正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐖𝐅𝐈 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐉𝐏 𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐣 𝐁𝐡𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐡 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬. Three years later, after his acquittal by the Rouse Avenue Court, I asked him the same questions. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞... 𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝. Instead of showing sensitivity towards the women wrestlers, he mocked their struggle and accused me of coming with an agenda. Journalism is about asking questions. Those questions still deserve answers! NDTV #brijbhushan #wrestlersshow more

Tejshree Purandare

10,079 subscribers

25,955 次观看 • 5 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

In Goodfellas, the actor playing the federal prosecutor negotiating Henry and Karen Hill's witness protection deal isn't an actor at all - it's Edward McDonald, the real-life prosecutor who negotiated the Hills' cooperation after their arrest in May 1980. How McDonald ended up in the film was pure chance. While prepping the film, Scorsese needed an authentic federal office for the scene. Nicholas Pileggi, who wrote the book the film was based on, knew McDonald from his years as a crime reporter and asked if a production assistant could photograph his office for reference. As the staffer was finishing up, McDonald turned and asked her, "Who's playing me in the movie?" "We haven't cast that part yet," she replied. "I'll do it! I'll play myself!" An hour and a half later, McDonald got a call from Pileggi and Scorsese asking if he was serious and whether he would be willing to come in for a screen test. As a forty-two-year-old attorney with no acting training, McDonald was extremely nervous going into the audition - especially when he saw Scorsese himself sitting behind the desk, whom he hadn't expected to see. To put him at ease, Scorsese playfully leaped up, raised his hands and shouted, "Oh, Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't do nothing! I didn't do nothing!" McDonald fired back, "You're nothing but a mook!" "I'm a mook?" Scorsese replied. "What's a mook? You're a mook!" The two men laughed, having just reenacted the classic scene from Scorsese's 1973 film Mean Streets. “Okay,” the director said. “Let’s get to work.” McDonald’s initial reading was stiff and unnatural. Recognizing that the script was holding back the prosecutor’s natural authority, Scorsese grabbed the papers from his hands and threw them on the floor. He turned to the actors standing in as Henry and Karen. “He’s the prosecutor,” Scorsese told them. “Ask him questions.” For the next several minutes, they fired improvised questions at McDonald, who was much more comfortable answering in his own words. "That was great. You'll be hearing from us," Scorsese said. After McDonald got the part, Scorsese told him he would keep a professional actor on standby during filming in case he froze under the pressure of the cameras. But he never did. Instead, he gave a natural, commanding performance, calmly explaining to Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco their options just as he had with Henry and Karen Hill a decade earlier. At one point, Bracco claims that she "doesn't know anything," and McDonald responds with a line he made up on the spot: "Don't give me the babe in the woods routine, Karen. I've listened to those wiretaps. And I've heard you on the telephone. You're talking about cocaine." More than thirty years later, fans still recognize him and repeat the line back to him. "People are always coming up to me. It's crazy. It's like a cult movie. This is thirty-five years ago I shot the movie. It's just a phenomenon."

In Goodfellas, the actor playing the federal prosecutor negotiating Henry and Karen Hill's witness protection deal isn't an actor at all - it's Edward McDonald, the real-life prosecutor who negotiated the Hills' cooperation after their arrest in May 1980. How McDonald ended up in the film was pure chance. While prepping the film, Scorsese needed an authentic federal office for the scene. Nicholas Pileggi, who wrote the book the film was based on, knew McDonald from his years as a crime reporter and asked if a production assistant could photograph his office for reference. As the staffer was finishing up, McDonald turned and asked her, "Who's playing me in the movie?" "We haven't cast that part yet," she replied. "I'll do it! I'll play myself!" An hour and a half later, McDonald got a call from Pileggi and Scorsese asking if he was serious and whether he would be willing to come in for a screen test. As a forty-two-year-old attorney with no acting training, McDonald was extremely nervous going into the audition - especially when he saw Scorsese himself sitting behind the desk, whom he hadn't expected to see. To put him at ease, Scorsese playfully leaped up, raised his hands and shouted, "Oh, Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't do nothing! I didn't do nothing!" McDonald fired back, "You're nothing but a mook!" "I'm a mook?" Scorsese replied. "What's a mook? You're a mook!" The two men laughed, having just reenacted the classic scene from Scorsese's 1973 film Mean Streets. “Okay,” the director said. “Let’s get to work.” McDonald’s initial reading was stiff and unnatural. Recognizing that the script was holding back the prosecutor’s natural authority, Scorsese grabbed the papers from his hands and threw them on the floor. He turned to the actors standing in as Henry and Karen. “He’s the prosecutor,” Scorsese told them. “Ask him questions.” For the next several minutes, they fired improvised questions at McDonald, who was much more comfortable answering in his own words. "That was great. You'll be hearing from us," Scorsese said. After McDonald got the part, Scorsese told him he would keep a professional actor on standby during filming in case he froze under the pressure of the cameras. But he never did. Instead, he gave a natural, commanding performance, calmly explaining to Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco their options just as he had with Henry and Karen Hill a decade earlier. At one point, Bracco claims that she "doesn't know anything," and McDonald responds with a line he made up on the spot: "Don't give me the babe in the woods routine, Karen. I've listened to those wiretaps. And I've heard you on the telephone. You're talking about cocaine." More than thirty years later, fans still recognize him and repeat the line back to him. "People are always coming up to me. It's crazy. It's like a cult movie. This is thirty-five years ago I shot the movie. It's just a phenomenon."

Gangster Cinema Central

336,190 次观看 • 22 天前

Kyle Busch will go down as arguably the greatest driver to have never won the Daytona 500. I have a special connection to that 2023 race, which was the closest he ever came to winning it. 2023 marked my first time reporting on location from the Daytona 500 as a member of the media. It also came three weeks after the passing of my Grandpa Taranto, who I was very close to. It was an emotional time for me on that front, and I had his prayer card up in the press box with me during the race and as things played out over the closing laps. I remember being up in my seat those final laps during the race between the RCR and RFK cars, thinking vividly that I was about to be a direct witness to something very special and one of those great moments in Daytona 500 history. It wasn't to be. (and that spin by the 99 didn't need to be a caution either. Come on.) I guess in retrospect it's of some comfort that Kyle was leading the Daytona 500 at Lap 200, but the record doesn't give him credit for that, nor others who have endured leading Lap 200 of the Daytona 500 but not winning the race. One year later during Media Day, I asked him about how frustrating that was when I put it in those terms. "Where does that rank on the pain scale?" "High." "Gotcha." "High, yeah. 'Cause I don't have the trophy or the ring, so it just means I coulda, shoulda, woulda if it was prior to 2005. So that sucks, but it is what it is. "I guess 2005, I knew the rules coming in anyways. That's when I first started in the Daytona 500 was 2005. It happens." The next year I went with a slightly different angle, asking if Daytona's repave in 2011 and the muting of variables like character in the track, handling, etc. had made the Daytona 500 a more difficult race to win. Kyle proceeded to give a very detailed and thorough answer about what it was like to race the old Daytona and drive through the bumps/beyond the limits of the tire, while also pointing out certain areas of the current Daytona that were becoming trouble spots. I listened to this back today as well as the followup I asked and I just love the exchange. It feels like I did my job asking Kyle informed questions and he obliged in giving informed answers.

Kyle Busch will go down as arguably the greatest driver to have never won the Daytona 500. I have a special connection to that 2023 race, which was the closest he ever came to winning it. 2023 marked my first time reporting on location from the Daytona 500 as a member of the media. It also came three weeks after the passing of my Grandpa Taranto, who I was very close to. It was an emotional time for me on that front, and I had his prayer card up in the press box with me during the race and as things played out over the closing laps. I remember being up in my seat those final laps during the race between the RCR and RFK cars, thinking vividly that I was about to be a direct witness to something very special and one of those great moments in Daytona 500 history. It wasn't to be. (and that spin by the 99 didn't need to be a caution either. Come on.) I guess in retrospect it's of some comfort that Kyle was leading the Daytona 500 at Lap 200, but the record doesn't give him credit for that, nor others who have endured leading Lap 200 of the Daytona 500 but not winning the race. One year later during Media Day, I asked him about how frustrating that was when I put it in those terms. "Where does that rank on the pain scale?" "High." "Gotcha." "High, yeah. 'Cause I don't have the trophy or the ring, so it just means I coulda, shoulda, woulda if it was prior to 2005. So that sucks, but it is what it is. "I guess 2005, I knew the rules coming in anyways. That's when I first started in the Daytona 500 was 2005. It happens." The next year I went with a slightly different angle, asking if Daytona's repave in 2011 and the muting of variables like character in the track, handling, etc. had made the Daytona 500 a more difficult race to win. Kyle proceeded to give a very detailed and thorough answer about what it was like to race the old Daytona and drive through the bumps/beyond the limits of the tire, while also pointing out certain areas of the current Daytona that were becoming trouble spots. I listened to this back today as well as the followup I asked and I just love the exchange. It feels like I did my job asking Kyle informed questions and he obliged in giving informed answers.

Steven Taranto

48,033 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 次观看 • 3 个月前

A short timeline. Just what happened, in order. Decide for yourselves. 1. A DRep (⛏️Dr. Navjit Dhaliwal) asked whether DReps with paid IO-linked roles should abstain on IO's treasury proposals. A normal conflict-of-interest question. 2. Charles did not answer the question. He went after Iagon - publicly, repeatedly, over days, to his 1M+ follower account, with IO employees and IO-aligned accounts amplifying. He said Navjit had "lost the plot," called the concern "objectively wrong," and publicly stated Iagon's leadership should be replaced or the project could collapse. 3. IAG fell ~32% in 24h. Holders - who are also ADA holders - lost real money. 4. As IAG was crashing, the price-crash chart was posted at Charles. He replied with a video clip of Bane: "Your punishment must be more severe... not of your body... of your soul." 5. Charles began describing the conflict-of-interest question as an "attack on his ambassadors." It was not. No ambassador was attacked. A DRep asked, in public, whether DReps with paid IO ties should abstain on IO's proposals - a standard governance question. Reframing a question as an "attack" is what made everything that followed look justified. 6. On that false premise, Charles hosted an X Space and said, about the token holders of a project in his own ecosystem: "I don't give a shit about your token holders... I don't give a shit about your bag holders... If you attack my ambassadors, I will burn you to the ground." He also said the way out was to "apologize" and "back the fuck off." 7. When a community member said I was "obsessed," Charles replied that I have "CDS," that it is "incurable," and that people should "let him go." CDS - Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome - is a veterinary diagnosis: age-related dementia in dogs and cats. So a sitting DRep raising sourced concerns was described in the language a vet uses for a deteriorating animal. 8. Charles then posted a unity video: the only thing that can destroy Cardano is internal fighting. 9. When some Japanese DReps voted against IO's research proposal, Charles posted directly to the Japanese community: if the proposal did not pass, "Cardano will lose its scientists" and "our lab will be forced to close." He then asked the community to "delegate to dReps who support Cardano's research agenda" - in other words, to move voting power away from DReps who voted the wrong way. When that pressure did not deliver the result, the threat hardened: approve the proposal, or be responsible for ending Cardano's research entirely. Only after this also failed to work did the tone suddenly soften. 10. As hundreds of holders engaged with these concerns, Charles shifted tone - "#strongertogether," inviting conversation. 11. I took that at face value. Then I did something he never did. After he attacked Iagon, after the "burn you to the ground," after his words helped wipe ~32% off a token held by thousands - I was the one who extended a hand. I publicly offered him a private, no-recording, one-on-one call. Man to man. Not for me - for the ecosystem. The person who was attacked took the first step toward peace. 12. His public answer to that olive branch was the pattern again, in one post. He said: "Tell him to go to hell." He demanded I issue "a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said" before he would even speak. He said: "You don't treat me like a human toilet." And then, in the last three lines: "He's trash. Everyone can see it now. We move on." Read that ending again. I offered him a private, calm conversation - and his response was to call me "trash" and tell the audience that this proves something about me. He attacked, and in the same breath framed the attack as evidence against the person he attacked. That is the reversal in its purest form: be the aggressor, then announce that the aggression exposes the victim. That is the sequence. I offered a calm, private conversation - and that was the response to it. One more thing worth seeing plainly. Not days apart. The same afternoon - roughly two hours between these two posts. First, in public, to the ecosystem: "Cardano is alive. The community is engaged... You are not passive holders. You are owners." "Let me show up the way I should." "I am inviting all of you to sit down and have a real conversation." "I am 100% focused on Cardano and Midnight. #strongertogether" Roughly two hours later, to me, after I publicly offered exactly that - a private, calm, one-on-one conversation: "Tell him to go to hell." "Have him issue a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said." "You don't treat me like a human toilet." "He's trash. Everyone can see it now." That is the gap. "Stronger together" for the audience. Two hours later, "go to hell" and "he's trash" for the person who took him up on it. A real invitation to talk does not come with a demand to grovel first - and it does not curdle into "go to hell" within the same afternoon. Look at the whole shape of this. He attacked. He did not answer the question - he went after the people who asked it. When the damage was done and holders were losing money, he posted about punishment and souls. He said in public he would burn people to the ground. He pressured an entire national community to vote his way or be blamed for the end of Cardano's research. And then, step by step, he became the victim. The question became an "attack." The critics became aggressors. The man with 1M followers and the treasury proposals became the wronged party defending the vulnerable. When I - the one who was attacked - offered peace, he framed himself as the one owed an apology, and called me "trash" for asking. That reversal has a name: DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a diagnosis. It is a pattern, and the record above is the pattern, step by step, in his own words. So the practical question stands: Is this conduct - the attacks, the Bane clip aimed at people losing money, the "burn you to the ground," the pressure on the Japanese community, the false "victim" framing, the rejection of a good-faith olive branch - the conduct of someone who should be trusted with hundreds of millions of ADA from the community treasury? Cardano does not have a "leader." It has a community, a treasury, and contractors who ask that community for funding. IO is one of those contractors - currently asking for hundreds of millions of ADA, with a track record of missed timelines. A contractor asking the community for money does not get to attack the members of that community for doing the exact thing the governance system was built for: participating, voting, and asking questions. Respect for ADA holders is not optional for someone requesting their treasury. It is the job. Screenshots of every quote above are attached. Read them in full, and decide for yourselves.👇👇👇

A short timeline. Just what happened, in order. Decide for yourselves. 1. A DRep (⛏️Dr. Navjit Dhaliwal) asked whether DReps with paid IO-linked roles should abstain on IO's treasury proposals. A normal conflict-of-interest question. 2. Charles did not answer the question. He went after Iagon - publicly, repeatedly, over days, to his 1M+ follower account, with IO employees and IO-aligned accounts amplifying. He said Navjit had "lost the plot," called the concern "objectively wrong," and publicly stated Iagon's leadership should be replaced or the project could collapse. 3. IAG fell ~32% in 24h. Holders - who are also ADA holders - lost real money. 4. As IAG was crashing, the price-crash chart was posted at Charles. He replied with a video clip of Bane: "Your punishment must be more severe... not of your body... of your soul." 5. Charles began describing the conflict-of-interest question as an "attack on his ambassadors." It was not. No ambassador was attacked. A DRep asked, in public, whether DReps with paid IO ties should abstain on IO's proposals - a standard governance question. Reframing a question as an "attack" is what made everything that followed look justified. 6. On that false premise, Charles hosted an X Space and said, about the token holders of a project in his own ecosystem: "I don't give a shit about your token holders... I don't give a shit about your bag holders... If you attack my ambassadors, I will burn you to the ground." He also said the way out was to "apologize" and "back the fuck off." 7. When a community member said I was "obsessed," Charles replied that I have "CDS," that it is "incurable," and that people should "let him go." CDS - Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome - is a veterinary diagnosis: age-related dementia in dogs and cats. So a sitting DRep raising sourced concerns was described in the language a vet uses for a deteriorating animal. 8. Charles then posted a unity video: the only thing that can destroy Cardano is internal fighting. 9. When some Japanese DReps voted against IO's research proposal, Charles posted directly to the Japanese community: if the proposal did not pass, "Cardano will lose its scientists" and "our lab will be forced to close." He then asked the community to "delegate to dReps who support Cardano's research agenda" - in other words, to move voting power away from DReps who voted the wrong way. When that pressure did not deliver the result, the threat hardened: approve the proposal, or be responsible for ending Cardano's research entirely. Only after this also failed to work did the tone suddenly soften. 10. As hundreds of holders engaged with these concerns, Charles shifted tone - "#strongertogether," inviting conversation. 11. I took that at face value. Then I did something he never did. After he attacked Iagon, after the "burn you to the ground," after his words helped wipe ~32% off a token held by thousands - I was the one who extended a hand. I publicly offered him a private, no-recording, one-on-one call. Man to man. Not for me - for the ecosystem. The person who was attacked took the first step toward peace. 12. His public answer to that olive branch was the pattern again, in one post. He said: "Tell him to go to hell." He demanded I issue "a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said" before he would even speak. He said: "You don't treat me like a human toilet." And then, in the last three lines: "He's trash. Everyone can see it now. We move on." Read that ending again. I offered him a private, calm conversation - and his response was to call me "trash" and tell the audience that this proves something about me. He attacked, and in the same breath framed the attack as evidence against the person he attacked. That is the reversal in its purest form: be the aggressor, then announce that the aggression exposes the victim. That is the sequence. I offered a calm, private conversation - and that was the response to it. One more thing worth seeing plainly. Not days apart. The same afternoon - roughly two hours between these two posts. First, in public, to the ecosystem: "Cardano is alive. The community is engaged... You are not passive holders. You are owners." "Let me show up the way I should." "I am inviting all of you to sit down and have a real conversation." "I am 100% focused on Cardano and Midnight. #strongertogether" Roughly two hours later, to me, after I publicly offered exactly that - a private, calm, one-on-one conversation: "Tell him to go to hell." "Have him issue a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said." "You don't treat me like a human toilet." "He's trash. Everyone can see it now." That is the gap. "Stronger together" for the audience. Two hours later, "go to hell" and "he's trash" for the person who took him up on it. A real invitation to talk does not come with a demand to grovel first - and it does not curdle into "go to hell" within the same afternoon. Look at the whole shape of this. He attacked. He did not answer the question - he went after the people who asked it. When the damage was done and holders were losing money, he posted about punishment and souls. He said in public he would burn people to the ground. He pressured an entire national community to vote his way or be blamed for the end of Cardano's research. And then, step by step, he became the victim. The question became an "attack." The critics became aggressors. The man with 1M followers and the treasury proposals became the wronged party defending the vulnerable. When I - the one who was attacked - offered peace, he framed himself as the one owed an apology, and called me "trash" for asking. That reversal has a name: DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a diagnosis. It is a pattern, and the record above is the pattern, step by step, in his own words. So the practical question stands: Is this conduct - the attacks, the Bane clip aimed at people losing money, the "burn you to the ground," the pressure on the Japanese community, the false "victim" framing, the rejection of a good-faith olive branch - the conduct of someone who should be trusted with hundreds of millions of ADA from the community treasury? Cardano does not have a "leader." It has a community, a treasury, and contractors who ask that community for funding. IO is one of those contractors - currently asking for hundreds of millions of ADA, with a track record of missed timelines. A contractor asking the community for money does not get to attack the members of that community for doing the exact thing the governance system was built for: participating, voting, and asking questions. Respect for ADA holders is not optional for someone requesting their treasury. It is the job. Screenshots of every quote above are attached. Read them in full, and decide for yourselves.👇👇👇

Holger - Guarding our Vision!

14,668 次观看 • 2 个月前

‼️Turning Point Action Is Now Abusing the DMCA Copyright Takedown Process to Silence a Journalist Who Refuses to Stop Asking Questions About Charlie Kirk’s Assassination First they tried to drown me out with bots and their network of paid influencers. When that failed, they sent multiple Cease & Desist letters trying to scare me into silence. When that failed, they resorted to filing repeated, frivolous DMCA copyright takedowns in a clear attempt to get my account banned. Here’s the full timeline: Right after Charlie was assassinated, I put a photo of him as my profile picture as a memorial. Charlie was one of the biggest reasons I started this channel. He was my role model. That original image was a Gage Skidmore photograph that had been published under an irrevocable Creative Commons license. For those who don’t know: when a photo is released under Creative Commons, the creator is giving the entire public permanent permission to use, share, and even modify that image without needing to ask for further permission. The license cannot later be revoked. Turning Point Action later claimed exclusive ownership of that photo, sent a Cease & Desist, and demanded I never use Charlie’s name, image, or likeness again. I rejected their overreach, replaced the image, and eventually switched to a completely AI-generated image of Charlie that has zero connection to the original photograph. My bio has clearly stated the entire time that the profile photo is AI-created and that this account is not affiliated with or endorsed by Turning Point. Despite that, they filed a DMCA copyright notice on July 29 and got my profile photo removed. I filed a counter-notice. They then filed a second, nearly identical DMCA copyright notice on August 3 against the brand-new, completely AI-generated image and got that one removed as well. I again submitted a counter-notice. I then reached out to X Legal Support, informed them of the full situation, and they reviewed it and stated in writing that my account is not in violation of their copyright policy. I sent Turning Point my own Cease & Desist laying out the facts and demanded they stop filing frivolous DMCA notices against my account and withdraw the two they had already filed, since X itself confirmed I was not in violation. You would think at this point they would realize their tactics are futile and give up. Instead, they refused to withdraw the notices, doubled down with even more aggressive language, and sent me a fourth Cease & Desist. They are still trying to claim ownership over a completely AI-generated image they do not own, and they are still trying to use the copyright system as a weapon to silence critical journalism. Charlie Kirk never would have used these tactics. He believed in free speech, open debate, and the right to question powerful institutions — including the ones that claim to speak in his name. The organization that now operates under his banner is doing the exact opposite: targeting one of the people who loved him and who refuses to stop asking what really happened to him. There are thousands of accounts across X that use Charlie’s image as their profile picture. Turning Point is not going after them. They are only going after the journalist who criticizes them. That tells you everything you need to know. If they get away with this against me, they will use the exact same playbook against anyone who says anything they don’t like. This is not about a photograph. This is about control and silencing dissent. Every single person who still cares about free speech needs to make it clear to Turning Point Action that this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Tag them. Tag Elon Musk. Make sure he sees what is happening on his platform. We will not be silenced. I am now forced to prepare a lawsuit against Turning Point and will be seeking an injunction to prevent X from taking any further action against my account based on their frivolous DMCA copyright takedowns. If you want to support the channel and help with upcoming legal costs, you can donate below. If you are a copyright attorney (or know one) who would be interested in taking this case, please DM me or email [email protected]. Donate here: CC: Candace Owens Baron Coleman

Project Constitution

79,021 次观看 • 1 天前

The false prophets of the "New Media" Dear international friends and users of X, We are witnessing a dangerous situation unfold where Romania is being used by popular accounts on the platform to create panic and a false image of what is actually happening in the world. One of those accounts is Mario Nawfal, whom I choose to reference because I met him a few months ago and helped my partner film an interview which now seems incredible to listen to. Everyone in the crypto industry had an image of Mario from the last cycle, and it was interesting to see him pivot to what is now called "New Media" and the success he was able to achieve mainly because of retweets from Elon Musk. During the interview you can watch below, he talks about the high level of attention he receives and the responsibility that comes with it. He admits to taking a side in US politics by supporting Donald Trump because he is a "free speech" advocate, but other than that, he says that his journalism is objective regarding Ukraine/Gaza or any other hot topic around the world. He also speaks highly about posting factual information and not misinformation. Now on the current subject, I feel he is not only taking a side but also spreading significant misinformation about the situation in Romania, and I want to help you understand by clarifying some of these "facts." He refers to Calin Georgescu as "the rightful president of Romania." Let me explain what happened here. Romania had a presidential election at the end of 2024. This type of election in Romania is split into two rounds unless one of the candidates gets more than 50% of the votes. In that case, the candidate wins from the first round and gets to be installed as president. Calin Georgescu won the first round with 22.94% of the votes, which equals 2,120,401 votes out of 9,242,186. The total number of eligible voters on the lists was 18,021,800. By simple math, he obtained the vote of 11.77% of Romanians allowed to vote. Although we can objectively admit he was a favorite for the second round based on these numbers, the election was annulled. The Constitutional Court of Romania first validated the first round and then two days later decided to cancel the election after voting had already started in some areas outside the country where voting takes three days to help Romanian citizens living abroad cast their votes. Romania's president at that time declassified the documents based on which the CCR canceled the elections, and most of the data given to the public was vague. It mentioned interference from another state, social media manipulation, or the cost of the campaign being different than previously declared. Georgescu declared 0$ (ZERO) campaign budget. Now again, even if that would be enough to cancel the election, we all agree that the way the situation unfolded is terrible. It showed the lack of interest from Romanian authorities regarding the elections or, worse, parts of the system that accepted all of this before and during the vote. The root of all problems Much like all over the world, Romania is a country with corrupt politicians. Most of the time in the 35 years of democracy, the same parties ruled the country with one main goal: FILL THE POCKETS WHILE YOU CAN. I'm pretty sure you know what that feels like and thus understand that most of the population is fed up and really wants change. It all erupted in the past 2-3 years with inflation skyrocketing after the pandemic and the cost of living becoming unbearable for some parts of the population. Now here comes Calin Georgescu. A self-portrayed savior of the people and a fighter against the current establishment, he campaigned mainly on social media. Most of his ideology is nationalist, populist, and Christian Orthodox. Most of us had no idea who he was until the very last day before the first round, especially in big cities, and the fact that he won struck the country like a truck. In fact, some of his voters declared that they had no idea who he was, but social media, especially TikTok, portrayed him as the savior, and the other options were people they couldn't vote for anymore. One week before the election, most polls gave Georgescu less than 5% and, in the best cases, 8% of the votes. So you can now understand the surprise we had after the counting was done. After that night, Romanians started to analyze the winner of the first round, and what they found was sometimes scary and other times funny—ranging from "There are microchips in Pepsi that enter your body like a laptop" to "The moon landing was fake", "5G technology is extremely dangerous" or "Covid is not real, you can't see it." You can find most of his statements on this website with sources: Setting aside some of these statements, which are mostly harmless, he said things like "Romania should look towards Russian wisdom." He even said he would be ready to leave NATO if it felt necessary and criticized the EU and the way it treats Romania. While we can agree on some small details in these claims, you have to understand the raw feeling of Romanians when it comes to Russia after more than 40 years of communism. It's the same in most of the Eastern Bloc, and it is being passed from one generation to another. And it is mostly hate. Romania is not the most developed country in Europe, but it grew a lot after being accepted into NATO and the EU, and you can check the economic data that sustains this. That being said, you can probably understand why some of those statements were labeled as dangerous by parts of the population that doesn't want to accept even a small chance of leaving the EU/NATO and turning toward "Russian wisdom." Back to our current government One thing that actually unites most Romanians these days is their lack of trust in the current political scene. There is a feeling of exhaustion among us, and we just want honest people ruling the country. Probably just a dream, as my personal take is it will never happen and most of this drama is just "circus". It's always the same situation, just different pockets. Our current prime minister, Marcel Ciolacu , was recently investigated by journalists for different private flights paid for by a company that scammed many Romanians in the real estate industry. Of course, some of those involved in the scam are also politicians. So you probably now understand why we also want change. The situation in Romania is wild these days. We do want change; some think Georgescu is that change, some think he is exactly what we don't need. I don't want to make any judgments in this article. I'm trying to show you what I think "New Media" and "Citizen journalism" should be, at least in my view. What I thought Mario also stands for after that interview. In the course of the last few weeks, Mario has posted every step of Georgescu alongside a network of other popular accounts, some of them known for edgy takes or straightforward propaganda, like Jackson Hinkle or Alex Jones. He even came to Romania to interview Calin and George Simion and said he was afraid. Afraid of what? What did he think he did wrong to be afraid of? Nothing. Just the usual recipe of fear to create drama for views. Many Romanians are asking him in replies to actually dig deeper into the matter and to listen to everyone, but he clearly took a side and goes forward. Why? We don't know for sure; there are some people claiming he was paid to campaign for Georgescu, but there is no actual proof of that being the case. Maybe it's because he wants to continue with the whole "Anti-Soros" agenda widely spread even by Elon Musk these days. We don't know, and I don't want to point out a reason without proof or facts. In fact, that's exactly why I wrote this piece. I'm tired of Old Media, and now the concept of "New Media" is failing harder than I would've ever imagined. Misinformation spreads the fastest on the internet, and most people don't take the time to double or triple check. It is exactly the same practice of biased mainstream media, but for the other side. It's no longer "it must be true, I saw it on CNN" but "it must be true, I saw *insert popular account* posted it." We are witnessing a difficult situation, not only in Romania, and I think journalism should evolve into what it should've always been. But this is not the way. We need to present facts and acknowledge the responsibility, especially as our accounts grow bigger. I encourage every one of you to join the conversation and fill the gaps that I might've missed. Bring facts, bring arguments, do not bring insults. I hope I was clear enough and that this helps some of you understand the situation better. I would love to see you help this post get the attention it needs. Thank you, andreibratucu

The false prophets of the "New Media" Dear international friends and users of X, We are witnessing a dangerous situation unfold where Romania is being used by popular accounts on the platform to create panic and a false image of what is actually happening in the world. One of those accounts is Mario Nawfal, whom I choose to reference because I met him a few months ago and helped my partner film an interview which now seems incredible to listen to. Everyone in the crypto industry had an image of Mario from the last cycle, and it was interesting to see him pivot to what is now called "New Media" and the success he was able to achieve mainly because of retweets from Elon Musk. During the interview you can watch below, he talks about the high level of attention he receives and the responsibility that comes with it. He admits to taking a side in US politics by supporting Donald Trump because he is a "free speech" advocate, but other than that, he says that his journalism is objective regarding Ukraine/Gaza or any other hot topic around the world. He also speaks highly about posting factual information and not misinformation. Now on the current subject, I feel he is not only taking a side but also spreading significant misinformation about the situation in Romania, and I want to help you understand by clarifying some of these "facts." He refers to Calin Georgescu as "the rightful president of Romania." Let me explain what happened here. Romania had a presidential election at the end of 2024. This type of election in Romania is split into two rounds unless one of the candidates gets more than 50% of the votes. In that case, the candidate wins from the first round and gets to be installed as president. Calin Georgescu won the first round with 22.94% of the votes, which equals 2,120,401 votes out of 9,242,186. The total number of eligible voters on the lists was 18,021,800. By simple math, he obtained the vote of 11.77% of Romanians allowed to vote. Although we can objectively admit he was a favorite for the second round based on these numbers, the election was annulled. The Constitutional Court of Romania first validated the first round and then two days later decided to cancel the election after voting had already started in some areas outside the country where voting takes three days to help Romanian citizens living abroad cast their votes. Romania's president at that time declassified the documents based on which the CCR canceled the elections, and most of the data given to the public was vague. It mentioned interference from another state, social media manipulation, or the cost of the campaign being different than previously declared. Georgescu declared 0$ (ZERO) campaign budget. Now again, even if that would be enough to cancel the election, we all agree that the way the situation unfolded is terrible. It showed the lack of interest from Romanian authorities regarding the elections or, worse, parts of the system that accepted all of this before and during the vote. The root of all problems Much like all over the world, Romania is a country with corrupt politicians. Most of the time in the 35 years of democracy, the same parties ruled the country with one main goal: FILL THE POCKETS WHILE YOU CAN. I'm pretty sure you know what that feels like and thus understand that most of the population is fed up and really wants change. It all erupted in the past 2-3 years with inflation skyrocketing after the pandemic and the cost of living becoming unbearable for some parts of the population. Now here comes Calin Georgescu. A self-portrayed savior of the people and a fighter against the current establishment, he campaigned mainly on social media. Most of his ideology is nationalist, populist, and Christian Orthodox. Most of us had no idea who he was until the very last day before the first round, especially in big cities, and the fact that he won struck the country like a truck. In fact, some of his voters declared that they had no idea who he was, but social media, especially TikTok, portrayed him as the savior, and the other options were people they couldn't vote for anymore. One week before the election, most polls gave Georgescu less than 5% and, in the best cases, 8% of the votes. So you can now understand the surprise we had after the counting was done. After that night, Romanians started to analyze the winner of the first round, and what they found was sometimes scary and other times funny—ranging from "There are microchips in Pepsi that enter your body like a laptop" to "The moon landing was fake", "5G technology is extremely dangerous" or "Covid is not real, you can't see it." You can find most of his statements on this website with sources: Setting aside some of these statements, which are mostly harmless, he said things like "Romania should look towards Russian wisdom." He even said he would be ready to leave NATO if it felt necessary and criticized the EU and the way it treats Romania. While we can agree on some small details in these claims, you have to understand the raw feeling of Romanians when it comes to Russia after more than 40 years of communism. It's the same in most of the Eastern Bloc, and it is being passed from one generation to another. And it is mostly hate. Romania is not the most developed country in Europe, but it grew a lot after being accepted into NATO and the EU, and you can check the economic data that sustains this. That being said, you can probably understand why some of those statements were labeled as dangerous by parts of the population that doesn't want to accept even a small chance of leaving the EU/NATO and turning toward "Russian wisdom." Back to our current government One thing that actually unites most Romanians these days is their lack of trust in the current political scene. There is a feeling of exhaustion among us, and we just want honest people ruling the country. Probably just a dream, as my personal take is it will never happen and most of this drama is just "circus". It's always the same situation, just different pockets. Our current prime minister, Marcel Ciolacu , was recently investigated by journalists for different private flights paid for by a company that scammed many Romanians in the real estate industry. Of course, some of those involved in the scam are also politicians. So you probably now understand why we also want change. The situation in Romania is wild these days. We do want change; some think Georgescu is that change, some think he is exactly what we don't need. I don't want to make any judgments in this article. I'm trying to show you what I think "New Media" and "Citizen journalism" should be, at least in my view. What I thought Mario also stands for after that interview. In the course of the last few weeks, Mario has posted every step of Georgescu alongside a network of other popular accounts, some of them known for edgy takes or straightforward propaganda, like Jackson Hinkle or Alex Jones. He even came to Romania to interview Calin and George Simion and said he was afraid. Afraid of what? What did he think he did wrong to be afraid of? Nothing. Just the usual recipe of fear to create drama for views. Many Romanians are asking him in replies to actually dig deeper into the matter and to listen to everyone, but he clearly took a side and goes forward. Why? We don't know for sure; there are some people claiming he was paid to campaign for Georgescu, but there is no actual proof of that being the case. Maybe it's because he wants to continue with the whole "Anti-Soros" agenda widely spread even by Elon Musk these days. We don't know, and I don't want to point out a reason without proof or facts. In fact, that's exactly why I wrote this piece. I'm tired of Old Media, and now the concept of "New Media" is failing harder than I would've ever imagined. Misinformation spreads the fastest on the internet, and most people don't take the time to double or triple check. It is exactly the same practice of biased mainstream media, but for the other side. It's no longer "it must be true, I saw it on CNN" but "it must be true, I saw insert popular account posted it." We are witnessing a difficult situation, not only in Romania, and I think journalism should evolve into what it should've always been. But this is not the way. We need to present facts and acknowledge the responsibility, especially as our accounts grow bigger. I encourage every one of you to join the conversation and fill the gaps that I might've missed. Bring facts, bring arguments, do not bring insults. I hope I was clear enough and that this helps some of you understand the situation better. I would love to see you help this post get the attention it needs. Thank you, andreibratucu

andreibratucu🦇🔊

67,648 次观看 • 1 年前

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,187 次观看 • 7 个月前

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 次观看 • 2 个月前

WATCH: It took the sexting allegations for the Sunday shows to finally cover Herr Oystergruppenführer Graham Platner. This exchange between CNN's Dana Bash shows why. Bash takes three passes at the allegations, with Kim dodging all. Finally, Bash asks about the Nazi tattoo, likely the first time an elected Dem has been asked. Kim again dodges, comparing Platner's Totenkopf tat to Bob Menendez' gold bricks. DANA BASH: I want to ask you about the Senate race in Maine, and the Wall Street Journal and New York Times reporting that last August, Democrat Graham Platner wife told his campaign about sexual text messages she had found between her husband and other women early in their marriage, and they were married in 2023. The Times says Platner exchanged messages with as many as a dozen women, and his campaign said no, It was up to six. In a statement, Platner's wife said she feels betrayed by the ex-campaign aide, who revealed the information, and that the couple went to counseling. Do you have concerns about Graham Platner? ANDY KIM: Well, first I'll say is, you know, I've been very much focused on the crisis in my home state, so I haven't been able to focus as much on this. But right now, you know, this information is out there with any campaign in the country. You know, the character and the transparency about the different candidates is going to come out. That's part of a campaign. And the voters will decide what it is that they ultimately think in terms of their ability to trust those candidates. BASH: What do you think? KIM: Well, look, right now for me, like I have not met him. I've never talked to him yet. But what I am- what I do hear from people in New Jersey around the country is that they don't trust this U.S. Senate right now, led by the Republicans as we are about to go back into session this coming week, and what they are pushing on is, you know, 60 to $70 billion more for ICE, for CBP, for immigration. They want that stopped. BASH: So do what it takes to elect Democrats, regardless of questions like this? KIM: From my standpoint, you know, I will work with whoever the people of Maine elect, but I hope that they elect somebody that is going to stand up to this president, work with me to be able to fight back against all these dangers. BASH: Yeah. One of your fellow Democrats, Jake Auchincloss, said that because of other red flags, including the fact that Platner had a tattoo with Nazi origins that he later covered up after that came out, Auchincloss said that Platner’s tattoo and his commentary about it were disqualifying. Do you agree? KIM: Well, look, like I said, this is up for the voters of Maine. You know, in New Jersey, I stood up against my previous senator who was indicted for corruption. I felt like that was something where we had to draw a line, you know, and we will make these decisions as they come. But again, I think right now, what I'm overwhelmingly hearing from people is that they are terrified about the trajectory of this country, that so much is at stake, especially as a senate majority that could very well put 1 or 2 more Supreme Court justices into the Supreme Court under for Donald Trump, these are real concerns, and I think there needs to be unity that we need to make sure we're focused on the change that the American people are demanding. BASH: Senator Andy Kim, thank you so much for being here. KIM: Thank you so much. BASH: We really appreciate it.

WATCH: It took the sexting allegations for the Sunday shows to finally cover Herr Oystergruppenführer Graham Platner. This exchange between CNN's Dana Bash shows why. Bash takes three passes at the allegations, with Kim dodging all. Finally, Bash asks about the Nazi tattoo, likely the first time an elected Dem has been asked. Kim again dodges, comparing Platner's Totenkopf tat to Bob Menendez' gold bricks. DANA BASH: I want to ask you about the Senate race in Maine, and the Wall Street Journal and New York Times reporting that last August, Democrat Graham Platner wife told his campaign about sexual text messages she had found between her husband and other women early in their marriage, and they were married in 2023. The Times says Platner exchanged messages with as many as a dozen women, and his campaign said no, It was up to six. In a statement, Platner's wife said she feels betrayed by the ex-campaign aide, who revealed the information, and that the couple went to counseling. Do you have concerns about Graham Platner? ANDY KIM: Well, first I'll say is, you know, I've been very much focused on the crisis in my home state, so I haven't been able to focus as much on this. But right now, you know, this information is out there with any campaign in the country. You know, the character and the transparency about the different candidates is going to come out. That's part of a campaign. And the voters will decide what it is that they ultimately think in terms of their ability to trust those candidates. BASH: What do you think? KIM: Well, look, right now for me, like I have not met him. I've never talked to him yet. But what I am- what I do hear from people in New Jersey around the country is that they don't trust this U.S. Senate right now, led by the Republicans as we are about to go back into session this coming week, and what they are pushing on is, you know, 60 to $70 billion more for ICE, for CBP, for immigration. They want that stopped. BASH: So do what it takes to elect Democrats, regardless of questions like this? KIM: From my standpoint, you know, I will work with whoever the people of Maine elect, but I hope that they elect somebody that is going to stand up to this president, work with me to be able to fight back against all these dangers. BASH: Yeah. One of your fellow Democrats, Jake Auchincloss, said that because of other red flags, including the fact that Platner had a tattoo with Nazi origins that he later covered up after that came out, Auchincloss said that Platner’s tattoo and his commentary about it were disqualifying. Do you agree? KIM: Well, look, like I said, this is up for the voters of Maine. You know, in New Jersey, I stood up against my previous senator who was indicted for corruption. I felt like that was something where we had to draw a line, you know, and we will make these decisions as they come. But again, I think right now, what I'm overwhelmingly hearing from people is that they are terrified about the trajectory of this country, that so much is at stake, especially as a senate majority that could very well put 1 or 2 more Supreme Court justices into the Supreme Court under for Donald Trump, these are real concerns, and I think there needs to be unity that we need to make sure we're focused on the change that the American people are demanding. BASH: Senator Andy Kim, thank you so much for being here. KIM: Thank you so much. BASH: We really appreciate it.

Jorge Bonilla

203,467 次观看 • 2 个月前

#TRANSCRIBED : (UNTOLD STORY) 𝗞𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗢 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗢𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗦 In an explosive and deeply personal address, Canadian investigative journalist Judi Rever took to the stage on the Oslo Freedom Forum to dismantle what she calls “one of the biggest lies of modern times”: the global myth of Rwandan President Paul Kagame as a hero. Rever, who has spent nearly 30 years documenting war crimes in the Great Lakes region, delivered an unflinching indictment of Kagame’s violent legacy, one she claims has been deliberately buried by world powers, global corporations, and the media. READ FULL TRANSCRIBED UNTOLD STORY BELOW. I'm here today to tell you about one of the biggest lies of modern times, and about someone who's been posing as a hero for a very long time, someone who's everywhere in plain sight from Davos to the Olympics, when in reality he's been taking you for a ride. That person is Rwanda's dictator, Paul Kagame. In 1996, as a young Canadian journalist, I landed a dream job in Paris covering the African continent. At the time, I was hungry for life experience and eager to learn. It turned out that Africa was the best teacher. Almost immediately into that job, I was drawn into covering the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. Paul Kagame, who had been hailed a hero for supposedly stopping the genocide against Tutsis committed by Hutus, was now launching a military invasion of Congo. Ostensibly, his objective was to root out Hutu genocidaires who were living in the refugee camps inside Congo's border. But for those of us who were paying attention, we realised the Paul Kagame's Tutsi troops were systematically massacring Hutu refugees in Congo. In May and June of 1997, I went to Congo, a country the size of Western Europe. With the help of Congolese aid workers, I went into the forest and what I saw was devastating. Hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians had been chased across the country and hunted down like animals by Paul Kagame's Tutsi forces. I met wounded, traumatised and starving women in the forest. I saw catatonic children emaciated and covered in scabies. The testimony that I collected from the forest of Congo and the pictures I took of mass graves convinced me the Paul Kagame's forces had committed a genocide against Congolese and Rwandan Hutus in 1996 and 97. The United Nations would later classify these crimes as a possible genocide. After Congo, I crossed over on foot into Rwanda and interviewed more Hutu survivors who had just come home. I essentially asked them two questions, the same questions I had asked Rwandans in Congo. Why did you flee Rwanda in the first place in 1994 and decide to stay in Congolese refugee camps, enduring brutal conditions instead of going home, where Paul Kagame had reportedly stopped the genocide in 1994, stopped the violence, and was restoring peace and prosperity to Rwanda? These Hutu survivors told me one after the other that in fact, Paul Kagame's Tutsi army had slaughtered Hutus during the genocide. Their relatives had been massacred. They were afraid of Kagame's army. They also told me that many Hutus who returned from Congo to Rwanda were disappearing. This was astounding to me. Remember, these were early days. I'd never heard these stories before, but I knew that I had to keep researching this story. These interviews were very dangerous to do inside Rwanda. But I realised that the official genocide narrative of one category of perpetrator, one category of victim, was a sham and Kagame was no saviour. I have since spent almost 30 years of my life investigating the crimes that Kagame's forces committed before, during, and after the genocide. I've interviewed hundreds of victims, witnesses, defectors from Kagame's own army, UN officials, and whistleblowers. And one of those whistleblowers leaked to me a confidential UN document which revealed that Kagame's Tutsi commandos actually slaughtered Tutsis during the genocide. These were false flags, staged operations. This evidence, and other types of evidence like this, completely disrupted the established doctrine of the Rwandan genocide. My research reveals that both Hutus and Tutsis were victims of genocide in 1994, and both groups were perpetrators. What's more, powerful insiders at the United Nations knew about these massive atrocities committed by Kagame's army and covered them up for years. I've asked myself, why is it that Kagame's record has been sanitised? Why has he gotten away with committing crimes over 3 decades, egregious crimes? And why has the United Nations granted him de facto immunity? The answer, I believe, lies in Congo, a country that is rich in strategic minerals that are essential for our global economy. Chances are that the cell phone you're using or the Tesla you're driving is made from Congolese minerals that have been laundered by Rwanda. One of the most trafficked and strategic minerals on the market today is tantalum. Tantalum metal is valuable because it can be extremely resistant to high temperatures. Tantalum components are able to store a tremendous amount of energy charge in a small space. Tantalum is used in rockets, satellites, missiles, smart cars, and smart cities. Canada and Australia have reserves of tantalum, but their tantalum is very expensive and they're not producing much of it. Brazil is an exporter and a producer of tantalum, but not in the quantities needed for the global economy. Congo has the richest grade of tantalum. It has the cheapest tantalum; it's the biggest producer. And Congo is Kagame's playground. Kagame and his international mafia launder vast quantities of tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Congo into Rwanda, onto Rwanda's Switzerland-like paved roads, and into the lucrative global supply chain. And when I examined this global supply chain in detail, I discovered that all the major suppliers to big tech and weapons companies source their tantalum in Rwanda. So what's happening is that Paul Kagame is ensuring a cheap, steady supply of strategic minerals that are needed for the global economy. And our thirst for technology is ensuring his criminal longevity. If there's one thing you take away from my talk today, it's that the technology that we're using is tied to Kagame's violence, and the laundered minerals themselves constitute criminal property. Anyone who acquires, possesses, uses or profits from that criminal property is laundering. So, we as consumers, when we purchase devices that contain that criminal property, we are engaging in laundering as well, whether we know it or not. Kagame is currently tightening his grip on Congo. His latest invasion is illegal and a violation of Congolese sovereignty. But unlike Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where the world rallied to condemn Vladimir Putin and sanction him, Kagame has gotten off scot-free, and he is still a rock star and treated so by global elites. We've seen football teams such as Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain continue to sign sponsorship deals with Rwanda. We've seen international sporting bodies such as FIFA and the NBA continue to do business with him. Imagine how Kagame's victims feel. I refuse to be part of this global criminal project. Lobbyists and governments can prop up his regime. Businesses can live the lie because they profit from it. The media can amplify his propaganda. And Kagame can impose his lies on people he controls. But he cannot control me. Paul Kagame, I know who you are, and I know what you've done. In fact, Paul Kagame's regime's crimes and his agents' campaign against me have actually emboldened me to continue this work. More than a decade ago, his agents threatened me and threatened my family. I kept going anyhow because the fear of dying galvanised me into finishing what I had started. In 2018, after my book was launched, I was a victim of smears. I was blacklisted, essentially, and labelled a genocide denier. Remember, I acknowledge that two genocides occurred in Rwanda, one against Tutsis and one against Hutus. I have not buried history with the Rwandan's help, I have unearthed it. None of what I've experienced has compared to what his regime has done to the Congolese and Rwandan people. The rebellions that Kagame has sponsored over 30 years have left more than 6,000,000 Congolese dead. These wars have eviscerated the Congolese nation. Rwandans, meanwhile, live in an open-air prison where history is state property. Any discussion of Hutu suffering is criminalised. Hutus in general, even Hutu children, are branded irredeemable perpetrators. Tutsi genocide survivors are persecuted and, at times, are killed. Kizito Mihigo was a beloved Tutsi genocide survivor and gospel singer who preached reconciliation and denounced crimes by Kagame's regime against Hutus and Tutsis. He was arrested and later found dead in custody. Aimable Kalasira, Yvone Idamange and Deo Mushayidi, all Tutsi genocide survivors who have denounced human rights violations in a country led by Paul Kagame. They have been arrested. They are languishing in jail and effectively silenced. We must break the silence. If you believe that all victims matter. If you believe in the truth, demand accountability. Demand that Paul Kagame once and for all be tried for the crimes he's committed over 3 decades. Demand he be tried in an international court. Demand that corporations stop buying strategic minerals from Rwanda where they are soaked in the blood of Congolese people. I am tied to Paul Kagame. He has made me who I am today. He has brought me here. We are all tied to Paul Kagame, but that doesn't mean we have to be his accomplices. We need to be accountable. We need to be responsible for our consumer choices and ensure that those choices are not fueling wars in Central Africa. I urge accountability, not only for the sake of Rwandans and Congolese, but for our collective integrity. Thank you by Judi Rever

#TRANSCRIBED : (UNTOLD STORY) 𝗞𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗢 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗢𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗦 In an explosive and deeply personal address, Canadian investigative journalist Judi Rever took to the stage on the Oslo Freedom Forum to dismantle what she calls “one of the biggest lies of modern times”: the global myth of Rwandan President Paul Kagame as a hero. Rever, who has spent nearly 30 years documenting war crimes in the Great Lakes region, delivered an unflinching indictment of Kagame’s violent legacy, one she claims has been deliberately buried by world powers, global corporations, and the media. READ FULL TRANSCRIBED UNTOLD STORY BELOW. I'm here today to tell you about one of the biggest lies of modern times, and about someone who's been posing as a hero for a very long time, someone who's everywhere in plain sight from Davos to the Olympics, when in reality he's been taking you for a ride. That person is Rwanda's dictator, Paul Kagame. In 1996, as a young Canadian journalist, I landed a dream job in Paris covering the African continent. At the time, I was hungry for life experience and eager to learn. It turned out that Africa was the best teacher. Almost immediately into that job, I was drawn into covering the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. Paul Kagame, who had been hailed a hero for supposedly stopping the genocide against Tutsis committed by Hutus, was now launching a military invasion of Congo. Ostensibly, his objective was to root out Hutu genocidaires who were living in the refugee camps inside Congo's border. But for those of us who were paying attention, we realised the Paul Kagame's Tutsi troops were systematically massacring Hutu refugees in Congo. In May and June of 1997, I went to Congo, a country the size of Western Europe. With the help of Congolese aid workers, I went into the forest and what I saw was devastating. Hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians had been chased across the country and hunted down like animals by Paul Kagame's Tutsi forces. I met wounded, traumatised and starving women in the forest. I saw catatonic children emaciated and covered in scabies. The testimony that I collected from the forest of Congo and the pictures I took of mass graves convinced me the Paul Kagame's forces had committed a genocide against Congolese and Rwandan Hutus in 1996 and 97. The United Nations would later classify these crimes as a possible genocide. After Congo, I crossed over on foot into Rwanda and interviewed more Hutu survivors who had just come home. I essentially asked them two questions, the same questions I had asked Rwandans in Congo. Why did you flee Rwanda in the first place in 1994 and decide to stay in Congolese refugee camps, enduring brutal conditions instead of going home, where Paul Kagame had reportedly stopped the genocide in 1994, stopped the violence, and was restoring peace and prosperity to Rwanda? These Hutu survivors told me one after the other that in fact, Paul Kagame's Tutsi army had slaughtered Hutus during the genocide. Their relatives had been massacred. They were afraid of Kagame's army. They also told me that many Hutus who returned from Congo to Rwanda were disappearing. This was astounding to me. Remember, these were early days. I'd never heard these stories before, but I knew that I had to keep researching this story. These interviews were very dangerous to do inside Rwanda. But I realised that the official genocide narrative of one category of perpetrator, one category of victim, was a sham and Kagame was no saviour. I have since spent almost 30 years of my life investigating the crimes that Kagame's forces committed before, during, and after the genocide. I've interviewed hundreds of victims, witnesses, defectors from Kagame's own army, UN officials, and whistleblowers. And one of those whistleblowers leaked to me a confidential UN document which revealed that Kagame's Tutsi commandos actually slaughtered Tutsis during the genocide. These were false flags, staged operations. This evidence, and other types of evidence like this, completely disrupted the established doctrine of the Rwandan genocide. My research reveals that both Hutus and Tutsis were victims of genocide in 1994, and both groups were perpetrators. What's more, powerful insiders at the United Nations knew about these massive atrocities committed by Kagame's army and covered them up for years. I've asked myself, why is it that Kagame's record has been sanitised? Why has he gotten away with committing crimes over 3 decades, egregious crimes? And why has the United Nations granted him de facto immunity? The answer, I believe, lies in Congo, a country that is rich in strategic minerals that are essential for our global economy. Chances are that the cell phone you're using or the Tesla you're driving is made from Congolese minerals that have been laundered by Rwanda. One of the most trafficked and strategic minerals on the market today is tantalum. Tantalum metal is valuable because it can be extremely resistant to high temperatures. Tantalum components are able to store a tremendous amount of energy charge in a small space. Tantalum is used in rockets, satellites, missiles, smart cars, and smart cities. Canada and Australia have reserves of tantalum, but their tantalum is very expensive and they're not producing much of it. Brazil is an exporter and a producer of tantalum, but not in the quantities needed for the global economy. Congo has the richest grade of tantalum. It has the cheapest tantalum; it's the biggest producer. And Congo is Kagame's playground. Kagame and his international mafia launder vast quantities of tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold from Congo into Rwanda, onto Rwanda's Switzerland-like paved roads, and into the lucrative global supply chain. And when I examined this global supply chain in detail, I discovered that all the major suppliers to big tech and weapons companies source their tantalum in Rwanda. So what's happening is that Paul Kagame is ensuring a cheap, steady supply of strategic minerals that are needed for the global economy. And our thirst for technology is ensuring his criminal longevity. If there's one thing you take away from my talk today, it's that the technology that we're using is tied to Kagame's violence, and the laundered minerals themselves constitute criminal property. Anyone who acquires, possesses, uses or profits from that criminal property is laundering. So, we as consumers, when we purchase devices that contain that criminal property, we are engaging in laundering as well, whether we know it or not. Kagame is currently tightening his grip on Congo. His latest invasion is illegal and a violation of Congolese sovereignty. But unlike Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where the world rallied to condemn Vladimir Putin and sanction him, Kagame has gotten off scot-free, and he is still a rock star and treated so by global elites. We've seen football teams such as Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain continue to sign sponsorship deals with Rwanda. We've seen international sporting bodies such as FIFA and the NBA continue to do business with him. Imagine how Kagame's victims feel. I refuse to be part of this global criminal project. Lobbyists and governments can prop up his regime. Businesses can live the lie because they profit from it. The media can amplify his propaganda. And Kagame can impose his lies on people he controls. But he cannot control me. Paul Kagame, I know who you are, and I know what you've done. In fact, Paul Kagame's regime's crimes and his agents' campaign against me have actually emboldened me to continue this work. More than a decade ago, his agents threatened me and threatened my family. I kept going anyhow because the fear of dying galvanised me into finishing what I had started. In 2018, after my book was launched, I was a victim of smears. I was blacklisted, essentially, and labelled a genocide denier. Remember, I acknowledge that two genocides occurred in Rwanda, one against Tutsis and one against Hutus. I have not buried history with the Rwandan's help, I have unearthed it. None of what I've experienced has compared to what his regime has done to the Congolese and Rwandan people. The rebellions that Kagame has sponsored over 30 years have left more than 6,000,000 Congolese dead. These wars have eviscerated the Congolese nation. Rwandans, meanwhile, live in an open-air prison where history is state property. Any discussion of Hutu suffering is criminalised. Hutus in general, even Hutu children, are branded irredeemable perpetrators. Tutsi genocide survivors are persecuted and, at times, are killed. Kizito Mihigo was a beloved Tutsi genocide survivor and gospel singer who preached reconciliation and denounced crimes by Kagame's regime against Hutus and Tutsis. He was arrested and later found dead in custody. Aimable Kalasira, Yvone Idamange and Deo Mushayidi, all Tutsi genocide survivors who have denounced human rights violations in a country led by Paul Kagame. They have been arrested. They are languishing in jail and effectively silenced. We must break the silence. If you believe that all victims matter. If you believe in the truth, demand accountability. Demand that Paul Kagame once and for all be tried for the crimes he's committed over 3 decades. Demand he be tried in an international court. Demand that corporations stop buying strategic minerals from Rwanda where they are soaked in the blood of Congolese people. I am tied to Paul Kagame. He has made me who I am today. He has brought me here. We are all tied to Paul Kagame, but that doesn't mean we have to be his accomplices. We need to be accountable. We need to be responsible for our consumer choices and ensure that those choices are not fueling wars in Central Africa. I urge accountability, not only for the sake of Rwandans and Congolese, but for our collective integrity. Thank you by Judi Rever

Xtrafrica

12,211 次观看 • 7 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

The “I never wanted any of this to be public or content” Myth I never wanted any of this to come out. Except I actually mean that. It’s embarrassing, it’s trashy, and it’s the opposite of how I want to present myself publicly. I stayed silent for months while lie after lie was spun about me behind the scenes because I didn’t want to air private, messy moments from a relationship I genuinely cared about. I stayed silent out of fear, because I was told no one would believe me because he would be blindly believed on his large platform. In one of our very last conversations before I blocked him everywhere mid-October, he threatened to do a show on me, contact my employer, and “turn me into the next Lindsey”. Why? Because I didn’t want to continue apologizing to him for the 300th time about venting to someone I thought was a friend. I stayed silent because of these threats. But after Wednesday, after Chelsea posted the private video Aidan gave her, (the same one he threatened me with directly back on 10/2), and after the gaslighting posts yesterday, I don’t have a choice anymore. So here is the timeline. Here are the receipts. Here is what actually happened. September-October 2025- I Stayed Silent Through Months of Smear Campaigns For months, several creators repeated the same false narrative that “Aidan never said a bad word about Meredith.” Jess. Glarer. Auntie Deb. Kim. Ray from Dallas. Others. Meanwhile, Aidan was: • Badmouthing me privately and encouraging others to do so publicly, • Texting Joe “Flipperhead” entire paragraphs trashing me, • Aidan knew Joe would leak them (and even bragged on a stream that he did exactly that so he’d leak them), • Sending Jess Machado after me for months on her large platform, • Directing people behind the scenes to paint me as a villain. • Sending random people who supported me DMs to change their mind (yes Aidan, not everyone is fooled by your bullshit and they came right to me). I ignored all of it. I said nothing. I stayed silent through daily lies because I didn’t want to call more attention to it or face Aidan’s wrath. November 2025 -The Rumors About “March 4”, Joe Flipperhead Flips to Team Aidan Aidan texted Joe his entire made-up version weeks ago. Joe circulated those texts on purpose. Joe threatened me with posting a video montage of mine and Aidan’s private texts. Joe is a pussy so he eventually had Kristy post it for him. Creators discussed it publicly without me ever responding. I STILL didn’t defend myself. November 26-27, 2025- Ratchet Chelsea: The Full 48 Hour Meltdown 11/26/25- The Unprovoked Attack & The March 4 Video On Tuesday night, Chelsea came out of nowhere and launched herself straight at me, accusing me of all kinds of conspiracies from harassment to the horrific crime of sending a friend request, which is explained in vivid detail in the below post (she’s since gone somewhat viral, love this for her!) She spent the next 24 hours thoroughly embarrassing herself and the moment anyone challenged her story even slightly, she did what she always does: she imploded. Her accusations spiraled into her posting the March 4 video. On 11/26/25 at 11:08 PM, Chelsea posted the first clip–a blanket, context-less snippet of me drunk saying something I immediately apologized for the next morning. At 11:50 PM, I responded because at that point, I had no choice. 11/27/25-The Gaslighting & 9-Minute Backpedal Then yesterday, Aidan tried to save face by posting that he “didn’t want the video to be public.” And like clockwork, nine minutes later, Chelsea came charging into the comments like a Temu-sponsored bat out of hell, scrambling to apologize, trying to rewrite reality so it looked like he didn’t send her to do it. It was panicked, sloppy damage control. An amateur quality cover-up attempt that only made it more obvious how coordinated this all was. She wasn’t apologizing because she grew a conscience. She was apologizing because she got caught doing exactly what she’d been primed to do. I wonder if Aidan called her “you should’ve waited at least 20 minutes, dumbass!!!”. Not too bright that Chelsea. I can only imagine the regrets he must have for utilizing someone with the IQ of a pencil to do his dirty work. The Coordination Between Aidan & Chelsea Is Obvious Chelsea had virtually NO followers Wednesday morning. Aidan was one of the first. We’re supposed to believe someone with 150k followers just stumbled on an account that starts posting HIS private messages and HIS private videos? Kk. Aidan commented on her posts that same day, clearly encouraging it. She confirmed in my DMs back on 11/6 that she and Aidan were aligned. And she literally wrote at 4:04 AM that she had “proof,” videos & screenshots she would release if I didn’t “stop calling” her, calls she still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof of. Then yesterday within 9 minutes of his post, she writes: “Sorry for going rogue, Aidan, I hope you don’t hate my guts.” Going rogue? From WHAT? Who gave you the material in the first place? The coordination is obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells. The “I never wanted this public” lie Aidan’s post yesterday claimed he “never wanted this to be public.” If this were true, why did he instruct Chelsea to post it? Why did he share it with Jess Machado to threaten me with for the last month? Why did he share it with Joe Flipperhead, and God knows who else? If he didn’t want it public, he wouldn’t have shared it with anyone, let alone the girl I caught him cheating with. The timeline is clear– Chelsea posted a video at 11:08 pm on Thanksgiving Eve, I responded at 11:50 out of self defense. He leaked first. He escalated first. He weaponized it first. Trying to rewrite that now is gaslighting, pure and simple. He's been lighting matches behind the scenes for months, praying for this to go public. The “Meredith accused him of abuse” narrative is FALSE My actions tell the truth: • I never went to police. • I never filed anything. • I never told anyone he hit me. • I never repeated it. • I apologized the next day. • We stayed together for FOUR more months after that night. • He called me 100+ times some days, even indicating he’d end his life if we broke up. If he believed I was “dangerous,” his actions would have said that. They didn’t. The only reason this is public now is because HE leaked it. Actions > drunk slurred words said because a camera was shoved in my face when I asked him repeatedly to stop filming and to leave. The Wilbur Theatre Rumors—Let’s get petty for a second. This is another topic I’m cringing at discussing but we can thank Aidan for since he shared our sexual messages with Joe Flipperhead. And since some people (Auntie Deb, sweetie, this means you) insist on pushing their Dollar Store fan-fiction about the Wilbur Theatre night, let’s actually walk through what happened, using facts instead of whatever drug-induced hallucinations you’ve been spinning this week. The rumor goes like this- I was “mad at Aidan because we didn’t hook up,” and to “prove” it, they trot out a cherry-picked text where I said I wanted to hook up, he didn’t answer, and the next morning I said I was drunk and sorry. And somehow this has been spun into me being desperate, obsessed, or pining like a background character in a teenage soap opera. Adorable. Wrong, but adorable. Here’s the real plot twist-Aidan and I had already been together literally two days earlier, and shocker-that was initiated by him, not me. I didn’t just “show up at the Wilbur”. He invited me to come to the after party at Encore knowing I had a wedding earlier in the night. I wanted to see my friends there who I actually met to go with. This wasn’t a surprise, it was planned ahead of time. The “I was drunk, sorry” message wasn’t heartbreak. It wasn’t longing. It was me politely tapping the brakes because I didn’t even want to entertain whatever bad path it could lead us back down. And then? He texted me asking about my brother’s wedding, how I am, etc. I ignored him for a full week. Until I had no choice but to speak to him about MereNeill. That silence, from me, is what triggered his latest meltdown. Not mine. His. So no, Auntie Deb, your version isn’t “a different perspective.” It’s just wrong. Like wildly, hilariously, not-even-in-the-ballpark wrong. But sure, keep spinning fanfic if it makes your livestreams feel more exciting. I realize it’s probably been awhile since you’ve had any action since you’ve let yourself go so badly, so you live vicariously through others. Recap For MONTHS I ignored: • the texts he sent Joe to leak • the smear campaign • the creators parroting lies • the behind-the-scenes messages • the insinuations I hacked him and even shared revenge porn • the constant coordinated attacks • the threats of “turning me into the next Lindsey” • his warning that everyone would believe him because of his platform • the threats to contact my employer I didn’t clap back, didn’t retaliate, didn’t respond. But Wednesday, when Chelsea dumped the video he gave her, the same video she threatened weeks ago to drop, AND he posted pretending he didn’t want this all out? That was the line. They chose the nuclear option. Now I’m responding with facts in pure self-defense. Conclusion/Message for Temu Storm This entire mess could have stayed private. I wanted it to stay private. But when someone leaks your private moments, lies about your intentions, weaponizes your past, and coordinates an online attack, you either let the false narrative stand or you defend yourself. I’m choosing to defend myself with receipts, not gossip. With timelines, not “he said.” With evidence, not weaponized drunk clips. And then there’s Aidan’s favorite delusion. The claim that I was ‘working with Karen behind the scenes’ or ‘conspiring with her to get him in trouble for the recording.’ That could not be further from the truth. I didn’t even know he had recorded her until after she already knew about it herself. I wasn’t working with her, plotting with her, or communicating with her about it. She and I have always been friendly, but we didn’t even discuss the recording until it started leaking and Joe Flipperhead went feral on Twitter. Meanwhile, Aidan spent weeks screaming at me, accusing me of being some kind of secret double agent, like he was trying to create the betrayal he was terrified of. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here’s the reality: in the last few weeks, after he’s gone fully scorched earth on me, I have talked to her, and I support her 100%. The things he’s done to her over the past couple years, and the way he twisted it all for his followers, is the exact same manipulation I lived through. I’m not going into her details because that’s her story to tell… but let’s just say I have a feeling you’ll be hearing it sooner rather than later. And since this week has apparently become “Let’s All Fixate on Meredith Week,” let me address the content-creator sideshow, too. Some of you are strangers, while some I actually considered my friends. It’s shocking but not shocking how quickly you all flip a switch and follow your captain’s orders. Ray from Dallas spent his Sunday foaming at the mouth in a hostile little video about me, all bark, no substance. I saw it. I’m not intimidated. Mostly, I’m embarrassed for you. And your family(ies) will feel the same when your ass is doxxed next week. Can’t wait to tAkE tHaT WaLk with you! Then there’s Will, who’s gone on multiple streams calling me “crazy” and pretending he’s scared of me, despite me being nothing but nice to him. Why? Because he thinks I was the first one to tell Karen he heard the recording, which he absolutely did (unless Aidan is lying about who he played it for, but we know he’s actually telling the truth on this for once). She was informed of it the very next day, which is why she called you and you know this. This was two full days before I was even aware of a call at all. Will, for someone with your track record, maybe sit the “women are dangerous” narrative out. You’re not fooling anyone. I’m staring at 15 pages of police reports and no, it’s not all “things you’ve owned up for in the past”. You know this. Again, I’d take a very large seat here. And then my personal favorite-ex-fake friend Auntie Deb, who decided to spice up his Spaces on Thanksgiving by accusing me of distributing revenge porn with zero evidence, zero screenshots, zero anything. A completely fabricated felony tossed around like it’s gossip hour at the bingo hall. Considering your own professional history, James, I’d hope you of all people would understand how catastrophic false accusations can be, but apparently not. It would be a shame if I were to share the real reason around your separation at the middle school and how you wanted to bring Turtlenoy into it. This is all based on the several witnesses I’ve spoken to. See how that works? You announce things as fact based on something someone told you. I wonder if you’ll have that same enthusiasm when the topic is you. TBD. I’ll wait for that retraction about revenge porn. Ball’s in your court hun. And of course, there’s Jessica Machado, who’s been grinding this axe for months like it’s her full-time personality. Hos long did you cry when Chelsea beat you to the punch with that video? Don’t worry hun, there’s more but she didn’t post it because it’s not great for your fairytale. If you thought the fall-out of Kate’s video was bad, Jessica…stay tuned. I may have been momentarily distracted dealing with the chaos from Temu Chelsea, but there’s an army of your victims out there that are eager and ready for your downfall. The false claim that I shared “revenge porn,” the conspiracy theories, the wild accusations you present as fact, all of it. The 10+ streams you’ve now defamed me on. You’ve been so obsessed with me for so long that you can’t even keep your own narratives straight anymore. I love this so much for you. Let me be crystal clear–I am done being all of your punching bag. You love to spin this narrative that I’m this dangerous person. You’d think you’d lay off from constantly f*cking with me if you truly believed that. I would genuinely love for this nonsense to stop. But that requires ALL of you to stop manufacturing drama, stop lying, and stop weaponizing made-up crimes for clicks. And if they want to keep going? I’ve got plenty of content for many seasons to come.

The “I never wanted any of this to be public or content” Myth I never wanted any of this to come out. Except I actually mean that. It’s embarrassing, it’s trashy, and it’s the opposite of how I want to present myself publicly. I stayed silent for months while lie after lie was spun about me behind the scenes because I didn’t want to air private, messy moments from a relationship I genuinely cared about. I stayed silent out of fear, because I was told no one would believe me because he would be blindly believed on his large platform. In one of our very last conversations before I blocked him everywhere mid-October, he threatened to do a show on me, contact my employer, and “turn me into the next Lindsey”. Why? Because I didn’t want to continue apologizing to him for the 300th time about venting to someone I thought was a friend. I stayed silent because of these threats. But after Wednesday, after Chelsea posted the private video Aidan gave her, (the same one he threatened me with directly back on 10/2), and after the gaslighting posts yesterday, I don’t have a choice anymore. So here is the timeline. Here are the receipts. Here is what actually happened. September-October 2025- I Stayed Silent Through Months of Smear Campaigns For months, several creators repeated the same false narrative that “Aidan never said a bad word about Meredith.” Jess. Glarer. Auntie Deb. Kim. Ray from Dallas. Others. Meanwhile, Aidan was: • Badmouthing me privately and encouraging others to do so publicly, • Texting Joe “Flipperhead” entire paragraphs trashing me, • Aidan knew Joe would leak them (and even bragged on a stream that he did exactly that so he’d leak them), • Sending Jess Machado after me for months on her large platform, • Directing people behind the scenes to paint me as a villain. • Sending random people who supported me DMs to change their mind (yes Aidan, not everyone is fooled by your bullshit and they came right to me). I ignored all of it. I said nothing. I stayed silent through daily lies because I didn’t want to call more attention to it or face Aidan’s wrath. November 2025 -The Rumors About “March 4”, Joe Flipperhead Flips to Team Aidan Aidan texted Joe his entire made-up version weeks ago. Joe circulated those texts on purpose. Joe threatened me with posting a video montage of mine and Aidan’s private texts. Joe is a pussy so he eventually had Kristy post it for him. Creators discussed it publicly without me ever responding. I STILL didn’t defend myself. November 26-27, 2025- Ratchet Chelsea: The Full 48 Hour Meltdown 11/26/25- The Unprovoked Attack & The March 4 Video On Tuesday night, Chelsea came out of nowhere and launched herself straight at me, accusing me of all kinds of conspiracies from harassment to the horrific crime of sending a friend request, which is explained in vivid detail in the below post (she’s since gone somewhat viral, love this for her!) She spent the next 24 hours thoroughly embarrassing herself and the moment anyone challenged her story even slightly, she did what she always does: she imploded. Her accusations spiraled into her posting the March 4 video. On 11/26/25 at 11:08 PM, Chelsea posted the first clip–a blanket, context-less snippet of me drunk saying something I immediately apologized for the next morning. At 11:50 PM, I responded because at that point, I had no choice. 11/27/25-The Gaslighting & 9-Minute Backpedal Then yesterday, Aidan tried to save face by posting that he “didn’t want the video to be public.” And like clockwork, nine minutes later, Chelsea came charging into the comments like a Temu-sponsored bat out of hell, scrambling to apologize, trying to rewrite reality so it looked like he didn’t send her to do it. It was panicked, sloppy damage control. An amateur quality cover-up attempt that only made it more obvious how coordinated this all was. She wasn’t apologizing because she grew a conscience. She was apologizing because she got caught doing exactly what she’d been primed to do. I wonder if Aidan called her “you should’ve waited at least 20 minutes, dumbass!!!”. Not too bright that Chelsea. I can only imagine the regrets he must have for utilizing someone with the IQ of a pencil to do his dirty work. The Coordination Between Aidan & Chelsea Is Obvious Chelsea had virtually NO followers Wednesday morning. Aidan was one of the first. We’re supposed to believe someone with 150k followers just stumbled on an account that starts posting HIS private messages and HIS private videos? Kk. Aidan commented on her posts that same day, clearly encouraging it. She confirmed in my DMs back on 11/6 that she and Aidan were aligned. And she literally wrote at 4:04 AM that she had “proof,” videos & screenshots she would release if I didn’t “stop calling” her, calls she still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof of. Then yesterday within 9 minutes of his post, she writes: “Sorry for going rogue, Aidan, I hope you don’t hate my guts.” Going rogue? From WHAT? Who gave you the material in the first place? The coordination is obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells. The “I never wanted this public” lie Aidan’s post yesterday claimed he “never wanted this to be public.” If this were true, why did he instruct Chelsea to post it? Why did he share it with Jess Machado to threaten me with for the last month? Why did he share it with Joe Flipperhead, and God knows who else? If he didn’t want it public, he wouldn’t have shared it with anyone, let alone the girl I caught him cheating with. The timeline is clear– Chelsea posted a video at 11:08 pm on Thanksgiving Eve, I responded at 11:50 out of self defense. He leaked first. He escalated first. He weaponized it first. Trying to rewrite that now is gaslighting, pure and simple. He's been lighting matches behind the scenes for months, praying for this to go public. The “Meredith accused him of abuse” narrative is FALSE My actions tell the truth: • I never went to police. • I never filed anything. • I never told anyone he hit me. • I never repeated it. • I apologized the next day. • We stayed together for FOUR more months after that night. • He called me 100+ times some days, even indicating he’d end his life if we broke up. If he believed I was “dangerous,” his actions would have said that. They didn’t. The only reason this is public now is because HE leaked it. Actions > drunk slurred words said because a camera was shoved in my face when I asked him repeatedly to stop filming and to leave. The Wilbur Theatre Rumors—Let’s get petty for a second. This is another topic I’m cringing at discussing but we can thank Aidan for since he shared our sexual messages with Joe Flipperhead. And since some people (Auntie Deb, sweetie, this means you) insist on pushing their Dollar Store fan-fiction about the Wilbur Theatre night, let’s actually walk through what happened, using facts instead of whatever drug-induced hallucinations you’ve been spinning this week. The rumor goes like this- I was “mad at Aidan because we didn’t hook up,” and to “prove” it, they trot out a cherry-picked text where I said I wanted to hook up, he didn’t answer, and the next morning I said I was drunk and sorry. And somehow this has been spun into me being desperate, obsessed, or pining like a background character in a teenage soap opera. Adorable. Wrong, but adorable. Here’s the real plot twist-Aidan and I had already been together literally two days earlier, and shocker-that was initiated by him, not me. I didn’t just “show up at the Wilbur”. He invited me to come to the after party at Encore knowing I had a wedding earlier in the night. I wanted to see my friends there who I actually met to go with. This wasn’t a surprise, it was planned ahead of time. The “I was drunk, sorry” message wasn’t heartbreak. It wasn’t longing. It was me politely tapping the brakes because I didn’t even want to entertain whatever bad path it could lead us back down. And then? He texted me asking about my brother’s wedding, how I am, etc. I ignored him for a full week. Until I had no choice but to speak to him about MereNeill. That silence, from me, is what triggered his latest meltdown. Not mine. His. So no, Auntie Deb, your version isn’t “a different perspective.” It’s just wrong. Like wildly, hilariously, not-even-in-the-ballpark wrong. But sure, keep spinning fanfic if it makes your livestreams feel more exciting. I realize it’s probably been awhile since you’ve had any action since you’ve let yourself go so badly, so you live vicariously through others. Recap For MONTHS I ignored: • the texts he sent Joe to leak • the smear campaign • the creators parroting lies • the behind-the-scenes messages • the insinuations I hacked him and even shared revenge porn • the constant coordinated attacks • the threats of “turning me into the next Lindsey” • his warning that everyone would believe him because of his platform • the threats to contact my employer I didn’t clap back, didn’t retaliate, didn’t respond. But Wednesday, when Chelsea dumped the video he gave her, the same video she threatened weeks ago to drop, AND he posted pretending he didn’t want this all out? That was the line. They chose the nuclear option. Now I’m responding with facts in pure self-defense. Conclusion/Message for Temu Storm This entire mess could have stayed private. I wanted it to stay private. But when someone leaks your private moments, lies about your intentions, weaponizes your past, and coordinates an online attack, you either let the false narrative stand or you defend yourself. I’m choosing to defend myself with receipts, not gossip. With timelines, not “he said.” With evidence, not weaponized drunk clips. And then there’s Aidan’s favorite delusion. The claim that I was ‘working with Karen behind the scenes’ or ‘conspiring with her to get him in trouble for the recording.’ That could not be further from the truth. I didn’t even know he had recorded her until after she already knew about it herself. I wasn’t working with her, plotting with her, or communicating with her about it. She and I have always been friendly, but we didn’t even discuss the recording until it started leaking and Joe Flipperhead went feral on Twitter. Meanwhile, Aidan spent weeks screaming at me, accusing me of being some kind of secret double agent, like he was trying to create the betrayal he was terrified of. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here’s the reality: in the last few weeks, after he’s gone fully scorched earth on me, I have talked to her, and I support her 100%. The things he’s done to her over the past couple years, and the way he twisted it all for his followers, is the exact same manipulation I lived through. I’m not going into her details because that’s her story to tell… but let’s just say I have a feeling you’ll be hearing it sooner rather than later. And since this week has apparently become “Let’s All Fixate on Meredith Week,” let me address the content-creator sideshow, too. Some of you are strangers, while some I actually considered my friends. It’s shocking but not shocking how quickly you all flip a switch and follow your captain’s orders. Ray from Dallas spent his Sunday foaming at the mouth in a hostile little video about me, all bark, no substance. I saw it. I’m not intimidated. Mostly, I’m embarrassed for you. And your family(ies) will feel the same when your ass is doxxed next week. Can’t wait to tAkE tHaT WaLk with you! Then there’s Will, who’s gone on multiple streams calling me “crazy” and pretending he’s scared of me, despite me being nothing but nice to him. Why? Because he thinks I was the first one to tell Karen he heard the recording, which he absolutely did (unless Aidan is lying about who he played it for, but we know he’s actually telling the truth on this for once). She was informed of it the very next day, which is why she called you and you know this. This was two full days before I was even aware of a call at all. Will, for someone with your track record, maybe sit the “women are dangerous” narrative out. You’re not fooling anyone. I’m staring at 15 pages of police reports and no, it’s not all “things you’ve owned up for in the past”. You know this. Again, I’d take a very large seat here. And then my personal favorite-ex-fake friend Auntie Deb, who decided to spice up his Spaces on Thanksgiving by accusing me of distributing revenge porn with zero evidence, zero screenshots, zero anything. A completely fabricated felony tossed around like it’s gossip hour at the bingo hall. Considering your own professional history, James, I’d hope you of all people would understand how catastrophic false accusations can be, but apparently not. It would be a shame if I were to share the real reason around your separation at the middle school and how you wanted to bring Turtlenoy into it. This is all based on the several witnesses I’ve spoken to. See how that works? You announce things as fact based on something someone told you. I wonder if you’ll have that same enthusiasm when the topic is you. TBD. I’ll wait for that retraction about revenge porn. Ball’s in your court hun. And of course, there’s Jessica Machado, who’s been grinding this axe for months like it’s her full-time personality. Hos long did you cry when Chelsea beat you to the punch with that video? Don’t worry hun, there’s more but she didn’t post it because it’s not great for your fairytale. If you thought the fall-out of Kate’s video was bad, Jessica…stay tuned. I may have been momentarily distracted dealing with the chaos from Temu Chelsea, but there’s an army of your victims out there that are eager and ready for your downfall. The false claim that I shared “revenge porn,” the conspiracy theories, the wild accusations you present as fact, all of it. The 10+ streams you’ve now defamed me on. You’ve been so obsessed with me for so long that you can’t even keep your own narratives straight anymore. I love this so much for you. Let me be crystal clear–I am done being all of your punching bag. You love to spin this narrative that I’m this dangerous person. You’d think you’d lay off from constantly f*cking with me if you truly believed that. I would genuinely love for this nonsense to stop. But that requires ALL of you to stop manufacturing drama, stop lying, and stop weaponizing made-up crimes for clicks. And if they want to keep going? I’ve got plenty of content for many seasons to come.

Meredith O

16,962 次观看 • 8 个月前

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

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

aussie17

797,301 次观看 • 2 年前

Question Period : Barrett vs. Carney Clash Over Offshore Investments Ottawa, May 29, 2025 – On the very first day of the 45th Parliament, Canadians witnessed a spectacle that was as revealing as it was disturbing. Conservative MP Michael Barrett stood up and did what any responsible representative should do: he asked Prime Minister Mark Carney to come clean about his offshore investments and potential conflicts of interest. But instead of facing the music, Carney pulled a classic elitist maneuver—he hid behind his House Leader, who delivered a canned response full of platitudes and devoid of substance. This wasn't just a missed opportunity for transparency; it was a calculated evasion. Carney, the former banker who helped Brookfield Asset Management establish funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, is now Canada's Prime Minister. And when pressed about whether any of his investments were previously held in tax havens, he couldn't even muster the courage to answer for himself. Instead, he let a subordinate deflect with talk of "stringent ethics guidelines" and "economic priorities." Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling to afford basic necessities, and they deserve to know if their leader is playing by the same rules—or any rules at all. Barrett—one of the few people in Ottawa actually doing his job—didn’t hold back. As Shadow Minister for Ethics and Accountable Government, he called out Prime Minister Mark Carney for what appears to be a massive financial shell game. The accusation? That Carney, during his time as a high-flying executive at Brookfield Asset Management, helped funnel billions into offshore tax havens—Bermuda, the Caymans, you name it—and then conveniently tucked those assets away in a so-called “blind trust” right before stepping into public office. Barrett’s message was simple and devastating: “Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. They can’t pay their rent, but they are paying their taxes.” Meanwhile, the guy running their government may have spent years helping billionaires avoid paying theirs. Barrett demanded straight answers: Were any of Carney’s current holdings, now supposedly out of sight, previously parked in these offshore tax shelters? And what exactly was he sitting on when he walked into that first cabinet meeting? The allegations stem from Carney’s role as chairman of Brookfield from 2020 to January 2025, where he co-chaired funds worth $25 billion registered in Bermuda and a $5 billion fund in the Cayman Islands, according to CBC News reports. These arrangements, which reportedly allowed Brookfield to avoid $5.3 billion in taxes, have drawn scrutiny amid Canada’s economic challenges, including rising food bank usage and housing affordability issues. In response, the Liberal government House Leader defended Carney, dismissing Barrett’s questions as “hypotheticals and conjured scenarios.” “The Prime Minister has followed all the rules even before they were required,” the House Leader stated, emphasizing that Carney’s blind trust complies with Canada’s “stringent ethics guidelines.” The response pivoted to the government’s agenda, citing efforts to create “the strongest economy in the G7,” reduce taxes, and build new homes, while accusing the opposition of “digging dirt on day one.” The House Leader’s retort, “Shame on them,” drew murmurs of support from Liberal benches. Undeterred, Barrett doubled down, arguing that Canadians “don’t want an explanation on how to bend over backwards to fit through ethical loopholes.” He called for assurance that Carney’s actions go “above just the basic minimum standard,” referencing a decade of perceived Liberal ethical lapses. “Can he stand up and assure Canadians that none of the funds he had previously were held in offshore tax havens?” Barrett asked, pressing for specifics on Carney’s financial holdings. The Liberal response reiterated Carney’s compliance, with the House Leader asserting, “Canada has among the most stringent ethics guidelines in the world… The Prime Minister is busy creating opportunity for Canada, standing up in a trade war against the United States.” The deflection, focusing on economic priorities and dismissing the opposition’s probe as a distraction, left Barrett’s core questions unanswered, fueling Conservative claims of evasion. This entire exchange isn’t just about one question or one day—it’s part of a much larger and very necessary effort by Conservatives to expose something Canadians are starting to see with painful clarity: Mark Carney is not one of them. He’s not scraping to make rent. He’s not standing in a food bank line. He’s not worried about carbon taxes or grocery bills. He’s a Davos man, parachuted into the Prime Minister’s Office by the same Liberal elite that gave us Justin Trudeau. Different face. Same contempt. Barrett’s takedown of Carney over offshore tax havens hit a nerve, and rightly so. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, this country loses a jaw-dropping $30 billion every year to offshore tax avoidance. That's money that working Canadians pay so the elite can squirrel away their wealth in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. And Carney? He helped orchestrate it. As a top dog at Brookfield Asset Management, he didn’t just benefit from the system—he helped design it. And if that wasn’t enough, under his leadership, Brookfield moved its headquarters from Toronto to New York. In the middle of growing trade tensions with President Trump’s America. That’s not leadership—it’s betrayal. And how does Carney justify all this? With the most nauseating phrase in the English language: “It was legal.” Oh, well, as long as the loopholes were big enough to drive a luxury yacht through, I guess we’re fine. He claims these “tax-efficient” strategies helped pensioners and that his blind trust protects him from conflicts. Right. Because what better way to gain public trust than hiding your financial interests in a vault and telling voters, “Just trust me”? Barrett and the Conservatives aren't buying it—and neither should you. They're calling for real reform, tougher disclosure rules, and an end to the wink-wink, nudge-nudge ethics games that the Liberals have been playing for a decade. Carney delayed his financial disclosures during his leadership run? Of course he did. That’s not transparency. That’s strategy. And Canadians know it. Even the so-called experts are noticing the shift. One analyst noted Barrett’s attacks are landing with voters because they’re the ones who are actually suffering. Meanwhile, the Liberals want to pivot to their so-called “economic wins.” Great. Tell that to the family paying $7 for lettuce or the trucker trying to fuel his rig with gas prices through the roof. As Parliament gets underway, we’re heading into a full-blown war over ethics and economic justice. And the question for Carney is simple: Is he going to answer for his record—or is he going to keep hiding behind the same smug Liberal arrogance that Canadians are sick and tired of? The people are watching. The mask is off. And Mark Carney has a choice: come clean—or be dragged into the sunlight.

Question Period : Barrett vs. Carney Clash Over Offshore Investments Ottawa, May 29, 2025 – On the very first day of the 45th Parliament, Canadians witnessed a spectacle that was as revealing as it was disturbing. Conservative MP Michael Barrett stood up and did what any responsible representative should do: he asked Prime Minister Mark Carney to come clean about his offshore investments and potential conflicts of interest. But instead of facing the music, Carney pulled a classic elitist maneuver—he hid behind his House Leader, who delivered a canned response full of platitudes and devoid of substance. This wasn't just a missed opportunity for transparency; it was a calculated evasion. Carney, the former banker who helped Brookfield Asset Management establish funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, is now Canada's Prime Minister. And when pressed about whether any of his investments were previously held in tax havens, he couldn't even muster the courage to answer for himself. Instead, he let a subordinate deflect with talk of "stringent ethics guidelines" and "economic priorities." Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling to afford basic necessities, and they deserve to know if their leader is playing by the same rules—or any rules at all. Barrett—one of the few people in Ottawa actually doing his job—didn’t hold back. As Shadow Minister for Ethics and Accountable Government, he called out Prime Minister Mark Carney for what appears to be a massive financial shell game. The accusation? That Carney, during his time as a high-flying executive at Brookfield Asset Management, helped funnel billions into offshore tax havens—Bermuda, the Caymans, you name it—and then conveniently tucked those assets away in a so-called “blind trust” right before stepping into public office. Barrett’s message was simple and devastating: “Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. They can’t pay their rent, but they are paying their taxes.” Meanwhile, the guy running their government may have spent years helping billionaires avoid paying theirs. Barrett demanded straight answers: Were any of Carney’s current holdings, now supposedly out of sight, previously parked in these offshore tax shelters? And what exactly was he sitting on when he walked into that first cabinet meeting? The allegations stem from Carney’s role as chairman of Brookfield from 2020 to January 2025, where he co-chaired funds worth $25 billion registered in Bermuda and a $5 billion fund in the Cayman Islands, according to CBC News reports. These arrangements, which reportedly allowed Brookfield to avoid $5.3 billion in taxes, have drawn scrutiny amid Canada’s economic challenges, including rising food bank usage and housing affordability issues. In response, the Liberal government House Leader defended Carney, dismissing Barrett’s questions as “hypotheticals and conjured scenarios.” “The Prime Minister has followed all the rules even before they were required,” the House Leader stated, emphasizing that Carney’s blind trust complies with Canada’s “stringent ethics guidelines.” The response pivoted to the government’s agenda, citing efforts to create “the strongest economy in the G7,” reduce taxes, and build new homes, while accusing the opposition of “digging dirt on day one.” The House Leader’s retort, “Shame on them,” drew murmurs of support from Liberal benches. Undeterred, Barrett doubled down, arguing that Canadians “don’t want an explanation on how to bend over backwards to fit through ethical loopholes.” He called for assurance that Carney’s actions go “above just the basic minimum standard,” referencing a decade of perceived Liberal ethical lapses. “Can he stand up and assure Canadians that none of the funds he had previously were held in offshore tax havens?” Barrett asked, pressing for specifics on Carney’s financial holdings. The Liberal response reiterated Carney’s compliance, with the House Leader asserting, “Canada has among the most stringent ethics guidelines in the world… The Prime Minister is busy creating opportunity for Canada, standing up in a trade war against the United States.” The deflection, focusing on economic priorities and dismissing the opposition’s probe as a distraction, left Barrett’s core questions unanswered, fueling Conservative claims of evasion. This entire exchange isn’t just about one question or one day—it’s part of a much larger and very necessary effort by Conservatives to expose something Canadians are starting to see with painful clarity: Mark Carney is not one of them. He’s not scraping to make rent. He’s not standing in a food bank line. He’s not worried about carbon taxes or grocery bills. He’s a Davos man, parachuted into the Prime Minister’s Office by the same Liberal elite that gave us Justin Trudeau. Different face. Same contempt. Barrett’s takedown of Carney over offshore tax havens hit a nerve, and rightly so. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, this country loses a jaw-dropping $30 billion every year to offshore tax avoidance. That's money that working Canadians pay so the elite can squirrel away their wealth in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. And Carney? He helped orchestrate it. As a top dog at Brookfield Asset Management, he didn’t just benefit from the system—he helped design it. And if that wasn’t enough, under his leadership, Brookfield moved its headquarters from Toronto to New York. In the middle of growing trade tensions with President Trump’s America. That’s not leadership—it’s betrayal. And how does Carney justify all this? With the most nauseating phrase in the English language: “It was legal.” Oh, well, as long as the loopholes were big enough to drive a luxury yacht through, I guess we’re fine. He claims these “tax-efficient” strategies helped pensioners and that his blind trust protects him from conflicts. Right. Because what better way to gain public trust than hiding your financial interests in a vault and telling voters, “Just trust me”? Barrett and the Conservatives aren't buying it—and neither should you. They're calling for real reform, tougher disclosure rules, and an end to the wink-wink, nudge-nudge ethics games that the Liberals have been playing for a decade. Carney delayed his financial disclosures during his leadership run? Of course he did. That’s not transparency. That’s strategy. And Canadians know it. Even the so-called experts are noticing the shift. One analyst noted Barrett’s attacks are landing with voters because they’re the ones who are actually suffering. Meanwhile, the Liberals want to pivot to their so-called “economic wins.” Great. Tell that to the family paying $7 for lettuce or the trucker trying to fuel his rig with gas prices through the roof. As Parliament gets underway, we’re heading into a full-blown war over ethics and economic justice. And the question for Carney is simple: Is he going to answer for his record—or is he going to keep hiding behind the same smug Liberal arrogance that Canadians are sick and tired of? The people are watching. The mask is off. And Mark Carney has a choice: come clean—or be dragged into the sunlight.

Dan Knight

34,769 次观看 • 1 年前

GRAND CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP Former Attorney General, Sen. Eric Schmitt explains that people WILL be held accountable for their part of this conspiracy, and that there is likely an ongoing investigation into Russiagate and what followed. "The statute of limitations has not run out on a conspiracy. And if you're a co-conspirator in mile marker one, even if you want to get on the exit ramp in mile marker five, you are liable for the conspiracy in mile marker ten. And we are at mile marker ten." SCHMITT: I am struck by the degree of the cognitive dissonance that I hear on the other side. I'm used to sort of political debates and arguing in court and all those sorts of things, but to hear the other side of the dais to talk about weaponization is truly shocking given what we know now. And I thought what I might do is just tell a story, and these are 100% facts. Hillary Clinton, concerned about her email scandal, works with a Soros organization to cook up this Russiagate nonsense. They feed it to the intelligence agencies, and they spy under Barack Obama's presidency, they spy on the political opponent, the Republican running against Hillary Clinton. He gets elected. They continue the operation, and they launder this intelligence into stuff that was meant to by the FBI and the CIA to sideline a presidency of a duly elected president of the United States of America, to sideline him. And that continued. You heard even some people on this committee further that nonsense for four years. And then the FBI is involved with pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story, because they couldn't, they didn't want to be elected again. So they pre-bunked the Hunter Biden laptop story. The American people should have been allowed to make their own judgments from that. They weren't, because the FBI called it a Russian hack-and-leak operation. They were meeting with social media companies every month and every week, telling them that the laptop that they knew that they had verified in November of 2019, they knew it was real and it was his, said it was Russian disinformation. We've heard that before. And then, after Joe Biden comes in, three days in, they start a censorship campaign against the country, anybody who's a conservative. And now we also know that the FBI was weaponized in this Arctic Frost investigation, that tapped the phones of sitting U.S. senators. And also, the Republican Attorneys General Association, so let's pull in two more U.S. senators, Ashley Moody and myself, who were on the Executive Committee at that time. Charlie Kirk, political organizations they didn't agree with. This is not in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. This is in the United States of America in the last few years. When they thought President Trump was on the run, and there's no way people would elect him, and then he announces he's running for president. Three days later, Jack Smith's appointed to get Trump. Fannie Willis brings charges against President Trump, and the assistant prosecutor meets with the White House Counsel's Office. Why would that happen? Then you have Alvin Bragg bring his charges. The number three person at DOJ goes to work for him to get Trump. All in the United States of America. This continued, and Senator Hawley asked the question, what is happening in this country? And I hope that MSNBC is still broadcasting this, because I'm sure their viewership hasn't heard this story that's gone on for ten years. The truth is, they never forgave President Trump for coming down the escalator at all. They didn't like him, they didn't like the disruption, and they've spent the better part of a decade not just going after him, but demonizing half the country as fascists and Nazis and threats to democracy. And they have fueled this division in their inability to accept the fact that half of the country isn't deplorables as Hillary Clinton called her, bitter clingers as Barack Obama called them, or trash as Joe Biden called them. But they rose up and they sat in their own jury box and they saw all this stuff play out over a decade and they rejected it. And now you have come in to clean that up, and you are doing a great job in doing that. And let me make this clear, there is a big difference between what happened under the Biden regime and the weaponization, and then holding those people accountable. If that doesn't happen, this will happen all over again. So your job, as you talked about in your confirmation hearing, is so important that this never happens again. And holding people accountable for a part of this conspiracy is absolutely your job. And I'm also taking, you don't have to comment on this, your unwillingness to answer questions that have come up. I am led to believe, as a former Attorney General, that that might mean there's an ongoing investigation. You don't have to talk about it. The statute of limitations may have run on some of this stuff, but not on a conspiracy. And if you're a co-conspirator in mile marker one, even if you want to get on the exit ramp in mile marker five, you are liable for the conspiracy in mile marker ten. And we are at mile marker ten.

GRAND CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP Former Attorney General, Sen. Eric Schmitt explains that people WILL be held accountable for their part of this conspiracy, and that there is likely an ongoing investigation into Russiagate and what followed. "The statute of limitations has not run out on a conspiracy. And if you're a co-conspirator in mile marker one, even if you want to get on the exit ramp in mile marker five, you are liable for the conspiracy in mile marker ten. And we are at mile marker ten." SCHMITT: I am struck by the degree of the cognitive dissonance that I hear on the other side. I'm used to sort of political debates and arguing in court and all those sorts of things, but to hear the other side of the dais to talk about weaponization is truly shocking given what we know now. And I thought what I might do is just tell a story, and these are 100% facts. Hillary Clinton, concerned about her email scandal, works with a Soros organization to cook up this Russiagate nonsense. They feed it to the intelligence agencies, and they spy under Barack Obama's presidency, they spy on the political opponent, the Republican running against Hillary Clinton. He gets elected. They continue the operation, and they launder this intelligence into stuff that was meant to by the FBI and the CIA to sideline a presidency of a duly elected president of the United States of America, to sideline him. And that continued. You heard even some people on this committee further that nonsense for four years. And then the FBI is involved with pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story, because they couldn't, they didn't want to be elected again. So they pre-bunked the Hunter Biden laptop story. The American people should have been allowed to make their own judgments from that. They weren't, because the FBI called it a Russian hack-and-leak operation. They were meeting with social media companies every month and every week, telling them that the laptop that they knew that they had verified in November of 2019, they knew it was real and it was his, said it was Russian disinformation. We've heard that before. And then, after Joe Biden comes in, three days in, they start a censorship campaign against the country, anybody who's a conservative. And now we also know that the FBI was weaponized in this Arctic Frost investigation, that tapped the phones of sitting U.S. senators. And also, the Republican Attorneys General Association, so let's pull in two more U.S. senators, Ashley Moody and myself, who were on the Executive Committee at that time. Charlie Kirk, political organizations they didn't agree with. This is not in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. This is in the United States of America in the last few years. When they thought President Trump was on the run, and there's no way people would elect him, and then he announces he's running for president. Three days later, Jack Smith's appointed to get Trump. Fannie Willis brings charges against President Trump, and the assistant prosecutor meets with the White House Counsel's Office. Why would that happen? Then you have Alvin Bragg bring his charges. The number three person at DOJ goes to work for him to get Trump. All in the United States of America. This continued, and Senator Hawley asked the question, what is happening in this country? And I hope that MSNBC is still broadcasting this, because I'm sure their viewership hasn't heard this story that's gone on for ten years. The truth is, they never forgave President Trump for coming down the escalator at all. They didn't like him, they didn't like the disruption, and they've spent the better part of a decade not just going after him, but demonizing half the country as fascists and Nazis and threats to democracy. And they have fueled this division in their inability to accept the fact that half of the country isn't deplorables as Hillary Clinton called her, bitter clingers as Barack Obama called them, or trash as Joe Biden called them. But they rose up and they sat in their own jury box and they saw all this stuff play out over a decade and they rejected it. And now you have come in to clean that up, and you are doing a great job in doing that. And let me make this clear, there is a big difference between what happened under the Biden regime and the weaponization, and then holding those people accountable. If that doesn't happen, this will happen all over again. So your job, as you talked about in your confirmation hearing, is so important that this never happens again. And holding people accountable for a part of this conspiracy is absolutely your job. And I'm also taking, you don't have to comment on this, your unwillingness to answer questions that have come up. I am led to believe, as a former Attorney General, that that might mean there's an ongoing investigation. You don't have to talk about it. The statute of limitations may have run on some of this stuff, but not on a conspiracy. And if you're a co-conspirator in mile marker one, even if you want to get on the exit ramp in mile marker five, you are liable for the conspiracy in mile marker ten. And we are at mile marker ten.

Svetlana Lokhova

238,755 次观看 • 9 个月前

The “I never wanted any of this to be public or content” Lie, A Timeline I never wanted any of this to come out. Except I actually mean that. It’s embarrassing, it’s trashy, and it’s the opposite of how I want to present myself publicly. I stayed silent for months while lie after lie was spun about me behind the scenes because I didn’t want to air private, messy moments from a relationship I genuinely cared about. I stayed silent out of fear, because I was told no one would believe me because he would be blindly believed on his large platform. In one of our very last conversations before I blocked him everywhere mid-October, he threatened to do a show on me, contact my employer, and “turn me into the next Lindsey”. Why? Because I didn’t want to continue apologizing to him for the 300th time about venting to someone I thought was a friend. I stayed silent because of these threats. But after Wednesday, after Chelsea posted the private video Aidan gave her, (the same one he threatened me with directly back on 10/2), and after the gaslighting, I don’t have a choice anymore. So here is the timeline. Here are the receipts. Here is what actually happened. September-October 2025- I Stayed Silent Through Months of Smear Campaigns For months, several creators repeated the same false narrative that “Aidan never said a bad word about Meredith.” Jess. Glarer. Auntie Deb. Kim. Ray from Dallas. Others. Meanwhile, Aidan was: • Badmouthing me privately and encouraging others to do so publicly, • Texting Joe “Flipperhead” entire paragraphs trashing me, • Aidan knew Joe would leak them (and even bragged on a stream that he did exactly that so he’d leak them), • Sending Jess Machado after me for months on her large platform, • Directing people behind the scenes to paint me as a villain. • Sending random people who supported me DMs to change their mind (yes Aidan, not everyone is fooled by your bullshit and they came right to me). I ignored all of it. I said nothing. I stayed silent through daily lies because I didn’t want to call more attention to it or face Aidan’s wrath. November 2025 -The Rumors About “March 4” and Joe Flipperhead Flips to Team Aidan Aidan texted Joe his entire made-up version weeks ago. Joe circulated those texts on purpose. Joe threatened me with posting a video montage of mine and Aidan’s private texts. Joe is a pussy so he eventually had Kristy post it for him. Creators discussed it publicly without me ever responding. I STILL didn’t defend myself. November 26-27, 2025- Ratchet Chelsea: The Full 48 Hour Meltdown 11/26/25— The Unprovoked Attack & The March 4 Video On Tuesday night, Chelsea came out of nowhere and launched herself straight at me, accusing me of all kinds of conspiracies from harassment to the horrific crime of sending a friend request, which is explained in vivid detail in the below post (she’s since gone somewhat viral, love this for her!) She spent the next 24 hours thoroughly embarrassing herself and the moment anyone challenged her story even slightly, she did what she always does: she imploded. Her accusations spiraled into her posting the March 4 video. On 11/26/25 at 11:08 PM, Chelsea posted the first clip–a blanket, context-less snippet of me drunk saying something I immediately apologized for the next morning. At 11:50 PM, I responded because at that point, I had no choice. 11/27/25— The 9-Minute Backpedal Then on Thanksgiving, Aidan tried to save face by posting that he “didn’t want the video to be public.” And like clockwork, nine minutes later, Chelsea came charging into the comments like a Temu-sponsored bat out of hell, scrambling to apologize, trying to rewrite reality so it looked like he didn’t send her to do it. It was panicked, sloppy damage control. An amateur quality cover-up attempt that only made it more obvious how coordinated this all was. She wasn’t apologizing because she grew a conscience. She was apologizing because she got caught doing exactly what she’d been primed to do. I wonder if Aidan called her “you should’ve waited at least 20 minutes, dumbass!!!”. Not too bright that Chelsea. I can only imagine the regrets he must have for utilizing someone with the IQ of a pencil to do his dirty work. The Coordination Between Aidan & Chelsea Is Obvious Chelsea had virtually NO followers Wednesday morning. Aidan was one of the first. We’re supposed to believe someone with 150k followers just stumbled on an account that starts posting HIS private messages and HIS private videos? Kk. Aidan commented on her posts that same day, clearly encouraging it, continuing to this day, all while pretending he's not directing it. Kk. She confirmed in my DMs back on 11/6 that she and Aidan were aligned. And she literally wrote at 4:04 AM that she had “proof,” videos & screenshots she would release if I didn’t “stop calling” her, calls she still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof of. Then yesterday within 9 minutes of his post, she writes: “Sorry for going rogue, Aidan, I hope you don’t hate my guts.” Going rogue? From WHAT? Who gave you the material in the first place? The coordination is obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells. The “I never wanted this public” lie Aidan’s post yesterday claimed he “never wanted this to be public.” He’s been threatening me for months behind the scenes to post the infamous video. To do a show on me. To send things to others to weaponize against me. If this were true, why did he instruct Chelsea to post it? Why did he share it with Jess Machado to threaten me with for the last month? Why did he share it with Joe Flipperhead, and God knows who else? If he didn’t want it public, he wouldn’t have shared it with anyone, let alone the girl I caught him cheating with. The timeline is clear– Chelsea posted a video at 11:08 pm on Thanksgiving Eve, I responded at 11:50 out of self defense. He leaked first. He escalated first. He weaponized it first. Trying to rewrite that now is gaslighting, pure and simple. The “Meredith accused him of abuse” narrative is FALSE My actions tell the truth: • I never went to police. • I never filed anything. • I never told anyone he hit me. • I never repeated it. • I apologized the next day. • We stayed together for FOUR more months after that night. • He called me 100+ times some days, even indicating he’d end his life if we broke up. If he believed I was “dangerous,” his actions would have said that. They didn’t. The only reason this is public now is because HE leaked it. Actions > drunk slurred words said because a camera was shoved in my face when I asked him repeatedly to stop filming and to leave. The Wilbur Theatre Rumors—Let’s get petty for a second. This is another topic I’m cringing at discussing but we can thank Aidan for since he shared our sexual messages with Joe Flipperhead. And since some people (Auntie Deb, sweetie, this means you) insist on pushing their Dollar Store fan-fiction about the Wilbur Theatre night, let’s actually walk through what happened, using facts instead of whatever drug-induced hallucinations you’ve been spinning this week. The rumor goes like this- I was “mad at Aidan because we didn’t hook up,” and to “prove” it, they trot out a cherry-picked text where I said I wanted to hook up, he didn’t answer, and the next morning I said I was drunk and sorry. And somehow this has been spun into me being desperate, obsessed, or pining like a background character in a teenage soap opera. Adorable. Wrong, but adorable. Here’s the real plot twist-Aidan and I had already been together literally two days earlier, and shocker-that was initiated by him, not me. I didn’t just “show up at the Wilbur”. He invited me to come to the after party at Encore knowing I had a wedding earlier in the night. I wanted to see my friends there who I actually met to go with. This wasn’t a surprise, it was planned ahead of time. The “I was drunk, sorry” message wasn’t heartbreak. It wasn’t longing. It was me politely tapping the brakes because I didn’t even want to entertain whatever bad path it could lead us back down. And then? He texted me asking about my brother’s wedding, how I am, etc. I ignored him for a full week. Until I had no choice but to speak to him about MereNeill. That silence, from me, is what triggered his latest meltdown. Not mine. His. So no, Auntie Deb, your version isn’t “a different perspective.” It’s just wrong. Like wildly, hilariously, not-even-in-the-ballpark wrong. But sure, keep spinning fanfic if it makes your livestreams feel more exciting. I realize it’s probably been awhile since you’ve had any action since you’ve let yourself go so badly, so you live vicariously through others. Recap For MONTHS I ignored: • the texts he sent Joe to leak • the smear campaign • the creators parroting lies • the behind-the-scenes messages • the insinuations I hacked him and even shared revenge porn • the constant coordinated attacks • the threats of “turning me into the next Lindsey” • his warning that everyone would believe him because of his platform • the threats to contact my employer I didn’t clap back, didn’t retaliate, didn’t respond. But Wednesday, when Chelsea dumped the video he gave her, the same video she threatened weeks ago to drop, AND he posted pretending he didn’t want this all out? That was the line. They chose the nuclear option. And last night's gaslighting grift was just the icing on the cake. Now I’m responding with facts in pure self-defense. Conclusion/Message for Temu Storm This entire mess could have stayed private. I wanted it to stay private. But when someone leaks your private moments, lies about your intentions, weaponizes your past, and coordinates an online attack, you either let the false narrative stand or you defend yourself. I’m choosing to defend myself with receipts, not gossip. With timelines, not “he said.” With evidence, not weaponized drunk clips. And then there’s Aidan’s favorite delusion. The claim that I was ‘working with Karen behind the scenes’ or ‘conspiring with her to get him in trouble for the recording.’ That could not be further from the truth. I didn’t even know he had recorded her until after she already knew about it herself. I wasn’t working with her, plotting with her, or communicating with her about it. She and I have always been friendly, but we didn’t even discuss the recording until it started leaking and Joe Flipperhead went feral on Twitter. Meanwhile, Aidan spent weeks screaming at me, accusing me of being some kind of secret double agent, like he was trying to create the betrayal he was terrified of. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here’s the reality: in the last few weeks, after he’s gone fully scorched earth on me, I have talked to her, and I support her 100%. The things he’s done to her over the past couple years, and the way he twisted it all for his followers, is the exact same manipulation I lived through. I’m not going into her details because that’s her story to tell… but let’s just say I have a feeling you’ll be hearing it sooner rather than later. The lie that Aidan never wanted this to be public is just laughable at this point. Who are we kidding? He's been foaming at the mouth for months to make this content where he can play the victim, as usual. And since this week has apparently become “Let’s All Fixate on Meredith Week,” let me address the content-creator sideshow, too. Some of you are strangers, while some I actually considered my friends. It’s shocking but not shocking how quickly you all flip a switch and follow your captain’s orders. Ray from Dallas spent his Sunday foaming at the mouth in a hostile little video about me, all bark, no substance. I saw it. I’m not intimidated. Mostly, I’m embarrassed for you. Then there’s Will, who’s gone on multiple streams calling me “crazy” and pretending he’s scared of me, despite me being nothing but nice to him. Why? Because he thinks I was the first one to tell Karen he heard the recording, which he absolutely did (unless Aidan is lying about who he played it for, but we know he’s actually telling the truth on this for once). She was informed of it the very next day, which is why she called you and you know this. This was two full days before I was even aware of a call at all. Will, for someone with your track record, maybe sit the “women are dangerous” narrative out. You’re not fooling anyone. I’m staring at 15 pages of police reports and no, it’s not all “things you’ve owned up for in the past”. You know this. Again, I’d take a very large seat here. And my personal favorite-Auntie Deb, who decided to spice up his Spaces on Thanksgiving by accusing me of distributing revenge p*rn with zero evidence, zero screenshots, zero anything. Accusing me of killing a turtle yesterday. A completely fabricated felony tossed around like it’s gossip hour at the bingo hall. Considering your own professional history, James, I’d hope you of all people would understand how catastrophic false accusations can be, but apparently not. I wonder if you’ll have that same enthusiasm when the topic is you. TBD. I’ll wait for that retraction about revenge p*rn, animal abuse, etc. Ball’s in your court hun. And of course, there’s Jessica Machado, who’s been grinding this axe for months like it’s her full-time personality. Hos long did you cry when Chelsea beat you to the punch with that video? Don’t worry hun, there’s more but she didn’t post it because it’s not great for your fairytale. Since you reported my last post, I'll leave the rest up for your imagination. You’ve been so obsessed with me for so long that you can’t even keep your own narratives straight anymore. I love this so much for you. Let me be crystal clear–I am done being all of your punching bag. You love to spin this narrative that I’m this dangerous person. You’d think you’d lay off from constantly f*cking with me if you truly believed that. I would genuinely love for this nonsense to stop. But that requires ALL of you to stop manufacturing drama, stop lying, and stop weaponizing made-up crimes for clicks. And if they want to keep going? I’ve got plenty of content for many seasons to come.

The “I never wanted any of this to be public or content” Lie, A Timeline I never wanted any of this to come out. Except I actually mean that. It’s embarrassing, it’s trashy, and it’s the opposite of how I want to present myself publicly. I stayed silent for months while lie after lie was spun about me behind the scenes because I didn’t want to air private, messy moments from a relationship I genuinely cared about. I stayed silent out of fear, because I was told no one would believe me because he would be blindly believed on his large platform. In one of our very last conversations before I blocked him everywhere mid-October, he threatened to do a show on me, contact my employer, and “turn me into the next Lindsey”. Why? Because I didn’t want to continue apologizing to him for the 300th time about venting to someone I thought was a friend. I stayed silent because of these threats. But after Wednesday, after Chelsea posted the private video Aidan gave her, (the same one he threatened me with directly back on 10/2), and after the gaslighting, I don’t have a choice anymore. So here is the timeline. Here are the receipts. Here is what actually happened. September-October 2025- I Stayed Silent Through Months of Smear Campaigns For months, several creators repeated the same false narrative that “Aidan never said a bad word about Meredith.” Jess. Glarer. Auntie Deb. Kim. Ray from Dallas. Others. Meanwhile, Aidan was: • Badmouthing me privately and encouraging others to do so publicly, • Texting Joe “Flipperhead” entire paragraphs trashing me, • Aidan knew Joe would leak them (and even bragged on a stream that he did exactly that so he’d leak them), • Sending Jess Machado after me for months on her large platform, • Directing people behind the scenes to paint me as a villain. • Sending random people who supported me DMs to change their mind (yes Aidan, not everyone is fooled by your bullshit and they came right to me). I ignored all of it. I said nothing. I stayed silent through daily lies because I didn’t want to call more attention to it or face Aidan’s wrath. November 2025 -The Rumors About “March 4” and Joe Flipperhead Flips to Team Aidan Aidan texted Joe his entire made-up version weeks ago. Joe circulated those texts on purpose. Joe threatened me with posting a video montage of mine and Aidan’s private texts. Joe is a pussy so he eventually had Kristy post it for him. Creators discussed it publicly without me ever responding. I STILL didn’t defend myself. November 26-27, 2025- Ratchet Chelsea: The Full 48 Hour Meltdown 11/26/25— The Unprovoked Attack & The March 4 Video On Tuesday night, Chelsea came out of nowhere and launched herself straight at me, accusing me of all kinds of conspiracies from harassment to the horrific crime of sending a friend request, which is explained in vivid detail in the below post (she’s since gone somewhat viral, love this for her!) She spent the next 24 hours thoroughly embarrassing herself and the moment anyone challenged her story even slightly, she did what she always does: she imploded. Her accusations spiraled into her posting the March 4 video. On 11/26/25 at 11:08 PM, Chelsea posted the first clip–a blanket, context-less snippet of me drunk saying something I immediately apologized for the next morning. At 11:50 PM, I responded because at that point, I had no choice. 11/27/25— The 9-Minute Backpedal Then on Thanksgiving, Aidan tried to save face by posting that he “didn’t want the video to be public.” And like clockwork, nine minutes later, Chelsea came charging into the comments like a Temu-sponsored bat out of hell, scrambling to apologize, trying to rewrite reality so it looked like he didn’t send her to do it. It was panicked, sloppy damage control. An amateur quality cover-up attempt that only made it more obvious how coordinated this all was. She wasn’t apologizing because she grew a conscience. She was apologizing because she got caught doing exactly what she’d been primed to do. I wonder if Aidan called her “you should’ve waited at least 20 minutes, dumbass!!!”. Not too bright that Chelsea. I can only imagine the regrets he must have for utilizing someone with the IQ of a pencil to do his dirty work. The Coordination Between Aidan & Chelsea Is Obvious Chelsea had virtually NO followers Wednesday morning. Aidan was one of the first. We’re supposed to believe someone with 150k followers just stumbled on an account that starts posting HIS private messages and HIS private videos? Kk. Aidan commented on her posts that same day, clearly encouraging it, continuing to this day, all while pretending he's not directing it. Kk. She confirmed in my DMs back on 11/6 that she and Aidan were aligned. And she literally wrote at 4:04 AM that she had “proof,” videos & screenshots she would release if I didn’t “stop calling” her, calls she still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof of. Then yesterday within 9 minutes of his post, she writes: “Sorry for going rogue, Aidan, I hope you don’t hate my guts.” Going rogue? From WHAT? Who gave you the material in the first place? The coordination is obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells. The “I never wanted this public” lie Aidan’s post yesterday claimed he “never wanted this to be public.” He’s been threatening me for months behind the scenes to post the infamous video. To do a show on me. To send things to others to weaponize against me. If this were true, why did he instruct Chelsea to post it? Why did he share it with Jess Machado to threaten me with for the last month? Why did he share it with Joe Flipperhead, and God knows who else? If he didn’t want it public, he wouldn’t have shared it with anyone, let alone the girl I caught him cheating with. The timeline is clear– Chelsea posted a video at 11:08 pm on Thanksgiving Eve, I responded at 11:50 out of self defense. He leaked first. He escalated first. He weaponized it first. Trying to rewrite that now is gaslighting, pure and simple. The “Meredith accused him of abuse” narrative is FALSE My actions tell the truth: • I never went to police. • I never filed anything. • I never told anyone he hit me. • I never repeated it. • I apologized the next day. • We stayed together for FOUR more months after that night. • He called me 100+ times some days, even indicating he’d end his life if we broke up. If he believed I was “dangerous,” his actions would have said that. They didn’t. The only reason this is public now is because HE leaked it. Actions > drunk slurred words said because a camera was shoved in my face when I asked him repeatedly to stop filming and to leave. The Wilbur Theatre Rumors—Let’s get petty for a second. This is another topic I’m cringing at discussing but we can thank Aidan for since he shared our sexual messages with Joe Flipperhead. And since some people (Auntie Deb, sweetie, this means you) insist on pushing their Dollar Store fan-fiction about the Wilbur Theatre night, let’s actually walk through what happened, using facts instead of whatever drug-induced hallucinations you’ve been spinning this week. The rumor goes like this- I was “mad at Aidan because we didn’t hook up,” and to “prove” it, they trot out a cherry-picked text where I said I wanted to hook up, he didn’t answer, and the next morning I said I was drunk and sorry. And somehow this has been spun into me being desperate, obsessed, or pining like a background character in a teenage soap opera. Adorable. Wrong, but adorable. Here’s the real plot twist-Aidan and I had already been together literally two days earlier, and shocker-that was initiated by him, not me. I didn’t just “show up at the Wilbur”. He invited me to come to the after party at Encore knowing I had a wedding earlier in the night. I wanted to see my friends there who I actually met to go with. This wasn’t a surprise, it was planned ahead of time. The “I was drunk, sorry” message wasn’t heartbreak. It wasn’t longing. It was me politely tapping the brakes because I didn’t even want to entertain whatever bad path it could lead us back down. And then? He texted me asking about my brother’s wedding, how I am, etc. I ignored him for a full week. Until I had no choice but to speak to him about MereNeill. That silence, from me, is what triggered his latest meltdown. Not mine. His. So no, Auntie Deb, your version isn’t “a different perspective.” It’s just wrong. Like wildly, hilariously, not-even-in-the-ballpark wrong. But sure, keep spinning fanfic if it makes your livestreams feel more exciting. I realize it’s probably been awhile since you’ve had any action since you’ve let yourself go so badly, so you live vicariously through others. Recap For MONTHS I ignored: • the texts he sent Joe to leak • the smear campaign • the creators parroting lies • the behind-the-scenes messages • the insinuations I hacked him and even shared revenge porn • the constant coordinated attacks • the threats of “turning me into the next Lindsey” • his warning that everyone would believe him because of his platform • the threats to contact my employer I didn’t clap back, didn’t retaliate, didn’t respond. But Wednesday, when Chelsea dumped the video he gave her, the same video she threatened weeks ago to drop, AND he posted pretending he didn’t want this all out? That was the line. They chose the nuclear option. And last night's gaslighting grift was just the icing on the cake. Now I’m responding with facts in pure self-defense. Conclusion/Message for Temu Storm This entire mess could have stayed private. I wanted it to stay private. But when someone leaks your private moments, lies about your intentions, weaponizes your past, and coordinates an online attack, you either let the false narrative stand or you defend yourself. I’m choosing to defend myself with receipts, not gossip. With timelines, not “he said.” With evidence, not weaponized drunk clips. And then there’s Aidan’s favorite delusion. The claim that I was ‘working with Karen behind the scenes’ or ‘conspiring with her to get him in trouble for the recording.’ That could not be further from the truth. I didn’t even know he had recorded her until after she already knew about it herself. I wasn’t working with her, plotting with her, or communicating with her about it. She and I have always been friendly, but we didn’t even discuss the recording until it started leaking and Joe Flipperhead went feral on Twitter. Meanwhile, Aidan spent weeks screaming at me, accusing me of being some kind of secret double agent, like he was trying to create the betrayal he was terrified of. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here’s the reality: in the last few weeks, after he’s gone fully scorched earth on me, I have talked to her, and I support her 100%. The things he’s done to her over the past couple years, and the way he twisted it all for his followers, is the exact same manipulation I lived through. I’m not going into her details because that’s her story to tell… but let’s just say I have a feeling you’ll be hearing it sooner rather than later. The lie that Aidan never wanted this to be public is just laughable at this point. Who are we kidding? He's been foaming at the mouth for months to make this content where he can play the victim, as usual. And since this week has apparently become “Let’s All Fixate on Meredith Week,” let me address the content-creator sideshow, too. Some of you are strangers, while some I actually considered my friends. It’s shocking but not shocking how quickly you all flip a switch and follow your captain’s orders. Ray from Dallas spent his Sunday foaming at the mouth in a hostile little video about me, all bark, no substance. I saw it. I’m not intimidated. Mostly, I’m embarrassed for you. Then there’s Will, who’s gone on multiple streams calling me “crazy” and pretending he’s scared of me, despite me being nothing but nice to him. Why? Because he thinks I was the first one to tell Karen he heard the recording, which he absolutely did (unless Aidan is lying about who he played it for, but we know he’s actually telling the truth on this for once). She was informed of it the very next day, which is why she called you and you know this. This was two full days before I was even aware of a call at all. Will, for someone with your track record, maybe sit the “women are dangerous” narrative out. You’re not fooling anyone. I’m staring at 15 pages of police reports and no, it’s not all “things you’ve owned up for in the past”. You know this. Again, I’d take a very large seat here. And my personal favorite-Auntie Deb, who decided to spice up his Spaces on Thanksgiving by accusing me of distributing revenge prn with zero evidence, zero screenshots, zero anything. Accusing me of killing a turtle yesterday. A completely fabricated felony tossed around like it’s gossip hour at the bingo hall. Considering your own professional history, James, I’d hope you of all people would understand how catastrophic false accusations can be, but apparently not. I wonder if you’ll have that same enthusiasm when the topic is you. TBD. I’ll wait for that retraction about revenge prn, animal abuse, etc. Ball’s in your court hun. And of course, there’s Jessica Machado, who’s been grinding this axe for months like it’s her full-time personality. Hos long did you cry when Chelsea beat you to the punch with that video? Don’t worry hun, there’s more but she didn’t post it because it’s not great for your fairytale. Since you reported my last post, I'll leave the rest up for your imagination. You’ve been so obsessed with me for so long that you can’t even keep your own narratives straight anymore. I love this so much for you. Let me be crystal clear–I am done being all of your punching bag. You love to spin this narrative that I’m this dangerous person. You’d think you’d lay off from constantly f*cking with me if you truly believed that. I would genuinely love for this nonsense to stop. But that requires ALL of you to stop manufacturing drama, stop lying, and stop weaponizing made-up crimes for clicks. And if they want to keep going? I’ve got plenty of content for many seasons to come.

The old M can’t come to the phone right now

45,160 次观看 • 8 个月前