the ‘home invasion’ sequence, and that’s very different – it’s like a home movie of the massacre of a completely innocent family, chosen at random. We watch them slaughtered, and hopefully people will ask themselves – how entertaining is violence, really? Interviewer: Because in the mid-80s when the film came out, there were many violent films – the 'Rambos' and 'Terminators' and the like. McNaughton: Well, normally the hero goes and shoots a thousand people, and that’s the kind of violence that was shown in movies at the time. We didn’t exactly have those specific films in mind when we made 'Henry', but when trying to tell the story, we realised it was a lot to do with violence, so we tried to dig a little deeper." (John McNaughton's interview with Neil Young, Jigsaw Lounge)

"If you watch 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Ki!!er' (1986) often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy." --- John McNaughton Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: Henry isn’t entirely unsympathetic, is he? McNaughton: I think of Henry as being a monster, but Ottis is the beast. Henry’s a bit like Frankenstein’s monster – there might just be that little bit of goodness somewhere deep inside that might come out. But once Ottis starts following Henry’s “teachings”, so to speak, he just gives way to his worst impulses and he becomes the beast. Henry is the “better” of the two, if you can make that comparison. It’s not like in most serial-ki!!er films, where what they normally do is present the ki!!er as some evil creature who will not be redeemed, so the audience doesn’t have to bother thinking any deeper thoughts. With Henry, no moral judgement is provided, so you have to think for yourself. Now that’s always been a tough sell in Hollywood. Interviewer: And there’s also a surprising amount of humour in the movie, albeit mostly very black humour. McNaughton: If you watch it often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy. Tom Towles, who plays Ottis, his training was with the Second City group – improvisational comedy. He’s great at playing buffoons, and I’ve used him several times since. The relationship between Henry and Ottis is, at certain points, a little like a bickering couple – like when Ottis smashes the TV in, or when the video-camera breaks and they have their little argument in the car. The way they played those scenes makes me laugh – but of course there’s a lot about the film that’s so shocking that if somebody saw it just once they might think you were crazy to even think of laughing at it. Interviewer: Do you think the film still has the same power to shock, 18 years after you made it? McNaughton: I think it does, yes, though not quite as much as when it first came out – because this kind of thing really hadn’t been seen before. And we were trying to do something different with the presentation of the violent scenes. If you take the early scene where they ki!! the TV man – he’s this repulsive man who goads them until they attack him. It’s a quite traditional setup of introducing a distasteful character, and you’re rooting for the hero to dispatch him. And of course he gets the TV smashed over his head – it’s a kind of gratifying use of violence. Then later we have the ‘home invasion’ sequence, and that’s very different – it’s like a home movie of the massacre of a completely innocent family, chosen at random. We watch them slaughtered, and hopefully people will ask themselves – how entertaining is violence, really? Interviewer: Because in the mid-80s when the film came out, there were many violent films – the 'Rambos' and 'Terminators' and the like. McNaughton: Well, normally the hero goes and shoots a thousand people, and that’s the kind of violence that was shown in movies at the time. We didn’t exactly have those specific films in mind when we made 'Henry', but when trying to tell the story, we realised it was a lot to do with violence, so we tried to dig a little deeper." (John McNaughton's interview with Neil Young, Jigsaw Lounge)

DepressedBergman

37,186 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Paul Schrader's 'Blue Collar' (1978) was a very tense shoot, because Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto, and Harvey Keitel argued constantly. There were fights, verbal abuse, walk-offs, and Mexican stand-offs. According to Paul Schrader, Pryor hit Kotto with a chair on camera during filming. Here is Schrader explaining the tense atmosphere & the reason why he cried during the filming of 'Blue Collar' (1978): "Schrader: [Richard Pryor was never meant to be the star of the movie]. A lot of the difficulties on the film came out of the fact that | had approached Richard and Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto separately and led each of them to believe that they were the star of the movie, because that’s what it took to get them involved. You were basically introducing three bulls into a china shop and asking them to get along, and you can’t really blame the bulls when things start getting wrecked. Very early on, by the second or third day of production, Richard became convinced that he was playing the black sidekick to Harvey’s Terry Molloy, and Harvey became convinced that he was playing Ed McMann to Richard’s Johnny Carson, and Yaphet was convinced that they were both trying to ace him out, and things got very heavy. We were shooting in auto plants in Detroit and Kalamazoo in middle of a heatwave and pretty much what was happening on-screen started happening off-screen. Not a day went by without some sort of confrontation. Right after you said ‘Cut’, a fight would start. After about three weeks in, I was in the middle of the set and all of a sudden I started crying and I just couldn’t stop, something I'd never done before. The AD grabbed me and took me outside and walked me around the block and I said, ‘This is not working. The movie is never going to get finished and I'm never going to work again.” But he calmed me down and walked me back in and I guess everyone realized I wasn’t as much the iron man as | had been appearing. Richard looked at me and said, ‘You pu**y —are you gonna be a man or not on this movie?’, and I said, ‘OK, Richard, I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.’ Interviewer: Did things improve from that point on? Schrader: Part of the problem was to do with Richard’s style of acting. Being primarily versed in stand-up comedy he had a creative life of between three and four takes. The first one would be good, the second would be real good, the third would be terrific and the fourth would probably start to fall off. Whereas Harvey, with his theatrical training, very self-analytical, would work on the meaning of the scene in the early takes and then after ten takes he’d be terrific. Well, there’s virtually no way you can film those two men together, so you’d have to rehearse Harvey with a stand-in and then bring Richard in without any rehearsal. The other thing that Richard would do when he felt his performance going flat was to improvise and change the dialogue just like he would have done in front of a live audience, and he would never tell me or anyone what he was going to do. In one case I had a two-shot of Richard and Harvey where Richard just started flying, and of course Harvey tried to top him, and as soon as that happened Richard just sort of took off and became brilliant. Harvey broke a take once because he felt himself being knocked out of shot. I had to grab Harvey and get him down on the floor and yell at him, ‘Don’t you ever break shot!’, because Richard was right behind me trying to get at him. So the shooting strategy became very limited: ‘I know I may only have one take with these actors, so what’s the best one?’, and you’d work out the minimum coverage you needed and that’s all you got. Sometimes if they were in a good mood you could actually try something a little different, but by the time we shot the last scene, the one with all three of them on the sofa after the party, they hadn’t been talking to each other for a long time, and I had fallen into a prolonged pattern of script negotiations which usually began the night before and went on into the morning of shooting, talking to each of them until they were all happy with the others’ improvisations. Now the day before the sofa scene Richard had hit Yaphet with a chair on-camera, so I knew it was going to be tough. We lit the scene with extras, put their names on the sofa with pieces of tape, and the crew were all warned. The three of them came into the room in silence, there was no discussion, I said ‘Action’ and we did the first take, which ran to about four or five minutes — much too long. So I said, ‘OK, that’s very good, but it’s too long for us. We’re going to go right again. No one move, no one talk, let’s just do it a little faster. Action.’ We did that take on the same reel of film and that was two and a half minutes. I said, ‘Cut’, and Richard got up, went downstairs, got in his car and drove home. End of movie. Interviewer: All this must have given you a completely different perspective on the job of being a director than the one you’d envisaged when you were a critic. Schrader: It did. I said afterwards that if this was what movie-making was like I didn’t want to do this any more. On that film, I very quickly learned to confine myself to talent management, to making sure the actors stayed in character and the storyline remained coherent. I handed over shot selection and lighting and blocking essentially to my crew. I didn’t have time to explore those areas." ('Schrader on Schrader & other writings', edited by Kevin Jackson, 1990) [P.S: On this day, 48 years ago, 'Blue Collar' was released in the USA]

Paul Schrader's 'Blue Collar' (1978) was a very tense shoot, because Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto, and Harvey Keitel argued constantly. There were fights, verbal abuse, walk-offs, and Mexican stand-offs. According to Paul Schrader, Pryor hit Kotto with a chair on camera during filming. Here is Schrader explaining the tense atmosphere & the reason why he cried during the filming of 'Blue Collar' (1978): "Schrader: [Richard Pryor was never meant to be the star of the movie]. A lot of the difficulties on the film came out of the fact that | had approached Richard and Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto separately and led each of them to believe that they were the star of the movie, because that’s what it took to get them involved. You were basically introducing three bulls into a china shop and asking them to get along, and you can’t really blame the bulls when things start getting wrecked. Very early on, by the second or third day of production, Richard became convinced that he was playing the black sidekick to Harvey’s Terry Molloy, and Harvey became convinced that he was playing Ed McMann to Richard’s Johnny Carson, and Yaphet was convinced that they were both trying to ace him out, and things got very heavy. We were shooting in auto plants in Detroit and Kalamazoo in middle of a heatwave and pretty much what was happening on-screen started happening off-screen. Not a day went by without some sort of confrontation. Right after you said ‘Cut’, a fight would start. After about three weeks in, I was in the middle of the set and all of a sudden I started crying and I just couldn’t stop, something I'd never done before. The AD grabbed me and took me outside and walked me around the block and I said, ‘This is not working. The movie is never going to get finished and I'm never going to work again.” But he calmed me down and walked me back in and I guess everyone realized I wasn’t as much the iron man as | had been appearing. Richard looked at me and said, ‘You pu**y —are you gonna be a man or not on this movie?’, and I said, ‘OK, Richard, I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.’ Interviewer: Did things improve from that point on? Schrader: Part of the problem was to do with Richard’s style of acting. Being primarily versed in stand-up comedy he had a creative life of between three and four takes. The first one would be good, the second would be real good, the third would be terrific and the fourth would probably start to fall off. Whereas Harvey, with his theatrical training, very self-analytical, would work on the meaning of the scene in the early takes and then after ten takes he’d be terrific. Well, there’s virtually no way you can film those two men together, so you’d have to rehearse Harvey with a stand-in and then bring Richard in without any rehearsal. The other thing that Richard would do when he felt his performance going flat was to improvise and change the dialogue just like he would have done in front of a live audience, and he would never tell me or anyone what he was going to do. In one case I had a two-shot of Richard and Harvey where Richard just started flying, and of course Harvey tried to top him, and as soon as that happened Richard just sort of took off and became brilliant. Harvey broke a take once because he felt himself being knocked out of shot. I had to grab Harvey and get him down on the floor and yell at him, ‘Don’t you ever break shot!’, because Richard was right behind me trying to get at him. So the shooting strategy became very limited: ‘I know I may only have one take with these actors, so what’s the best one?’, and you’d work out the minimum coverage you needed and that’s all you got. Sometimes if they were in a good mood you could actually try something a little different, but by the time we shot the last scene, the one with all three of them on the sofa after the party, they hadn’t been talking to each other for a long time, and I had fallen into a prolonged pattern of script negotiations which usually began the night before and went on into the morning of shooting, talking to each of them until they were all happy with the others’ improvisations. Now the day before the sofa scene Richard had hit Yaphet with a chair on-camera, so I knew it was going to be tough. We lit the scene with extras, put their names on the sofa with pieces of tape, and the crew were all warned. The three of them came into the room in silence, there was no discussion, I said ‘Action’ and we did the first take, which ran to about four or five minutes — much too long. So I said, ‘OK, that’s very good, but it’s too long for us. We’re going to go right again. No one move, no one talk, let’s just do it a little faster. Action.’ We did that take on the same reel of film and that was two and a half minutes. I said, ‘Cut’, and Richard got up, went downstairs, got in his car and drove home. End of movie. Interviewer: All this must have given you a completely different perspective on the job of being a director than the one you’d envisaged when you were a critic. Schrader: It did. I said afterwards that if this was what movie-making was like I didn’t want to do this any more. On that film, I very quickly learned to confine myself to talent management, to making sure the actors stayed in character and the storyline remained coherent. I handed over shot selection and lighting and blocking essentially to my crew. I didn’t have time to explore those areas." ('Schrader on Schrader & other writings', edited by Kevin Jackson, 1990) [P.S: On this day, 48 years ago, 'Blue Collar' was released in the USA]

DepressedBergman

14,455 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

30,301 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Recently I got some hands-on time with Crimson Desert and below are my first impressions as well as some of the gameplay I was able to capture. Crimson Desert is a good game, but it won’t be for everyone. I know the devs claim this isn’t an RPG, but I don’t know any other way to describe this game other than a HARDCORE action RPG. If you need the yellow paint to know where to climb this game isn’t for you. But if you love getting lost in a whimsical world with a boat load of content this game is going to be right up your alley. I think what impressed me most is the attention to detail. There’s so many little things the dev team took into consideration that I think people who enjoy being immersed into a world are going to appreciate. Even if you aren’t that person; on a basic level I think most will enjoy the game's combat. It’s fast, fluid and provides a ton of player expression with its deep skill tree. The world of Pywel is vibrant, large in scale and full of life. It’s easy to get lost off the main quest line as there’s always something to do and someone to speak to. An example being I was wandering through the open world and encountered a distressed woman seeking help. I agreed to follow her only to find out moments later she was with a gang and they were trying to back door me. That had me cracking up. I think if the open world is consistently full of fun, unique side content like that & the main quest line is fire this game has a lot of potential to impress. It’s just a shame that I didn’t get to spend more time with the main quests as I kept getting side tracked with cool stuff to do in the open world. So I can’t give you much insight into that. What I can say is after the opening section there’s NEXT TO NO tutorials in this game, the puzzles are hard & the default controls are a bit clunky. You will be getting lost and I can see that frustrating some people who aren’t interested in a challenge. That’s why I mentioned earlier that this is a hardcore RPG. It does not do a lot of hand holding. Because of that I predict you and your friends will be sharing tips and tricks similar to when Elden Ring first launched and nobody knew what they were doing. If you are a patient person and take the time to learn the game's systems I promise you will be able to put together some awesome combos that will make you feel like the main character. My biggest fear for this game is that I won't finish it. Not because it’s a bad game, but I can just tell from my brief time with it that it’s next level massive. As someone who's been gaming for 30+ years it’s very rare you’ll hear me say a game was overwhelming, but this game is. For people who lack a ton of free time I can see that being a turn off because once again the game doesn’t give much direction or tutorials outside the opening area. Not to mention this game could be big just for the sake of being big. I was curious to know how much of the content was engaging versus just open world bloat? Hard to tell because I only got a few hours with the game. I also fear that the Ai isn’t the best in this game. The Ai issues I encountered zapped all immersion away for those moments. I’m not sure if the final build will differ from the vertical slice we played, but what I can tell you is that on the build we played I wasn’t impressed by the Ai. Several times I attacked enemy camps and they never reacted to me attacking them. They just stood there and took it which made the world feel less alive. There were also times where enemies were looking dead at me just standing still as the battle music played threatening to beat me up, but they never did anything. It was 3 or 4 times I encountered this poor Ai which is a red flag for me because I only got two hours of hands on time with the game. Mind you in those two hours a good portion of it was just me working my way through the prologue and the early quests, so I didn't spend a ton of time in the open world. What I'm trying to get at is the janky ai was very noticeable. It wasn't something that took long to find. I will say when the game works it's great, but when I tell you the Ai was bad at times it was bad. It reminded me of the dumb NPC’s often found in Ubisoft open world games. I’m not looking for this to be a Souls game but I want some level of challenge in the combat. Hopefully that stuff gets patched out. That being said, I’m confident in saying this game is good. I just didn’t have enough time with it to determine if it’s good, or GREAT. Only time will tell when Crimson Desert drops on March 19th, 2026 for the PC, PS5 and Xbox Series. Pros —---------- - Combat makes you feel like demon - Deep Skill tree - Vibrant world - Solid voice acting - Fire OST - The little details (trust system, you can commit crimes ect.) - No Fall damage - Puzzles are creative & challenging - Game doesn’t hold you hand (some people will hate this) - You can swap in and out of 3rd and 1st person at will. Wasn’t able to explore much of how that changes the game, but it’s nice that it's an option. - EASILY over 100hrs of content (some will hate this though) Cons —---------- - Clunky controls (Default controls take some time adjusting too. I hope there’s other control schemes at launch) - Inconsistent Ai (Ubisoft bad at times. sometimes the enemies wouldn’t attack during combat or act like they never saw you) - Long load times (we were playing on PC’s, but idk the specs) - Your horse can faint & when they do traveling the large world wasn’t as fun (and I couldn’t figure out how to get him back - most likely a skill issue) - Early stamina management is OD. Early game it’s easy to drown & get tired running. I’d imagine it gets better late game, but early game it’s frustrating trying to explore. - Camera takes some getting used to in combat. Sometimes its too close and others too far. - Early arrows have no impact. Felt useless. Hoping later upgrades fix that

Recently I got some hands-on time with Crimson Desert and below are my first impressions as well as some of the gameplay I was able to capture. Crimson Desert is a good game, but it won’t be for everyone. I know the devs claim this isn’t an RPG, but I don’t know any other way to describe this game other than a HARDCORE action RPG. If you need the yellow paint to know where to climb this game isn’t for you. But if you love getting lost in a whimsical world with a boat load of content this game is going to be right up your alley. I think what impressed me most is the attention to detail. There’s so many little things the dev team took into consideration that I think people who enjoy being immersed into a world are going to appreciate. Even if you aren’t that person; on a basic level I think most will enjoy the game's combat. It’s fast, fluid and provides a ton of player expression with its deep skill tree. The world of Pywel is vibrant, large in scale and full of life. It’s easy to get lost off the main quest line as there’s always something to do and someone to speak to. An example being I was wandering through the open world and encountered a distressed woman seeking help. I agreed to follow her only to find out moments later she was with a gang and they were trying to back door me. That had me cracking up. I think if the open world is consistently full of fun, unique side content like that & the main quest line is fire this game has a lot of potential to impress. It’s just a shame that I didn’t get to spend more time with the main quests as I kept getting side tracked with cool stuff to do in the open world. So I can’t give you much insight into that. What I can say is after the opening section there’s NEXT TO NO tutorials in this game, the puzzles are hard & the default controls are a bit clunky. You will be getting lost and I can see that frustrating some people who aren’t interested in a challenge. That’s why I mentioned earlier that this is a hardcore RPG. It does not do a lot of hand holding. Because of that I predict you and your friends will be sharing tips and tricks similar to when Elden Ring first launched and nobody knew what they were doing. If you are a patient person and take the time to learn the game's systems I promise you will be able to put together some awesome combos that will make you feel like the main character. My biggest fear for this game is that I won't finish it. Not because it’s a bad game, but I can just tell from my brief time with it that it’s next level massive. As someone who's been gaming for 30+ years it’s very rare you’ll hear me say a game was overwhelming, but this game is. For people who lack a ton of free time I can see that being a turn off because once again the game doesn’t give much direction or tutorials outside the opening area. Not to mention this game could be big just for the sake of being big. I was curious to know how much of the content was engaging versus just open world bloat? Hard to tell because I only got a few hours with the game. I also fear that the Ai isn’t the best in this game. The Ai issues I encountered zapped all immersion away for those moments. I’m not sure if the final build will differ from the vertical slice we played, but what I can tell you is that on the build we played I wasn’t impressed by the Ai. Several times I attacked enemy camps and they never reacted to me attacking them. They just stood there and took it which made the world feel less alive. There were also times where enemies were looking dead at me just standing still as the battle music played threatening to beat me up, but they never did anything. It was 3 or 4 times I encountered this poor Ai which is a red flag for me because I only got two hours of hands on time with the game. Mind you in those two hours a good portion of it was just me working my way through the prologue and the early quests, so I didn't spend a ton of time in the open world. What I'm trying to get at is the janky ai was very noticeable. It wasn't something that took long to find. I will say when the game works it's great, but when I tell you the Ai was bad at times it was bad. It reminded me of the dumb NPC’s often found in Ubisoft open world games. I’m not looking for this to be a Souls game but I want some level of challenge in the combat. Hopefully that stuff gets patched out. That being said, I’m confident in saying this game is good. I just didn’t have enough time with it to determine if it’s good, or GREAT. Only time will tell when Crimson Desert drops on March 19th, 2026 for the PC, PS5 and Xbox Series. Pros —---------- - Combat makes you feel like demon - Deep Skill tree - Vibrant world - Solid voice acting - Fire OST - The little details (trust system, you can commit crimes ect.) - No Fall damage - Puzzles are creative & challenging - Game doesn’t hold you hand (some people will hate this) - You can swap in and out of 3rd and 1st person at will. Wasn’t able to explore much of how that changes the game, but it’s nice that it's an option. - EASILY over 100hrs of content (some will hate this though) Cons —---------- - Clunky controls (Default controls take some time adjusting too. I hope there’s other control schemes at launch) - Inconsistent Ai (Ubisoft bad at times. sometimes the enemies wouldn’t attack during combat or act like they never saw you) - Long load times (we were playing on PC’s, but idk the specs) - Your horse can faint & when they do traveling the large world wasn’t as fun (and I couldn’t figure out how to get him back - most likely a skill issue) - Early stamina management is OD. Early game it’s easy to drown & get tired running. I’d imagine it gets better late game, but early game it’s frustrating trying to explore. - Camera takes some getting used to in combat. Sometimes its too close and others too far. - Early arrows have no impact. Felt useless. Hoping later upgrades fix that

The Black Hokage

1,175,958 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Thank you to everyone who played a part in my journey, from my Charlton days as a kid through to my last time playing football at Bromley. From the age of 8 football has been my life, it’s given me a lot, and I have also given it a lot back. In fact I’ve given it everything. It’s for that reason that I can write this looking back over my career with no regrets. Do I wish certain things went better? Without a doubt. A lot of things. I once scored an own goal from 30 yards out. I certainly wouldn’t mind deleting that from history. But were these bad or difficult moments ever because of a lack of effort? No. Like I said, I gave football everything. Everyday. And I guess I’m writing this because I can see that’s getting lost a bit these days. I don’t know if it’s social media painting a certain picture of what a footballer looks like, but I want to be clear, behind the scenes these top players train like their life depends on it. Alexis Sánchez, wow. Every training session he trained like it was his last. The ones that don’t, they fall by the way side eventually. Even when they’re really, really good. I’ve seen it happen to too many young pros and scholars, trying to make a name in the game. Apply yourself everyday, listen to your coaches and learn from the players who have already been where you want to get to. Because if you don’t make it, and it’s because you got carried away with yourself, it’ll be a heavy burden to carry later in life. I suffered a lot with confidence throughout my career, which I found strange because my Dad always backs himself to the hilt. I saw loads of people, to try and unlock something within me and find that inner belief. “Take the chains off” Arsène Wenger would say to me. “I’m trying boss”, I would say to myself. But I’m certain it was that same insecurity that gave me the drive I have, that would make me run harder and train harder than everyone else. Ultimately that’s what gave me a career at the top level, because physically I was a machine and I took a lot of pride in that. Was the way I am a blessing or a curse for me? A bit of both I think. But you can only play the cards you’re dealt and try and make the best of them. I’m writing all this because I hope some young players might read it. You guys have so much confidence these days! I wish I could nick some of it and take it back in time, but confidence without application and having that fire in your belly to improve everyday won’t get you far. I see less young players doing extras, working on their craft, doing extra running after training. Trust me, you won’t have a career if you neglect this aspect. Try and find the sweetspot. That’s why I love guys like Bukayo Saka. He’s got that swagger, but you only need to listen to him in a post match interview to see he’s never lost his humility. Find the sweetspot. Hopefully the above has some value to someone out there. I didn’t want to write the generic retirement ‘thanks for everything’ post as it seemed like a missed opportunity. Although of course I am very grateful to my friends, family, coaches, managers and of course the fans who have been with me on my journey. I’m looking forward to seeing what life has in store for me next. Cheers, Jenko

Thank you to everyone who played a part in my journey, from my Charlton days as a kid through to my last time playing football at Bromley. From the age of 8 football has been my life, it’s given me a lot, and I have also given it a lot back. In fact I’ve given it everything. It’s for that reason that I can write this looking back over my career with no regrets. Do I wish certain things went better? Without a doubt. A lot of things. I once scored an own goal from 30 yards out. I certainly wouldn’t mind deleting that from history. But were these bad or difficult moments ever because of a lack of effort? No. Like I said, I gave football everything. Everyday. And I guess I’m writing this because I can see that’s getting lost a bit these days. I don’t know if it’s social media painting a certain picture of what a footballer looks like, but I want to be clear, behind the scenes these top players train like their life depends on it. Alexis Sánchez, wow. Every training session he trained like it was his last. The ones that don’t, they fall by the way side eventually. Even when they’re really, really good. I’ve seen it happen to too many young pros and scholars, trying to make a name in the game. Apply yourself everyday, listen to your coaches and learn from the players who have already been where you want to get to. Because if you don’t make it, and it’s because you got carried away with yourself, it’ll be a heavy burden to carry later in life. I suffered a lot with confidence throughout my career, which I found strange because my Dad always backs himself to the hilt. I saw loads of people, to try and unlock something within me and find that inner belief. “Take the chains off” Arsène Wenger would say to me. “I’m trying boss”, I would say to myself. But I’m certain it was that same insecurity that gave me the drive I have, that would make me run harder and train harder than everyone else. Ultimately that’s what gave me a career at the top level, because physically I was a machine and I took a lot of pride in that. Was the way I am a blessing or a curse for me? A bit of both I think. But you can only play the cards you’re dealt and try and make the best of them. I’m writing all this because I hope some young players might read it. You guys have so much confidence these days! I wish I could nick some of it and take it back in time, but confidence without application and having that fire in your belly to improve everyday won’t get you far. I see less young players doing extras, working on their craft, doing extra running after training. Trust me, you won’t have a career if you neglect this aspect. Try and find the sweetspot. That’s why I love guys like Bukayo Saka. He’s got that swagger, but you only need to listen to him in a post match interview to see he’s never lost his humility. Find the sweetspot. Hopefully the above has some value to someone out there. I didn’t want to write the generic retirement ‘thanks for everything’ post as it seemed like a missed opportunity. Although of course I am very grateful to my friends, family, coaches, managers and of course the fans who have been with me on my journey. I’m looking forward to seeing what life has in store for me next. Cheers, Jenko

Carl Jenkinson

1,589,291 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat