Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🎁 𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗕𝗜𝗚 𝗼𝗻𝗲! 🎁 A man who doesn't really need an introduction... Welcome to #BathRugby, Scottish Rugby & British & Irish Lions fly-half Finn Russell! 💙

Bath Rugby

125,184 subscribers

261,256 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Comments

Ollie Evans3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell

Bobby ⚒🛀🇬🇧🇳🇿3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell Wow quality signing ✍️ looking forward to seeing him in the 🔵⚫️⚪️

David Hutchison3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell

Ollie Smith's Step®3 years ago

@lionsofficial @finn_russell

Kirsty3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell

Huw Vicary3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell This is far better than any Christmas present that has ever been gifted it ever will be.

Paul Goddard3 years ago

@premrugby @Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell Well with all the money bath are spending , the only club I see bath joining is wasps and worcesters club

john Ayrshire drysdale3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell Will follow Bath rugby now since finn is on his way

HH3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell 🤔 I can’t see Russel as a Van Gran 10. Carberry played his worst rugby under him and is back looking himself since he’s gone.

Ceri Hall3 years ago

@Scotlandteam @lionsofficial @finn_russell Best Christmas present ever! Welcome Finn! Looking forward to seeing you mixing it up at Bath 💙🖤🤍

Related Videos

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 ✍️ Scottish and British & Irish Lion Finn Russell has signed a new contract that will keep the fly-half at The Rec until June 2028!

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 ✍️ Scottish and British & Irish Lion Finn Russell has signed a new contract that will keep the fly-half at The Rec until June 2028!

Bath Rugby

70,663 views • 1 year ago

🇮🇪A SONG FOR THE AGES & A SONG FOR NOW🇮🇪 THIS IS THE TYPE OF ROUSING IRISH REBEL SONG THAT SHOULD BE PLAYED AT ALL NATIONALIST RALLIES & MARCHES🇮🇪 Imagine a traditional Irish balladeer & true son or daughter of éiRe singing this from the depths of his or her very soul & tens of thousands of patriotic Irish men & women who adore OUR HOME belting out the chorus in unity,harmony & with an unconquerable,undying love of GOD,FAMILY & COUNTRY In all of our hearts🇮🇪 Promote & incorporate all that we are fighting for & most importantly our precious children's safety,futures & FREEDOM into this battle for the very soul of éiRe🇮🇪 No better man than my brother Stephen Sutton to lift our hearts & our spirits through the powerful & beautiful medium of song🇮🇪🎶🇮🇪 We need to lose the black lives matter 'Whose Streets' chant & turn back to our History,Culture & Heritage to defend our Land & attack our enemies. Every inch of this island belongs to WE THE INDIGENOUS IRISH PEOPLE & it's high time certain traitors were reminded of that fact🇮🇪 Here are both the Irish & English translation of this wonderful & truly powerful rebel song. If you don't know it learn the chorus🇮🇪 Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile, Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile,[7] Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile Anois ar theacht an tsamhraidh. 'Sé do bheatha, a bhean ba léanmhar, Do b' é ár gcreach tú bheith i ngéibheann, Do dhúiche bhreá i seilbh méirleach, Is tú díolta leis na Gallaibh. Chorus Tá Gráinne Mhaol ag teacht thar sáile, Óglaigh armtha léi mar gharda, Gaeil iad féin is ní Gaill[10] ná Spáinnigh, Is cuirfidh siad ruaig ar Ghallaibh. Chorus A bhuí le Rí na bhFeart go bhfeiceam, Mura mbeam beo ina dhiaidh ach seachtain, Gráinne Mhaol agus míle gaiscíoch, Ag fógairt fáin ar Ghallaibh. Chorus Chorus: Oh-ro You're welcome home, Oh-ro You're welcome home, Oh-ro You're welcome home... Now that summer's coming! Welcome oh woman who was so afflicted, It was our ruin that you were in bondage, Our fine land in the possession of thieves... And you sold to the foreigners! Chorus Gráinne O'Malley is coming over the sea, Armed warriors along with her as her guard, They are Gaels, not invaders [British] nor Spanish... And they will rout the foreigners! Chorus May it please the King of Miracles that we might see, Although we may live for a week once after, Gráinne O'Malley and a thousand warriors... Dispersing the foreigners! Chorus🇮🇪 GOD BLESS YOU ALL🙌🇮🇪 éiReGoBragh🇮🇪 Credit - Stephen Sutton 🎶🇮🇪🤝🇮🇪🎶

🇮🇪A SONG FOR THE AGES & A SONG FOR NOW🇮🇪 THIS IS THE TYPE OF ROUSING IRISH REBEL SONG THAT SHOULD BE PLAYED AT ALL NATIONALIST RALLIES & MARCHES🇮🇪 Imagine a traditional Irish balladeer & true son or daughter of éiRe singing this from the depths of his or her very soul & tens of thousands of patriotic Irish men & women who adore OUR HOME belting out the chorus in unity,harmony & with an unconquerable,undying love of GOD,FAMILY & COUNTRY In all of our hearts🇮🇪 Promote & incorporate all that we are fighting for & most importantly our precious children's safety,futures & FREEDOM into this battle for the very soul of éiRe🇮🇪 No better man than my brother Stephen Sutton to lift our hearts & our spirits through the powerful & beautiful medium of song🇮🇪🎶🇮🇪 We need to lose the black lives matter 'Whose Streets' chant & turn back to our History,Culture & Heritage to defend our Land & attack our enemies. Every inch of this island belongs to WE THE INDIGENOUS IRISH PEOPLE & it's high time certain traitors were reminded of that fact🇮🇪 Here are both the Irish & English translation of this wonderful & truly powerful rebel song. If you don't know it learn the chorus🇮🇪 Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile, Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile,[7] Óró, sé do bheatha 'bhaile Anois ar theacht an tsamhraidh. 'Sé do bheatha, a bhean ba léanmhar, Do b' é ár gcreach tú bheith i ngéibheann, Do dhúiche bhreá i seilbh méirleach, Is tú díolta leis na Gallaibh. Chorus Tá Gráinne Mhaol ag teacht thar sáile, Óglaigh armtha léi mar gharda, Gaeil iad féin is ní Gaill[10] ná Spáinnigh, Is cuirfidh siad ruaig ar Ghallaibh. Chorus A bhuí le Rí na bhFeart go bhfeiceam, Mura mbeam beo ina dhiaidh ach seachtain, Gráinne Mhaol agus míle gaiscíoch, Ag fógairt fáin ar Ghallaibh. Chorus Chorus: Oh-ro You're welcome home, Oh-ro You're welcome home, Oh-ro You're welcome home... Now that summer's coming! Welcome oh woman who was so afflicted, It was our ruin that you were in bondage, Our fine land in the possession of thieves... And you sold to the foreigners! Chorus Gráinne O'Malley is coming over the sea, Armed warriors along with her as her guard, They are Gaels, not invaders [British] nor Spanish... And they will rout the foreigners! Chorus May it please the King of Miracles that we might see, Although we may live for a week once after, Gráinne O'Malley and a thousand warriors... Dispersing the foreigners! Chorus🇮🇪 GOD BLESS YOU ALL🙌🇮🇪 éiReGoBragh🇮🇪 Credit - Stephen Sutton 🎶🇮🇪🤝🇮🇪🎶

Fergus (Ferg) Power

11,132 views • 1 year ago

🚨THE ONLY PANDEMIC IN THIS WORLD IS PEDOPHILIA🚨 Just wanted to clarify something for the dribbly gimps on the left who feel they have some sort of Gotcha moment when an Irish man is caught abusing children & they feel the need to tag me & others in it for not commenting on the situation🇮🇪 Unfortunately the home grown IRISH predators who target children & who we've had problems with for time & memorial on this island ARE OUR RESPONSIBILITY & that of this rotten & highly Treasonous State🇮🇪 So when you dickheads go to working class communities,Remove your silver spoons from your gammy mouths & start screaming "REFUGEES ARE WELCOME HERE" those foreign criminals that have no background checks whatsoever & who go on to Assault,Attack,Rob,Rape & murder innocent Irish people including women & children that could have easily been prevented by closed borders & employing people who do their Jobs properly THEY ARE NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY but make no mistake ALL the heinous crimes that they perpetrate(d) ON ALL YOUR HEADS BE IT including the Government,NGOs,the Police & every scumbag who has profited from this nightmare🇮🇪 We are surrounded by the most evil bastards imaginable on our own soil. They are embedded everywhere in society from the Judges chambers, Political parties to the school room & everywhere in between & beyond. But here's a wonderful idea let's bring in hundreds of thousands of unchecked animals from third world shit holes whose sick ideologies permit them to rape children. Sure what could go wrong?🇮🇪 I couldn't give any less of a fuck what Race,Nationality,Colour or Creed they are or whether they're a man or a woman for that matter. If they destroy a child's life & innocence in the most vile way known to man. Firstly they should be handed over to the victims family so that they can exact their own brand of righteous justice. Then they should be dragged by their hair through the streets,Strung up & then hanged & burned in public🇮🇪 This might actually work as a deterrent because strangely enough all the suspended sentences (Judge Nolan) or sending these deranged bastards to Arbour Hill with the rest of the nonces to be fed & watered for A few years at the expense of the tax payer just doesn't seem to be cutting it🇮🇪 THE ONLY GOOD PEDOPHILE IS A DEAD ONE. NO QUESTIONS, NO TALK, JUST DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR & GET RID BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURE FOR THAT TYPE OF EVIL & SICKNESS🇮🇪 I hope that clears everything up for the wankers who NEVER open their mouths about child rape unless it's an Irish person in the papers or on the news. This is not some point scoring competition. These are innocent babies,Precious little souls whose lives are permanently destroyed not just numbers or statistics & if you truly cared instead of slating someone whose working class accent seems to offend you more than the actual unspeakable crimes perpetrated against vulnerable children. Start putting your time to good use & CALL OUT THE MONSTERS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE & DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY & JUSTICE🇮🇪 I won't hold my breath though seeing as how your lot have championed every satanic perversion foisted & forced upon Irish children at the callous & cruel hands of the criminals in suits & their Globalist whoremasters in Europe. Whether it be the introduction to porn for minors in the guise of 'Sex Education' or convincing & manipulating little boys & girls that they were somehow born in the wrong bodies & to mutilate & sterilise themselves. A special place in Hell awaits you all🇮🇪 When these times are studied in years to come the future generations will realise that the only ones who stood up for them & their God given Birthright were the non existent big bad 'FAR RIGHT' AKA CONCERNED PARENTS. True Irish MEN & WOMEN who saw the danger & who willingly stood Infront it no matter what🇮🇪 PROTECT CHILDHOOD INNOCENCE AT ALL COSTS. STAMP THIS EVIL OUT FOR GOOD🇮🇪 God bless🙌éiReGoBragh🇮🇪 MaryFlynnONeill LIZ CROKIN Lara Logan General Mike Flynn James English

Fergus (Ferg) Power

15,911 views • 8 months ago

They Put “You’re So Vain” on a Hall of Fame Stage. That Was the Perfect Joke. Carly Simon wasn't there when the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame finally inducted her in 2022. Sara Bareilles stood in for her, reading Simon's acceptance speech before performing “Nobody Does It Better.” Then Olivia Rodrigo walked out and sang “You're So Vain,” a song that has spent half a century making one unnamed man famous for exactly the wrong reason. There is something almost mischievous about that choice. A Hall of Fame ceremony is built for gratitude: famous people praising famous people, careers being summed up, old achievements given their proper place. “You're So Vain” doesn't really belong to that world. It doesn't thank anybody. It points a finger, raises an eyebrow, and leaves the accused to decide whether the finger is pointing at him. That was part of Carly Simon's gift. She turned a very personal kind of humiliation into a song that never quite gives the listener the satisfaction of a complete answer. Warren Beatty is the only man Simon has publicly acknowledged as part of the song's inspiration, but the mystery around the other details became part of the song's life. By 2022, the mystery almost mattered less than the mechanism. The song had escaped its original relationship and become something much larger: a piece of pop culture about vanity itself. You don't need to know who the man was to recognize him. Most people have met some version of him — the person who walks into a room already convinced the room was waiting for him. Rodrigo was an interesting person to put behind that microphone. At nineteen, she belonged to a generation that had already turned the public breakup into a songwriting language of its own. Her own songs had made private disappointment sound enormous without pretending the feelings were private anymore. Standing inside Simon's song, she wasn't copying that tradition so much as stepping into one of its earlier rooms. And she doesn't need to imitate Simon to make the performance work. The point isn't to become Carly Simon. It is to let a song written fifty years earlier still sound capable of biting someone. That is the strange afterlife of “You're So Vain.” The man at the centre of the mystery has become almost secondary. The song no longer needs its original target to function. Every generation can supply one. Maybe that is the real tribute. Not singing Carly Simon's song gently because she is a legend, but discovering that the sharpest thing she wrote still has teeth. She wasn't there to sing it herself. So another woman did. And for three minutes, a room built to celebrate a career became exactly what the song has always been: a place where somebody gets called out, and everyone else wonders whether it might be them.

They Put “You’re So Vain” on a Hall of Fame Stage. That Was the Perfect Joke. Carly Simon wasn't there when the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame finally inducted her in 2022. Sara Bareilles stood in for her, reading Simon's acceptance speech before performing “Nobody Does It Better.” Then Olivia Rodrigo walked out and sang “You're So Vain,” a song that has spent half a century making one unnamed man famous for exactly the wrong reason. There is something almost mischievous about that choice. A Hall of Fame ceremony is built for gratitude: famous people praising famous people, careers being summed up, old achievements given their proper place. “You're So Vain” doesn't really belong to that world. It doesn't thank anybody. It points a finger, raises an eyebrow, and leaves the accused to decide whether the finger is pointing at him. That was part of Carly Simon's gift. She turned a very personal kind of humiliation into a song that never quite gives the listener the satisfaction of a complete answer. Warren Beatty is the only man Simon has publicly acknowledged as part of the song's inspiration, but the mystery around the other details became part of the song's life. By 2022, the mystery almost mattered less than the mechanism. The song had escaped its original relationship and become something much larger: a piece of pop culture about vanity itself. You don't need to know who the man was to recognize him. Most people have met some version of him — the person who walks into a room already convinced the room was waiting for him. Rodrigo was an interesting person to put behind that microphone. At nineteen, she belonged to a generation that had already turned the public breakup into a songwriting language of its own. Her own songs had made private disappointment sound enormous without pretending the feelings were private anymore. Standing inside Simon's song, she wasn't copying that tradition so much as stepping into one of its earlier rooms. And she doesn't need to imitate Simon to make the performance work. The point isn't to become Carly Simon. It is to let a song written fifty years earlier still sound capable of biting someone. That is the strange afterlife of “You're So Vain.” The man at the centre of the mystery has become almost secondary. The song no longer needs its original target to function. Every generation can supply one. Maybe that is the real tribute. Not singing Carly Simon's song gently because she is a legend, but discovering that the sharpest thing she wrote still has teeth. She wasn't there to sing it herself. So another woman did. And for three minutes, a room built to celebrate a career became exactly what the song has always been: a place where somebody gets called out, and everyone else wonders whether it might be them.

Emotion & Music

63,241 views • 1 month ago

I love and respect dhh as much as any other young programmer who is inspired by his love for computers. But I can't help but imagine that, as a black person, he would not want to see me living in Denmark or the larger Europe, regardless of my contribution to the country. He would prefer Europe to look like it did in the 80s, or to be as homogeneous as Japan, as he said on the Lex pod. He mentions having a positive contribution to the society, but after listening to him more, it seems to me that he cares far less about that than about whether the immigrant looks more like him. That means, even if I contribute to their economy, pay my taxes, raise my family there, and integrate into the culture, he would not really want to see me move there with my immediate black family, because I would be disturbing their homogeneity. I thought for days about what that actually means. It means no matter what I do, no matter how much I give, the door will always come with an asterisk. "You're welcome, but only if you physically blend in." I lived in London and Amsterdam. I contributed positively to their economies, that's why they let me in, in the first place. And I like to think I am well assimilated into the society and culture. But because I do not look like what Britain looked like 100 years ago, nor does my immediate family, dhh would rather not have me live in Europe, or even marry there!? By that logic, would you also tell Jude Bellingham he doesn't belong? Or Sir Lewis Hamilton? Or Marcus Rashford, who fed millions of British children during the pandemic when the government wouldn't? If dhh's version of Europe has no room for people who look like them, then what he is really saying is that contribution doesn't matter. Appearance does. And I get that not everyone assimilates equally, and that it is okay to have standards for who you want in your turf. Every nation has a right to shape its immigration policy. That is not what I am arguing against. But why do it in a way that clearly shows favour and discrimination in equal measure based on how a person looks? Why not simply judge from person to person, instead of categorizing whole groups and communities? Europe immensely benefited from Africa and its resources. They went to Africa and laid the entire continent to siege, extracting minerals, labour, and wealth for centuries. My country is still reeling from those effects to date, having gained independence only about half a century ago. And yet, merely 50 years later, Europe is so harsh to Africans that they do not want them, even legally, accessing opportunities in Europe? There is something deeply contradictory about benefiting from a continent for centuries and then shutting its people out when they come seeking the same prosperity your ancestors built on their backs. Britain has a huge healthcare crisis and a massive shortage of healthcare workers. Guess who is the backbone of that? Immigrants, most of them African and South Asian. They work night shifts, they hold the system together, and they do it quietly. Isn't it irresponsible to walk into a hospital and say, "I do not like the demographics of this hospital. I would have preferred if it looked like it did in the 80s"? I used to think people had a problem with illegal immigration. But no, it is not illegal immigration they oppose. They simply do not want immigration from certain parts of the world. God forbid if you are just a good human being from that part of the world yearning for better opportunities. You can have a PhD, speak the language fluently, pay more in taxes than most locals, and still be told you don't belong, simply because you don't look the part. Why won't we just vet individuals and give everyone a fair chance? Judge the person, not the group. Character, not colour. Contribution, not complexion. I beleive this is not a radical idea, it is the bare minimum of fairness. To dhh, please don't block me for asking this 😅, and I really do hope I am wrong and that you clarify this. Would you happily let me and my black family become your neighbours in Copenhagen, if I don't have a problem with assimilation? Do you feel the same about the USA? I am genuinely asking these questions and I welcome discourse here bc I really do want to believe dhh is a good person and he does not have a problem with people who are not white. And if the answer is no, then what we are really saying is that there is no amount of effort that makes someone like me acceptable. And that is a huge problem for all of us. I hope I am wrong. Kaka.

I love and respect dhh as much as any other young programmer who is inspired by his love for computers. But I can't help but imagine that, as a black person, he would not want to see me living in Denmark or the larger Europe, regardless of my contribution to the country. He would prefer Europe to look like it did in the 80s, or to be as homogeneous as Japan, as he said on the Lex pod. He mentions having a positive contribution to the society, but after listening to him more, it seems to me that he cares far less about that than about whether the immigrant looks more like him. That means, even if I contribute to their economy, pay my taxes, raise my family there, and integrate into the culture, he would not really want to see me move there with my immediate black family, because I would be disturbing their homogeneity. I thought for days about what that actually means. It means no matter what I do, no matter how much I give, the door will always come with an asterisk. "You're welcome, but only if you physically blend in." I lived in London and Amsterdam. I contributed positively to their economies, that's why they let me in, in the first place. And I like to think I am well assimilated into the society and culture. But because I do not look like what Britain looked like 100 years ago, nor does my immediate family, dhh would rather not have me live in Europe, or even marry there!? By that logic, would you also tell Jude Bellingham he doesn't belong? Or Sir Lewis Hamilton? Or Marcus Rashford, who fed millions of British children during the pandemic when the government wouldn't? If dhh's version of Europe has no room for people who look like them, then what he is really saying is that contribution doesn't matter. Appearance does. And I get that not everyone assimilates equally, and that it is okay to have standards for who you want in your turf. Every nation has a right to shape its immigration policy. That is not what I am arguing against. But why do it in a way that clearly shows favour and discrimination in equal measure based on how a person looks? Why not simply judge from person to person, instead of categorizing whole groups and communities? Europe immensely benefited from Africa and its resources. They went to Africa and laid the entire continent to siege, extracting minerals, labour, and wealth for centuries. My country is still reeling from those effects to date, having gained independence only about half a century ago. And yet, merely 50 years later, Europe is so harsh to Africans that they do not want them, even legally, accessing opportunities in Europe? There is something deeply contradictory about benefiting from a continent for centuries and then shutting its people out when they come seeking the same prosperity your ancestors built on their backs. Britain has a huge healthcare crisis and a massive shortage of healthcare workers. Guess who is the backbone of that? Immigrants, most of them African and South Asian. They work night shifts, they hold the system together, and they do it quietly. Isn't it irresponsible to walk into a hospital and say, "I do not like the demographics of this hospital. I would have preferred if it looked like it did in the 80s"? I used to think people had a problem with illegal immigration. But no, it is not illegal immigration they oppose. They simply do not want immigration from certain parts of the world. God forbid if you are just a good human being from that part of the world yearning for better opportunities. You can have a PhD, speak the language fluently, pay more in taxes than most locals, and still be told you don't belong, simply because you don't look the part. Why won't we just vet individuals and give everyone a fair chance? Judge the person, not the group. Character, not colour. Contribution, not complexion. I beleive this is not a radical idea, it is the bare minimum of fairness. To dhh, please don't block me for asking this 😅, and I really do hope I am wrong and that you clarify this. Would you happily let me and my black family become your neighbours in Copenhagen, if I don't have a problem with assimilation? Do you feel the same about the USA? I am genuinely asking these questions and I welcome discourse here bc I really do want to believe dhh is a good person and he does not have a problem with people who are not white. And if the answer is no, then what we are really saying is that there is no amount of effort that makes someone like me acceptable. And that is a huge problem for all of us. I hope I am wrong. Kaka.

Kaka Ruto

540,940 views • 18 days ago

A Harvard professor asked 1 question 4 different ways - and got 4 contradicting answers His name is Michael Sandel. He teaches Justice. He opens the entire course with a hypothetical that takes 30 seconds to state and takes the rest of the hour to unravel. His entire framework fits on a napkin. You're driving a trolley. The brakes fail. 5 workers are on the track ahead. A side track has 1 worker. You can steer. Ask a room of students what they'd do, and the vast majority say the same thing: turn. Better 1 dies than 5. Here is where it falls apart. Change nothing about the math. Change only the mechanism. Now you're standing on a bridge, watching the same runaway trolley bear down on the same 5 workers. Next to you stands a heavy man. Push him off the bridge, his body stops the trolley, 5 live and 1 dies - the exact same trade as before. Almost nobody pushes him. Same numbers. Same outcome. Completely different answer. Sandel doesn't tell the room they're wrong. He asks them to explain the difference, and the room can't agree on one. 1 student argues the fat man never chose to be involved, unlike the worker already standing on the side track - except the worker never chose it either. Another argues that steering a wheel is a "split-second" reaction while pushing a man is deliberate murder - except both require an active, conscious decision to kill 1 person you weren't otherwise going to kill. Every explanation the room offers gets challenged by another student within seconds. Then Sandel tightens the trap further. You're an ER doctor. 5 patients need moderate care, 1 needs intensive care, you can't save all 6. Nearly everyone chooses the 5 - consistent with the trolley. Then: you're a transplant surgeon. 5 patients need 5 different organs. A healthy stranger naps in the next room. You could harvest his organs and save all 5. Almost nobody says yes. Same math, every single time. 1 life against 5. The answer keeps flipping, and the room keeps struggling to explain why. Sandel closes the lecture with a real case from 1884 - the shipwreck of the Mignonette. 4 sailors adrift with no food or water. After 19 days, the captain killed the weakest of them, a 17-year-old crew member, so the other 3 could survive by eating his body. All 3 survivors were rescued. 2 of them stood trial for murder back in England. The room splits immediately. Does it matter that the boy had no family waiting, while the others had wives and children? Is killing 1 to save 3 different in a lifeboat than on a bridge? Is murder wrong regardless of the outcome it produces, or only wrong when the math doesn't justify it? Here is what the lecture is really about. Sandel isn't teaching students the right answer to any of these cases. He's showing them that their own moral intuitions contradict each other within the same hour, under questioning they can't escape - and that noticing the contradiction is the actual beginning of moral philosophy. He teaches this to students who will spend careers making decisions that quietly involve this exact tradeoff - policy, medicine, law, business. Half of them will never examine the framework they're using. The other half will remember the moment their own logic broke in front of a room of strangers. The lecture is free. Harvard has taught it publicly for decades. The barrier was never access. The barrier is sitting with the contradiction long enough to admit you don't actually have a consistent principle - you have a set of feelings that change depending on how the question is asked. The napkin costs nothing. Realizing your moral intuitions contradict each other is the entire edge.

A Harvard professor asked 1 question 4 different ways - and got 4 contradicting answers His name is Michael Sandel. He teaches Justice. He opens the entire course with a hypothetical that takes 30 seconds to state and takes the rest of the hour to unravel. His entire framework fits on a napkin. You're driving a trolley. The brakes fail. 5 workers are on the track ahead. A side track has 1 worker. You can steer. Ask a room of students what they'd do, and the vast majority say the same thing: turn. Better 1 dies than 5. Here is where it falls apart. Change nothing about the math. Change only the mechanism. Now you're standing on a bridge, watching the same runaway trolley bear down on the same 5 workers. Next to you stands a heavy man. Push him off the bridge, his body stops the trolley, 5 live and 1 dies - the exact same trade as before. Almost nobody pushes him. Same numbers. Same outcome. Completely different answer. Sandel doesn't tell the room they're wrong. He asks them to explain the difference, and the room can't agree on one. 1 student argues the fat man never chose to be involved, unlike the worker already standing on the side track - except the worker never chose it either. Another argues that steering a wheel is a "split-second" reaction while pushing a man is deliberate murder - except both require an active, conscious decision to kill 1 person you weren't otherwise going to kill. Every explanation the room offers gets challenged by another student within seconds. Then Sandel tightens the trap further. You're an ER doctor. 5 patients need moderate care, 1 needs intensive care, you can't save all 6. Nearly everyone chooses the 5 - consistent with the trolley. Then: you're a transplant surgeon. 5 patients need 5 different organs. A healthy stranger naps in the next room. You could harvest his organs and save all 5. Almost nobody says yes. Same math, every single time. 1 life against 5. The answer keeps flipping, and the room keeps struggling to explain why. Sandel closes the lecture with a real case from 1884 - the shipwreck of the Mignonette. 4 sailors adrift with no food or water. After 19 days, the captain killed the weakest of them, a 17-year-old crew member, so the other 3 could survive by eating his body. All 3 survivors were rescued. 2 of them stood trial for murder back in England. The room splits immediately. Does it matter that the boy had no family waiting, while the others had wives and children? Is killing 1 to save 3 different in a lifeboat than on a bridge? Is murder wrong regardless of the outcome it produces, or only wrong when the math doesn't justify it? Here is what the lecture is really about. Sandel isn't teaching students the right answer to any of these cases. He's showing them that their own moral intuitions contradict each other within the same hour, under questioning they can't escape - and that noticing the contradiction is the actual beginning of moral philosophy. He teaches this to students who will spend careers making decisions that quietly involve this exact tradeoff - policy, medicine, law, business. Half of them will never examine the framework they're using. The other half will remember the moment their own logic broke in front of a room of strangers. The lecture is free. Harvard has taught it publicly for decades. The barrier was never access. The barrier is sitting with the contradiction long enough to admit you don't actually have a consistent principle - you have a set of feelings that change depending on how the question is asked. The napkin costs nothing. Realizing your moral intuitions contradict each other is the entire edge.

vladuah

30,142 views • 2 months ago

A film that should give you the chills. George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, critic, polemicist, and lifelong socialist activist whose ideas, especially on eugenics, remain among the most disturbing aspects of early 20th-century progressive thought. He became a leading music and theatre critic and one of the most prolific playwrights of his age (over 60 plays, including Pygmalion, later adapted into My Fair Lady). In 1925 he won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Yet it was politics, not literature, that consumed much of his energy. In 1884 Shaw joined the newly founded Fabian Society, a middle-class socialist group that rejected Marxist revolution in favour of permeation, the slow, deliberate infiltration of socialist ideas into existing institutions through education, local government, and legislation. Shaw quickly became its star pamphleteer: he wrote the society’s first manifesto, recruited Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and edited the landmark Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889), which sold tens of thousands of copies and helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the British Labour Party and the welfare state. The Fabians’ brand of socialism was explicitly technocratic. They saw the state as an instrument for rational planning and improvement of the population itself. Many leading Fabians, including the Webbs, H.G. Wells, and Shaw, were enthusiastic supporters of eugenics, the pseudoscience of breeding better humans and eliminating the unfit. They viewed uncontrolled reproduction by the poor or inefficient as a threat to the socialist future they envisioned. Shaw’s most infamous public statement came in a 1931 Paramount Sound Newsreel interview. With a smirk and his distinctive Irish lilt, he proposed that every citizen should periodically appear before a properly appointed board (like an income-tax commissioners) and justify their existence: “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth…If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive” This was not a one-off provocation. As early as 1898 Shaw had written that the majority of Europeans have no business to be alive. In a 1910 lecture to the Eugenics Education Society he openly discussed the need for a lethal chamber and the extensive use of euthanasia because a great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. He also called for a humane gas that could kill painlessly, both for warfare and, he chillingly suggested, domestic use. These ideas were not eccentric outliers; they flowed directly from the Fabian vision of a scientifically managed socialist society. Shaw himself declared in the appendix to Man and Superman (1903): The only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man. Eugenics supplied the scientific tool for perfecting the human material that socialism would then organise. The Fabians saw poverty, crime, and inefficiency as biological problems to be solved by the state, through sterilisation, segregation, or, in Shaw’s rhetoric, elimination. Shaw’s socialism is part of a broader early 20th-century current among intellectuals who believed the state should engineer both the economy and the gene pool. The same Fabian circles that helped create the modern welfare state also flirted with the darkest applications of social efficiency. Shaw never retreated from these views, even after the horrors of the 20th century made them indefensible to most people. Shaw’s gradualism with eugenic social engineering reveals the ultimate destination of all socialist ideals: to grant government the absolute power of God, judge, and jury over human life itself.

Brian Roemmele

56,892 views • 5 months ago

Piddington is a nice village in England about 10 miles northeast of Oxford. Like most nice, kind, middle-class people, they march against the “far-right” and voted Lib Dem, a left-wing party who want to welcome refugees. Then the government announced plans to create an enormous migrant camp holding 1,256 asylum seekers on the edge of Piddington. Piddington's lefties realised they were going to have to deal with the consequences of their own opinions. They thought this camp would be somewhere else, next to some working-class people, as is usual. But no, it’s going to be next to them. So they’re now trying to get the migrants moved - but without looking anti migrant themselves. The local branch of stand up to racism quickly changed its message. Instead of just saying “Refugees welcome”, they added “No to the Bicester asylum camp”. So if they’re welcome, where are they supposed to go? Women of Piddington recorded a video begging women in Parliament to stop the camp. You've got to admire the optimism of appealing to politicians who do nothing while grooming gangs operate across working-class areas, except for telling the victims they should "shut up for the good of diversity". Then Danny Tommo, a working-class patriot street leader whose men in black balaclavas brought Dover to a standstill last weekend, said he was going to attend the village to speak to locals. The prospect of working-class men in the village was more terrifying than the migrant camp for some women. Rachel from Piddington condemned the "far right" and their "fear and xenophobia". Well, if you don't have any fear of this migrant camp, why not let it be built? She also condemned other people in the village for their racism and bigotry - while also saying that they'd made her black husband feel welcome. For a bunch of racists, these villagers don't sound very racist. National newspapers, who'd completely ignored working-class people concerned about migrants in their area, suddenly found the space to run stories about middle-class women worried about camps in their area. Every woman who spoke to the media was keen to stress that they weren't opposed to the migrants coming to Britain - they just didn't think that near their house was a suitable location. Alice West, another Piddington woman, said “There’s published work on the prevalence of depression, hopelessness and suicidal ideation in large-scale, isolated places with limited services, as this would be.” She's just concerned about the migrants getting depressed, guys! Like all the women, she was keen to stress that this wasn't about the background of the men. Alice said, "If you added 1,256 males of any demographic to the end of our village, the risk to women would rise". Really? Because it used to be a military base with 2,500 personnel, mainly men. Nobody was worried about it then. For all that the women protest "it's not about the type of man, it's the numbers, we're too middle class to be racist", they all deliberately chose to live in a place that has one type of man. Piddington is 96% white. The people of Piddington (and their lawyers) have been scrambling to find anything they could get them off the hook for this migrant camp. They've even held a mock referendum whereby their village leaves the UK. But if they're in such a hurry to leave Britain, why don't they just let the migrant camp be built? Then they won't be in Britain anymore. They'll be in Somalia. They eventually found something that could stop the camp: Piddington's population of great crested newts, which are an endangered species (despite appearing in sufficient numbers to stop most vital infrastructure projects in Britain). What sort of country is Britain, where our obligation to international migrant law can only be overruled by our obligation to newts? We should be stopping all migrant camps because of another endangered species: British girls. I've got a feeling that this campaign by the posh women of Piddington is going to be successful, and that sets such a terrible precedent for the future. As soon as this migrant camp is gone, the women in Piddington will go back to donating to migrant charities and slagging off Tommy Robinson and Danny Tommo and anyone else with Tom in their name, and calling working-class patriots thick and racist. Only the middle classes have the resources, the know-how, and the time and the connections to bring political leverage to get the migrant camp out of their area. So we're going to continue with migrants being housed in working-class areas, and this is storing up a tinderbox for the future. I wish the people of Piddington, the people everywhere in Britain, would get over this anxiety, this hang-up of being called racist. Just let yourself be called racist. It doesn't mean anything. It's a trick. It's engineered social pressure designed to make you accept being conquered, having your land taken from you, having your children attacked. I get called racist all the time. I just say, "Thanks!”

Piddington is a nice village in England about 10 miles northeast of Oxford. Like most nice, kind, middle-class people, they march against the “far-right” and voted Lib Dem, a left-wing party who want to welcome refugees. Then the government announced plans to create an enormous migrant camp holding 1,256 asylum seekers on the edge of Piddington. Piddington's lefties realised they were going to have to deal with the consequences of their own opinions. They thought this camp would be somewhere else, next to some working-class people, as is usual. But no, it’s going to be next to them. So they’re now trying to get the migrants moved - but without looking anti migrant themselves. The local branch of stand up to racism quickly changed its message. Instead of just saying “Refugees welcome”, they added “No to the Bicester asylum camp”. So if they’re welcome, where are they supposed to go? Women of Piddington recorded a video begging women in Parliament to stop the camp. You've got to admire the optimism of appealing to politicians who do nothing while grooming gangs operate across working-class areas, except for telling the victims they should "shut up for the good of diversity". Then Danny Tommo, a working-class patriot street leader whose men in black balaclavas brought Dover to a standstill last weekend, said he was going to attend the village to speak to locals. The prospect of working-class men in the village was more terrifying than the migrant camp for some women. Rachel from Piddington condemned the "far right" and their "fear and xenophobia". Well, if you don't have any fear of this migrant camp, why not let it be built? She also condemned other people in the village for their racism and bigotry - while also saying that they'd made her black husband feel welcome. For a bunch of racists, these villagers don't sound very racist. National newspapers, who'd completely ignored working-class people concerned about migrants in their area, suddenly found the space to run stories about middle-class women worried about camps in their area. Every woman who spoke to the media was keen to stress that they weren't opposed to the migrants coming to Britain - they just didn't think that near their house was a suitable location. Alice West, another Piddington woman, said “There’s published work on the prevalence of depression, hopelessness and suicidal ideation in large-scale, isolated places with limited services, as this would be.” She's just concerned about the migrants getting depressed, guys! Like all the women, she was keen to stress that this wasn't about the background of the men. Alice said, "If you added 1,256 males of any demographic to the end of our village, the risk to women would rise". Really? Because it used to be a military base with 2,500 personnel, mainly men. Nobody was worried about it then. For all that the women protest "it's not about the type of man, it's the numbers, we're too middle class to be racist", they all deliberately chose to live in a place that has one type of man. Piddington is 96% white. The people of Piddington (and their lawyers) have been scrambling to find anything they could get them off the hook for this migrant camp. They've even held a mock referendum whereby their village leaves the UK. But if they're in such a hurry to leave Britain, why don't they just let the migrant camp be built? Then they won't be in Britain anymore. They'll be in Somalia. They eventually found something that could stop the camp: Piddington's population of great crested newts, which are an endangered species (despite appearing in sufficient numbers to stop most vital infrastructure projects in Britain). What sort of country is Britain, where our obligation to international migrant law can only be overruled by our obligation to newts? We should be stopping all migrant camps because of another endangered species: British girls. I've got a feeling that this campaign by the posh women of Piddington is going to be successful, and that sets such a terrible precedent for the future. As soon as this migrant camp is gone, the women in Piddington will go back to donating to migrant charities and slagging off Tommy Robinson and Danny Tommo and anyone else with Tom in their name, and calling working-class patriots thick and racist. Only the middle classes have the resources, the know-how, and the time and the connections to bring political leverage to get the migrant camp out of their area. So we're going to continue with migrants being housed in working-class areas, and this is storing up a tinderbox for the future. I wish the people of Piddington, the people everywhere in Britain, would get over this anxiety, this hang-up of being called racist. Just let yourself be called racist. It doesn't mean anything. It's a trick. It's engineered social pressure designed to make you accept being conquered, having your land taken from you, having your children attacked. I get called racist all the time. I just say, "Thanks!”

Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio

105,257 views • 25 days ago

IS IT ADVISABLE TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO IS MORE CAREER-DRIVEN THAN YOU? Hello, friends. Welcome to another episode of Mr & Mrs Better Half. It is designed to strengthen marriages and relationships that will lead to marriage, with wisdom from God's Word. Sometimes ago, I asked some friends, ‘what do you think causes major friction in a marriage?’ One of the answers was money. On further probing, we got into one of the big money issues: “Finances are often problematic when the wife earns more.” A follow-up question: Since few earn millions on their 1st job, how did these women build their finances to surpass their husbands’? Again, we hit another interesting note- ‘some women are too ambitious! If they would just ‘chill’ things would be okay.’ This statement threw up so many questions. Should a wife deliberately go for a low-paying job to avoid earning more than her husband? Should she also perform poorly to ensure she doesn’t get promoted? If she’s offered a raise, should she refuse? Of course, these things sound silly but these are actual options some couples have considered in their homes to preserve the peace. Sometimes, the man actually starts out earning more but calamity strikes and his business/career goes downhill. So the once ‘balanced’ household turns upside down because the woman now pulls most of the financial weight. The big question you should ask is this. ‘Why should money (something so many seem to be chasing) which should make life easier become the very thing that can cause unhappiness? There are 4 things I would like you to consider today- Changing times, Culture, Acceptance and Attitude. A) Changing Times: Men, the days when women in the workplace were oddities have since gone. With advancements in technology, many of the more physical jobs have been taken over by machines. This means that there’s no reason women should be sidelined on the grounds of being physically weaker than men. This coupled with the realization of a woman’s right to express her intelligence means the world has made much progress where women in the workplace are concerned. Today there is hardly any industry where you will not find women doing remarkable things. As a result, it is not uncommon for husbands & wives to earn similar salaries or have the wives even bringing more. The truth is that most men like the added household income- who wouldn’t? The only thing is that they just want to earn more than their wives. This clearly becomes an issue of self-esteem and ego. Please understand that you can’t derive your sense of self from money. Many men think being a man is all about bringing in money. It takes a lot more than that to be a real man. Different things make a man. They include the ability to provide, lead, protect, nurture and love. Men you have to bring more to the table than just money to be an exemplary head of your household. So stop being hung up on money alone. (B) Let’s go to Culture. In the past women were touted as the homemakers while men barely lifted a finger in their homes. What men didn’t understand is that being a homemaker is a very marketable skill! A good homemaker is likely to be very skilled in people and money management, multi-tasking, negotiation skills, etc. You’d think that keeping a woman in the house would incapacitate her in the business terrain but you’d be wrong! Women develop the soft skills required for top-tier management quite early in life! Coupled with formal education, a woman who truly wants to succeed in business is a force to reckon with. Perhaps we should take a look at how we raise our sons these days. We might just be doing them a disservice! (C) Let’s discuss Acceptance. As a man, I understand one’s ego can take a pounding if your wife earns more. Single men dating ladies that earn more often vow to themselves that they'll turn the financial tables around before they get married or shortly after. Like it or not, this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes a woman’s gift will shoot her to the peak of her profession. What will you do? Will you kill yourself trying to earn more? Will you resent her success or do the mature and supportive thing and accept it? I have come to know a certain truth. As much as it might be your preference, who earns more in your relationship is not your call. I will repeat this. It is not your call to determine who earns more in this life. Everyone has a race to run. God has blessed everyone with a unique gift. You cannot determine the extent of another person’s potential. If you can't cope with a successful lady you actually have a problem with self-esteem which is not her problem; it’s yours. Single guys, when you court a lady, look beyond her hips, lips and fingertips and determine her inner ‘horsepower’. Can you envision whom she is likely to be if all things work out for her good? Will you be intimidated by her success? There are ladies who are incredibly brilliant, driven and ambitious. You can tell they are loaded from the onset. Such people tend to have a light shine on them and often end up in the public eye doing great things. You shouldn’t marry someone like that and try to cap her … you will kill her spirit, kill the marriage or kill yourself. Remember that your wife also wants to die empty. Your responsibility as a husband is to give her wings to fly. Be a real man, a secure man. Manage your ego and support her. Now if this is difficult for you to stomach, please don’t marry her. In your house, everyone should be a cheerleader urging each one to victory. If you know you've the tendency to be jealous of people’s progress or be competitive, marry wisely. More importantly, deal with this weakness. It’s a bad one & reeks of emotional immaturity. (D) Finally- Attitude. Sometimes the husbands try to be supportive but the attitudes of the wives make it very hard. I have already addressed the men on attitude and the need to build their self-confidence and be supportive of their wives, but now I’ll speak to the wives. To the women: Do you lord the fact that you earn more over your husband? Do you seize the reins and make the big decisions? If you keep cutting down your husband because you earn more money, you pull down your home with your hands. Please don’t get it twisted. The man remains the head of the home. Don’t let money or your position at work get to your head. Pride is unattractive in anyone and that includes you. Cultivate a gentle, quiet and humble spirit. It’s important to note that money or wealth will always amplify who you really are. If you are compassionate and respectful you will continue to be so regardless of the money you make. If you are crass, rude and disloyal, money will make that more apparent and cause problems in the home. Remember that marriage is a partnership. Your success is really “our success”. His support helped you become successful. Even if he has not been supportive still carry your blessing with decorum and don’t disrespect him. Remember the blessing comes from God. A woman that sees God’s perspective when it comes to the marriage institution will not misbehave when blessed. God has chosen to bless your family through you. Be humbled by the blessing and obedient to God’s order. To both man and wife: keep praying for each other’s success. Both of you should do your best, no one taking advantage of the other. Keep aspiring to get better and more productive. Keep pushing the limits and be the best you can be. God will cause joy to fill your home. I hope this has been helpful to you. I will be back next week with another topic. Until then, thanks for following and retweeting. May your marriages and relationships be sweet! #MrMrsBetterHalf

IS IT ADVISABLE TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO IS MORE CAREER-DRIVEN THAN YOU? Hello, friends. Welcome to another episode of Mr & Mrs Better Half. It is designed to strengthen marriages and relationships that will lead to marriage, with wisdom from God's Word. Sometimes ago, I asked some friends, ‘what do you think causes major friction in a marriage?’ One of the answers was money. On further probing, we got into one of the big money issues: “Finances are often problematic when the wife earns more.” A follow-up question: Since few earn millions on their 1st job, how did these women build their finances to surpass their husbands’? Again, we hit another interesting note- ‘some women are too ambitious! If they would just ‘chill’ things would be okay.’ This statement threw up so many questions. Should a wife deliberately go for a low-paying job to avoid earning more than her husband? Should she also perform poorly to ensure she doesn’t get promoted? If she’s offered a raise, should she refuse? Of course, these things sound silly but these are actual options some couples have considered in their homes to preserve the peace. Sometimes, the man actually starts out earning more but calamity strikes and his business/career goes downhill. So the once ‘balanced’ household turns upside down because the woman now pulls most of the financial weight. The big question you should ask is this. ‘Why should money (something so many seem to be chasing) which should make life easier become the very thing that can cause unhappiness? There are 4 things I would like you to consider today- Changing times, Culture, Acceptance and Attitude. A) Changing Times: Men, the days when women in the workplace were oddities have since gone. With advancements in technology, many of the more physical jobs have been taken over by machines. This means that there’s no reason women should be sidelined on the grounds of being physically weaker than men. This coupled with the realization of a woman’s right to express her intelligence means the world has made much progress where women in the workplace are concerned. Today there is hardly any industry where you will not find women doing remarkable things. As a result, it is not uncommon for husbands & wives to earn similar salaries or have the wives even bringing more. The truth is that most men like the added household income- who wouldn’t? The only thing is that they just want to earn more than their wives. This clearly becomes an issue of self-esteem and ego. Please understand that you can’t derive your sense of self from money. Many men think being a man is all about bringing in money. It takes a lot more than that to be a real man. Different things make a man. They include the ability to provide, lead, protect, nurture and love. Men you have to bring more to the table than just money to be an exemplary head of your household. So stop being hung up on money alone. (B) Let’s go to Culture. In the past women were touted as the homemakers while men barely lifted a finger in their homes. What men didn’t understand is that being a homemaker is a very marketable skill! A good homemaker is likely to be very skilled in people and money management, multi-tasking, negotiation skills, etc. You’d think that keeping a woman in the house would incapacitate her in the business terrain but you’d be wrong! Women develop the soft skills required for top-tier management quite early in life! Coupled with formal education, a woman who truly wants to succeed in business is a force to reckon with. Perhaps we should take a look at how we raise our sons these days. We might just be doing them a disservice! (C) Let’s discuss Acceptance. As a man, I understand one’s ego can take a pounding if your wife earns more. Single men dating ladies that earn more often vow to themselves that they'll turn the financial tables around before they get married or shortly after. Like it or not, this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes a woman’s gift will shoot her to the peak of her profession. What will you do? Will you kill yourself trying to earn more? Will you resent her success or do the mature and supportive thing and accept it? I have come to know a certain truth. As much as it might be your preference, who earns more in your relationship is not your call. I will repeat this. It is not your call to determine who earns more in this life. Everyone has a race to run. God has blessed everyone with a unique gift. You cannot determine the extent of another person’s potential. If you can't cope with a successful lady you actually have a problem with self-esteem which is not her problem; it’s yours. Single guys, when you court a lady, look beyond her hips, lips and fingertips and determine her inner ‘horsepower’. Can you envision whom she is likely to be if all things work out for her good? Will you be intimidated by her success? There are ladies who are incredibly brilliant, driven and ambitious. You can tell they are loaded from the onset. Such people tend to have a light shine on them and often end up in the public eye doing great things. You shouldn’t marry someone like that and try to cap her … you will kill her spirit, kill the marriage or kill yourself. Remember that your wife also wants to die empty. Your responsibility as a husband is to give her wings to fly. Be a real man, a secure man. Manage your ego and support her. Now if this is difficult for you to stomach, please don’t marry her. In your house, everyone should be a cheerleader urging each one to victory. If you know you've the tendency to be jealous of people’s progress or be competitive, marry wisely. More importantly, deal with this weakness. It’s a bad one & reeks of emotional immaturity. (D) Finally- Attitude. Sometimes the husbands try to be supportive but the attitudes of the wives make it very hard. I have already addressed the men on attitude and the need to build their self-confidence and be supportive of their wives, but now I’ll speak to the wives. To the women: Do you lord the fact that you earn more over your husband? Do you seize the reins and make the big decisions? If you keep cutting down your husband because you earn more money, you pull down your home with your hands. Please don’t get it twisted. The man remains the head of the home. Don’t let money or your position at work get to your head. Pride is unattractive in anyone and that includes you. Cultivate a gentle, quiet and humble spirit. It’s important to note that money or wealth will always amplify who you really are. If you are compassionate and respectful you will continue to be so regardless of the money you make. If you are crass, rude and disloyal, money will make that more apparent and cause problems in the home. Remember that marriage is a partnership. Your success is really “our success”. His support helped you become successful. Even if he has not been supportive still carry your blessing with decorum and don’t disrespect him. Remember the blessing comes from God. A woman that sees God’s perspective when it comes to the marriage institution will not misbehave when blessed. God has chosen to bless your family through you. Be humbled by the blessing and obedient to God’s order. To both man and wife: keep praying for each other’s success. Both of you should do your best, no one taking advantage of the other. Keep aspiring to get better and more productive. Keep pushing the limits and be the best you can be. God will cause joy to fill your home. I hope this has been helpful to you. I will be back next week with another topic. Until then, thanks for following and retweeting. May your marriages and relationships be sweet! #MrMrsBetterHalf

Godman Akinlabi

141,613 views • 3 years ago

THE OCCULT ROOTS, ELITE, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and INSTITUTIONS PLAN to ALTER MAN & CONTROL SOCIETY. It was all engineered. From symbolism, to intelligence agencies Mk Ultra programs, to transhumanism, and transgenderism, and where the elite get their pedophi*e beliefs from. This is going to explain the foundation and plan for society and layout a huge piece of the puzzle to help you understand where it all came from and how it started. Many of these occult rooted wealthy socialists knew exactly how they were going to literally bring in their New World Order before most of the methods or techniques even existed, and the crazy part is that it's happening today, exactly like they said it was. The last part of their plan, before it is complete was the sexual revolution, and what do we see happening all around us today with transgenderism, transhumanism, and pedophil*a with children? The plan was to revolutionize Western civilization through counterculture, and a sexual revolution to make the West more amenable to a future of socialist technocracy. They knew if they wanted to win they had to play the long game. These people were thinking generations ahead. This is called the Fabian Society model-the slow burn of implemented ideas to transform society. Their symbol is a literal wolf in sheep's clothing/skin. The Fabian Socialist Technocrats talked about this in the 1920s & 1930s. Like Bertrand Russel, a British philosopher who was one of the very first people who openly lived in a pan/poly relationship before anyone else, who basically helped plan the sexual revolution as well as many others. Herbert George Wells (H.G. Wells), the father of science fiction also wrote a bunch of mainline geopolitical books like "The Open Conspiracy," and "The New World Order." In these books he describes how they would revolutionize Western civilization through counterculture and sexual revolution to a socialist technocracy. These books were literally telling you their plans. The concept of technocracy has roots in ancient ideas like Plato's philosopher kings, and it gained traction during the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression. Technocracy emphasizes the use of technical expertise in decision making often prioritizing scientific evidence and data over political considerations or public opinion. Sounds good in some aspects but it doesn't work overall. So, as counterculture, this sexual revolution, and darker occult practices, like Satanism and Paganism, etc., started to rise up, elites and governments started to catch on to these beliefs and practices and big money went into funding the creation of some institutions, non-profits and other programs along with projects in intelligence agencies in the U.S. and others. This overall takeover of the West and society was both calculated and non-intentional in a way. But from big names involved, The Esalen Institute was born. A non-profit in Big Sur, California that focuses on humanistic alternative education. The Institute played a key role in the Human Potential Movement beginning in the 1960s. The Esalen Institute was founded by Michael Murphy and Dick Price in 1962. It is basically the "think tank" of counterculture and the sexual revolution, promoted by very wealthy and influential people. Their intention was to support alternative methods for exploring human conscientiousness, promoting that everything is divine. One major thing you must understand that the roots of many of the people in Esalen were all into Satanic occult type belief systems and paganistic practices, like from the teachings of Anton LaVey and Aliester Crowley, who both were heavily involved in Satanism and also into pedophil*a and transhumanistic beliefs. Crowley was also a part of British Intelligence/MI5, and heavy into altering the mind with drugs and substances to make contact and change conscientiousness and to be like their own god. Other notable figures of Esalen was Timothy Leary, a psychologist who is also known for his advocacy of psychedelic experiences, a prominent figure of the counterculture movement and heavily into Aliester Crowley's sex revolution beliefs. All these sexual beliefs are associated transhumanism, transgenderism, and pedophil*a. Which is no coincidence why you see the heavy push for this on our society and on our children today. Another very prominent name and usual suspect is David Rockefeller who heavily promoted and funded the Esalen Institution and any others like it and donated millions of dollars to them every single year from the 1970s to around 2004. Rockefeller wasn't the only one and this is just one piece of this overall plan to destroy the West and society itself to bring in this new world. Let's move on. Now we will connect how Mk-Ultra was literally beyond the WW2 German connection and operation paperclip and set up from an arm of these foundations and writings of some of these people who laid the ground work and sparked these ideas into a reality, to be used on Western society and to literally alter man's mind and his actual physical appearance. Bring in the green agenda and convince man that man is the problem. A White Paper was written in the 1970s called, "Changing the Images of Man," put out by the Tavistock Institution. In this key paper they talked about reengineering all of Western civilization's thoughts. Not just about the environment, but also about man himself. The Tavistock Institution of human relations is a British non-profit reaserch and consulting organization, specialising in the study of group behavior. They also have sister companies in China and Germany, and it was established in 1947. They explained about how they needed to convince man that man is the problem. This is exactly where all of your counterculture, sexual revolution, depopulation, antinatalist, transgenderism, transhumanism, pedophil*a, etc., beliefs stem from. You are the problem but you can change yourself. Feb 4, 1932, A Brave New World, and then, A Brave New World Revisited was written. Huxley wrote that this is not fiction, this is a plan of things to come. The 2nd chapter is literally all about child sexual abuse material. This is where all this stuff came about and into our society. Huxley heavily believed in Aliester Crowley's belief systems and partied with Crowley, even attending orgies together. Huxley took Crowley's book, "The Drug Diaries to a government study level in a sense. Which was originally what Crowley was working with to contact entities and perform ritualistic ceremonies and involved with sexual activities with children. Tavistock was basically the British Mk Ultra from the studies originally from Aliester who was also a British intelligence agent with MI5. These drug studies and mind control studies at Tavistock led to the idea that you can engineer and change a human being, not just in his mind, but an entire change of physiology and biology of a person. Hence Transgenderism and Transhumanism, etc. Like how they're literally giving kids drugs and surgeries to "change" their genders today. In 1969 Dr. Holger Hyden who worked on mind control through drugs and medication, etc., was invited to a mind control conference in San Francisco that the Rockefellers sponsored by the CIA's, "Voice of America. Dr. Hyden's papers were about drugs and chemicals actually changing gender in men and women in the future. And look where we are now. The CIA made alliances with the French post modernists and deconstructionists who were a part of Congress for Cultural Freedom. The CIA also had and still does have members who studied and agreed with these same belief systems and started to study mind control after Huxley's brave new world which sparked their interest because of Crowley's actual experimentation actually using drugs to alter conscientiousness and for control or engineering one's mind and the results and studies from the Tavistock and their research. Which all stems back to his Satanic and sexual beliefs. Now we examine the CIA Mk Ultra with Hollywood and it's Mk Ultra program to induce, steer, and mold behavior throughout the population through, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. This was all apart of the mind control program on a grand scale relating to propaganda and drugs. Most A-list celebrities back then were also working or were active intelligence agents who also had DoD badges including Marylyn Monroe, to access the famous Air force location named Laurel Canyon where many operations stemmed from when it came to manipulating the public with music, t.v. and with any other type of influence. Many were recruited to do spy work for intelligence agencies. This was basically them working out their big plan, their agenda, which still happens today with the huge push with the occult and Satanic worship, sexual deviancy, transgenderism, transhumanism, you name it. They even have after school Satan groups in schools for kids starting as young as in kindergarten. This is also why you see the gigantic push for pedophil*a and trying to be able to give children consent and be sexualized, while horrific laws are being passed to reduce penalties for child predators. This is the type of "Brave New World" they want. The last step before bringing in their New World is the sexual revolution aspect which includes transgenderism, pedophil*a, transhumanism, Satanism, the green agenda, and depopulation. But the sexual revolution is the most important and last step. The fall of Rome also occurred when this type of sexual activity occurred as well. Something to really take into consideration and compare it to where we are now. Every single one of these ideologies and beliefs all stem from these wealthy elite individuals, institutions and belief systems that they all planned decades ago and it's literally happening right in front of us. There is so much more to this but this gives you an introduction or a starting point to connect the dots of where it all came from during the past century, which directly is impacting our lives and society. They are now experiencing heavy pushback. We're onto them and their ultimate plan. They gave us the roadmap. It's up to you to understand it and up to all of us to stop it.

THE OCCULT ROOTS, ELITE, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and INSTITUTIONS PLAN to ALTER MAN & CONTROL SOCIETY. It was all engineered. From symbolism, to intelligence agencies Mk Ultra programs, to transhumanism, and transgenderism, and where the elite get their pedophie beliefs from. This is going to explain the foundation and plan for society and layout a huge piece of the puzzle to help you understand where it all came from and how it started. Many of these occult rooted wealthy socialists knew exactly how they were going to literally bring in their New World Order before most of the methods or techniques even existed, and the crazy part is that it's happening today, exactly like they said it was. The last part of their plan, before it is complete was the sexual revolution, and what do we see happening all around us today with transgenderism, transhumanism, and pedophila with children? The plan was to revolutionize Western civilization through counterculture, and a sexual revolution to make the West more amenable to a future of socialist technocracy. They knew if they wanted to win they had to play the long game. These people were thinking generations ahead. This is called the Fabian Society model-the slow burn of implemented ideas to transform society. Their symbol is a literal wolf in sheep's clothing/skin. The Fabian Socialist Technocrats talked about this in the 1920s & 1930s. Like Bertrand Russel, a British philosopher who was one of the very first people who openly lived in a pan/poly relationship before anyone else, who basically helped plan the sexual revolution as well as many others. Herbert George Wells (H.G. Wells), the father of science fiction also wrote a bunch of mainline geopolitical books like "The Open Conspiracy," and "The New World Order." In these books he describes how they would revolutionize Western civilization through counterculture and sexual revolution to a socialist technocracy. These books were literally telling you their plans. The concept of technocracy has roots in ancient ideas like Plato's philosopher kings, and it gained traction during the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression. Technocracy emphasizes the use of technical expertise in decision making often prioritizing scientific evidence and data over political considerations or public opinion. Sounds good in some aspects but it doesn't work overall. So, as counterculture, this sexual revolution, and darker occult practices, like Satanism and Paganism, etc., started to rise up, elites and governments started to catch on to these beliefs and practices and big money went into funding the creation of some institutions, non-profits and other programs along with projects in intelligence agencies in the U.S. and others. This overall takeover of the West and society was both calculated and non-intentional in a way. But from big names involved, The Esalen Institute was born. A non-profit in Big Sur, California that focuses on humanistic alternative education. The Institute played a key role in the Human Potential Movement beginning in the 1960s. The Esalen Institute was founded by Michael Murphy and Dick Price in 1962. It is basically the "think tank" of counterculture and the sexual revolution, promoted by very wealthy and influential people. Their intention was to support alternative methods for exploring human conscientiousness, promoting that everything is divine. One major thing you must understand that the roots of many of the people in Esalen were all into Satanic occult type belief systems and paganistic practices, like from the teachings of Anton LaVey and Aliester Crowley, who both were heavily involved in Satanism and also into pedophila and transhumanistic beliefs. Crowley was also a part of British Intelligence/MI5, and heavy into altering the mind with drugs and substances to make contact and change conscientiousness and to be like their own god. Other notable figures of Esalen was Timothy Leary, a psychologist who is also known for his advocacy of psychedelic experiences, a prominent figure of the counterculture movement and heavily into Aliester Crowley's sex revolution beliefs. All these sexual beliefs are associated transhumanism, transgenderism, and pedophila. Which is no coincidence why you see the heavy push for this on our society and on our children today. Another very prominent name and usual suspect is David Rockefeller who heavily promoted and funded the Esalen Institution and any others like it and donated millions of dollars to them every single year from the 1970s to around 2004. Rockefeller wasn't the only one and this is just one piece of this overall plan to destroy the West and society itself to bring in this new world. Let's move on. Now we will connect how Mk-Ultra was literally beyond the WW2 German connection and operation paperclip and set up from an arm of these foundations and writings of some of these people who laid the ground work and sparked these ideas into a reality, to be used on Western society and to literally alter man's mind and his actual physical appearance. Bring in the green agenda and convince man that man is the problem. A White Paper was written in the 1970s called, "Changing the Images of Man," put out by the Tavistock Institution. In this key paper they talked about reengineering all of Western civilization's thoughts. Not just about the environment, but also about man himself. The Tavistock Institution of human relations is a British non-profit reaserch and consulting organization, specialising in the study of group behavior. They also have sister companies in China and Germany, and it was established in 1947. They explained about how they needed to convince man that man is the problem. This is exactly where all of your counterculture, sexual revolution, depopulation, antinatalist, transgenderism, transhumanism, pedophila, etc., beliefs stem from. You are the problem but you can change yourself. Feb 4, 1932, A Brave New World, and then, A Brave New World Revisited was written. Huxley wrote that this is not fiction, this is a plan of things to come. The 2nd chapter is literally all about child sexual abuse material. This is where all this stuff came about and into our society. Huxley heavily believed in Aliester Crowley's belief systems and partied with Crowley, even attending orgies together. Huxley took Crowley's book, "The Drug Diaries to a government study level in a sense. Which was originally what Crowley was working with to contact entities and perform ritualistic ceremonies and involved with sexual activities with children. Tavistock was basically the British Mk Ultra from the studies originally from Aliester who was also a British intelligence agent with MI5. These drug studies and mind control studies at Tavistock led to the idea that you can engineer and change a human being, not just in his mind, but an entire change of physiology and biology of a person. Hence Transgenderism and Transhumanism, etc. Like how they're literally giving kids drugs and surgeries to "change" their genders today. In 1969 Dr. Holger Hyden who worked on mind control through drugs and medication, etc., was invited to a mind control conference in San Francisco that the Rockefellers sponsored by the CIA's, "Voice of America. Dr. Hyden's papers were about drugs and chemicals actually changing gender in men and women in the future. And look where we are now. The CIA made alliances with the French post modernists and deconstructionists who were a part of Congress for Cultural Freedom. The CIA also had and still does have members who studied and agreed with these same belief systems and started to study mind control after Huxley's brave new world which sparked their interest because of Crowley's actual experimentation actually using drugs to alter conscientiousness and for control or engineering one's mind and the results and studies from the Tavistock and their research. Which all stems back to his Satanic and sexual beliefs. Now we examine the CIA Mk Ultra with Hollywood and it's Mk Ultra program to induce, steer, and mold behavior throughout the population through, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. This was all apart of the mind control program on a grand scale relating to propaganda and drugs. Most A-list celebrities back then were also working or were active intelligence agents who also had DoD badges including Marylyn Monroe, to access the famous Air force location named Laurel Canyon where many operations stemmed from when it came to manipulating the public with music, t.v. and with any other type of influence. Many were recruited to do spy work for intelligence agencies. This was basically them working out their big plan, their agenda, which still happens today with the huge push with the occult and Satanic worship, sexual deviancy, transgenderism, transhumanism, you name it. They even have after school Satan groups in schools for kids starting as young as in kindergarten. This is also why you see the gigantic push for pedophila and trying to be able to give children consent and be sexualized, while horrific laws are being passed to reduce penalties for child predators. This is the type of "Brave New World" they want. The last step before bringing in their New World is the sexual revolution aspect which includes transgenderism, pedophil*a, transhumanism, Satanism, the green agenda, and depopulation. But the sexual revolution is the most important and last step. The fall of Rome also occurred when this type of sexual activity occurred as well. Something to really take into consideration and compare it to where we are now. Every single one of these ideologies and beliefs all stem from these wealthy elite individuals, institutions and belief systems that they all planned decades ago and it's literally happening right in front of us. There is so much more to this but this gives you an introduction or a starting point to connect the dots of where it all came from during the past century, which directly is impacting our lives and society. They are now experiencing heavy pushback. We're onto them and their ultimate plan. They gave us the roadmap. It's up to you to understand it and up to all of us to stop it.

The SCIF

85,521 views • 1 year ago

Dr Jim Chalmers PhD is a smartarse. He let fly on Sussan Ley today, and for the first time since Albanese became leader of the Labor Party, they are worried. They are not afraid of Ley. They are trying to shame her into stepping back into the Net Zero love in. The place where all the establishment elite hang out, eat fine food and slap each other on the back with their gym towels. Ley will be susceptible to this, because deep down she has a strong conviction, an unwavering belief in serving the establishment power and finding the path of least resistance. (The coalition needs a new leader and a new front bench.) But the absolute tantrum being thrown around the Australian institutions right now, can be heard from New Zealand. It shows the coalition are indeed over the target, and that with Australia first policies built on good principles, they can win. All the Labor and Green sympathisers in the media, the pollsters, the academics, the commentariat and the politicians themselves are desperately trying to convince the coalition that they will not win ever again if they change course on Net Zero, climate action and a raft of other things. I am not sure if they are just not that bright, or if they just think we are stupid, but I can’t understand why all these people are so worried about the fortunes of their political opposition. An opposition they really can’t stand. I think it is more likely they are scared that without the coalition pretending along with them on the made-up issues like the desperate need for Net Zero, they will have to tackle some of our real-world problems. Oh… and the big, gigantic taxpayer funded money-go-round will stop. Which means they will have to get real jobs… “yuck”. When Jim Chalmers, called anyone who doesn’t think Net Zero is a good idea “cookers” and “crackpots”, it seemed to me he thinks that the massive opposition to what is now obviously failed policy, is just a fringe group. It isn’t. Anyone with half a brain cell can see the cost of electricity has gone up faster than the transition itself. We have watched the aftermath of the closing of one coal-fired power station after another, being replaced with finicky, intermittent and ill fit ‘renewable’ solutions. It is in every power bill and plastered on the exit door of every major manufacturing-based business closure. It is in the cost of everything we have and do. But the game is over. The world is moving on from Net Zero. We are not even that worried about the clearly overstated climate problem so much anymore. Because they cried wolf, time after time, they bashed us over the head from their private jets champagne in hand, as they called us names. We disgust them. It is clear the Labor/Green arguments on climate have been overstated. The solutions ill thought through and undercooked. The only real winners have been the billionaires, lobbyists and ex-politicians who seem to have extracted more welfare from the Australian public than the NDIS and Centrelink combined, as they are paid to provide infrastructure that does not work. Only to shelve it and ask for another hand-out for the next one. Which they get. The problem is that intermittent energy generation like solar and wind is unstable - by design - and battery technology is far from where it would need to be to stabilise it. Electricity provision is a delicate balance of supply and demand, and random, unpredictable power generation is counterproductive. Too much electricity is as bad as not enough. Simple, predictable and reliable energy sources will always be cheaper. Energy sources that are not reliant on the unpredictable weather, or transient cloud free daylight. the "transition" was always a terrible plan and doomed to fail. That's before you even get to the disastrous execution. The elites really do take us for fools; it's not like any of this was an unknown to them at any point. Meanwhile average household incomes are being beaten into insignificance by inflation, driven by an energy system that has become more complex, and unstable than a Swiss watch balanced on the mast of a yacht, sailing the Sydney to Hobart. Chalmers has never had a real job, but he calls us names. Us... we the people who pay his salary. After the mess he and his mates have caused, he has no right to call us names. In truth, he owes us all an apology. I am certain we would be better off without his help, and I for one begrudge him every dollar he has ever made off the back of the taxpayer. He is a disrespectful, incompetent, and ungrateful waste of a seat. A smartarse of a man not fit to be treasurer. We must do better. I just want Australia back.

Dr Jim Chalmers PhD is a smartarse. He let fly on Sussan Ley today, and for the first time since Albanese became leader of the Labor Party, they are worried. They are not afraid of Ley. They are trying to shame her into stepping back into the Net Zero love in. The place where all the establishment elite hang out, eat fine food and slap each other on the back with their gym towels. Ley will be susceptible to this, because deep down she has a strong conviction, an unwavering belief in serving the establishment power and finding the path of least resistance. (The coalition needs a new leader and a new front bench.) But the absolute tantrum being thrown around the Australian institutions right now, can be heard from New Zealand. It shows the coalition are indeed over the target, and that with Australia first policies built on good principles, they can win. All the Labor and Green sympathisers in the media, the pollsters, the academics, the commentariat and the politicians themselves are desperately trying to convince the coalition that they will not win ever again if they change course on Net Zero, climate action and a raft of other things. I am not sure if they are just not that bright, or if they just think we are stupid, but I can’t understand why all these people are so worried about the fortunes of their political opposition. An opposition they really can’t stand. I think it is more likely they are scared that without the coalition pretending along with them on the made-up issues like the desperate need for Net Zero, they will have to tackle some of our real-world problems. Oh… and the big, gigantic taxpayer funded money-go-round will stop. Which means they will have to get real jobs… “yuck”. When Jim Chalmers, called anyone who doesn’t think Net Zero is a good idea “cookers” and “crackpots”, it seemed to me he thinks that the massive opposition to what is now obviously failed policy, is just a fringe group. It isn’t. Anyone with half a brain cell can see the cost of electricity has gone up faster than the transition itself. We have watched the aftermath of the closing of one coal-fired power station after another, being replaced with finicky, intermittent and ill fit ‘renewable’ solutions. It is in every power bill and plastered on the exit door of every major manufacturing-based business closure. It is in the cost of everything we have and do. But the game is over. The world is moving on from Net Zero. We are not even that worried about the clearly overstated climate problem so much anymore. Because they cried wolf, time after time, they bashed us over the head from their private jets champagne in hand, as they called us names. We disgust them. It is clear the Labor/Green arguments on climate have been overstated. The solutions ill thought through and undercooked. The only real winners have been the billionaires, lobbyists and ex-politicians who seem to have extracted more welfare from the Australian public than the NDIS and Centrelink combined, as they are paid to provide infrastructure that does not work. Only to shelve it and ask for another hand-out for the next one. Which they get. The problem is that intermittent energy generation like solar and wind is unstable - by design - and battery technology is far from where it would need to be to stabilise it. Electricity provision is a delicate balance of supply and demand, and random, unpredictable power generation is counterproductive. Too much electricity is as bad as not enough. Simple, predictable and reliable energy sources will always be cheaper. Energy sources that are not reliant on the unpredictable weather, or transient cloud free daylight. the "transition" was always a terrible plan and doomed to fail. That's before you even get to the disastrous execution. The elites really do take us for fools; it's not like any of this was an unknown to them at any point. Meanwhile average household incomes are being beaten into insignificance by inflation, driven by an energy system that has become more complex, and unstable than a Swiss watch balanced on the mast of a yacht, sailing the Sydney to Hobart. Chalmers has never had a real job, but he calls us names. Us... we the people who pay his salary. After the mess he and his mates have caused, he has no right to call us names. In truth, he owes us all an apology. I am certain we would be better off without his help, and I for one begrudge him every dollar he has ever made off the back of the taxpayer. He is a disrespectful, incompetent, and ungrateful waste of a seat. A smartarse of a man not fit to be treasurer. We must do better. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

35,976 views • 11 months ago

I Spent $100k On Developers Before Learning This: Build Your AI Bot Today the blueprint to building your first ai trading bot without a degree or a single clue where to start is hidden in plain sight. most people think you need a stanford degree or some crazy math background to build these systems but i spent ten years in tech scared to code for that exact reason. i thought it was only for the geniuses and the nerds while i was just a guy who played video games and wanted his time back the reality is that code is the great equalizer because it doesn't care who you are or where you came from. i lost hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring developers who did shoddy work and i lost even more through liquidations and over trading because i was too emotional to follow my own rules. i knew i had to automate everything if i wanted to survive this game so i decided to learn live on youtube and iterate my way to success everyone is looking for the holy grail indicator that prints money while they sleep but they are looking in the wrong place. the real secret isn't a magical line on a chart but a process i call the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. most traders fail because they try to build a bot before they even know if their strategy worked in the past which is basically just gambling with extra steps you have to start with deep research into a strategy like supply and demand zones where you buy where the banks buy and sell where they sell. once you have a solid idea you must backtest it against years of data to see if it actually has an edge. if it doesn't work in the past it definitely won't work in the future but if it shows promise then you move to the implementation phase with small size there is a hidden cost to automation that can wipe out your profits before you even place a trade if you aren't careful. i found myself overusing api credits and running up a massive bill just to fetch wallet balances and token lists. if your bot is calling the exchange every five seconds just to see how much money you have you are essentially burning cash for no reason you can use ai tools like cursor to help you write the python code even if you are a total beginner. i still use ai to explain complex functions and identify where my code is being inefficient or chewing through credits. i had to refactor my entire dashboard and timer logic to only check balances every thirty minutes instead of every few seconds to save those precious credits the man who made thirty one billion dollars in the markets had one rule he never broke throughout his entire career. jim simons was the greatest algorithmic trader to ever live and he proved that systems will always beat human intuition over a long enough timeline. his secret wasn't some complex formula that no one else could understand but a commitment to a specific way of thinking simons always said you just have to make your systems better and better because that is what everyone else is trying to do. the game never really ends because the markets are always evolving and your edge will eventually decay if you don't iterate. this is why i build in public and show every step of the process because the iteration is where the actual money is made the reason you get liquidated isn't the market or the whales or some conspiracy against your small account. the real reason is the conversation you have with yourself at two in the morning when you are down on a trade and decide to move your stop loss. humans are built for survival not for trading and our emotions like fomo and fear will always sabotage our results when you automate your trading you are essentially signing a non negotiable contract with yourself that the bot will execute without question. if the plan says to sell fifty percent in an uptrend and ninety five percent in a downtrend the bot does it every single time. it doesn't feel the panic when a red candle drops or the greed when a green one spikes it just follows the code i used to spend all day staring at screens chasing bars up and down thinking that more screen time equaled more profit. i got into trading to get my time back but i ended up becoming a slave to the charts until i finally learned to code. now i have fully automated systems trading for me instead of getting liquidated because i removed the weakest link in the system which was me you don't need to spend ten years learning how to code before you can start building your own trading bots. if you spend three to six months getting the gist of python and using ai to bridge the gap you can start building immediately. start with a simple supply and demand bot that looks for major coin trends and only enters when the odds are heavily in your favor by checking the trend of bitcoin ethereum and solana simultaneously you can ensure you aren't fighting the overall market direction. i look for at least two out of those three to be trending before my bot is even allowed to look for an entry. this simple filter alone can save you from thousands of dollars in paper cuts during choppy sideways markets if you can't fly then run and if you can't run then walk but by all means you must keep moving toward automation. the process of taking an idea out of your brain and putting it into a system is the most secretive and valuable skill in the world. don't follow the pack and try to solve the same problems as everyone else but find your own edge and code it into existence the deal you make with yourself at the start of your journey is what determines if you will actually make it or not. i made a contract with myself to learn live and show everything because i believe that transparency is the only way to truly learn this craft. stick to your plan and iterate every single day because the systems you build today are the equalizers that will change your life tomorrow

I Spent $100k On Developers Before Learning This: Build Your AI Bot Today the blueprint to building your first ai trading bot without a degree or a single clue where to start is hidden in plain sight. most people think you need a stanford degree or some crazy math background to build these systems but i spent ten years in tech scared to code for that exact reason. i thought it was only for the geniuses and the nerds while i was just a guy who played video games and wanted his time back the reality is that code is the great equalizer because it doesn't care who you are or where you came from. i lost hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring developers who did shoddy work and i lost even more through liquidations and over trading because i was too emotional to follow my own rules. i knew i had to automate everything if i wanted to survive this game so i decided to learn live on youtube and iterate my way to success everyone is looking for the holy grail indicator that prints money while they sleep but they are looking in the wrong place. the real secret isn't a magical line on a chart but a process i call the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. most traders fail because they try to build a bot before they even know if their strategy worked in the past which is basically just gambling with extra steps you have to start with deep research into a strategy like supply and demand zones where you buy where the banks buy and sell where they sell. once you have a solid idea you must backtest it against years of data to see if it actually has an edge. if it doesn't work in the past it definitely won't work in the future but if it shows promise then you move to the implementation phase with small size there is a hidden cost to automation that can wipe out your profits before you even place a trade if you aren't careful. i found myself overusing api credits and running up a massive bill just to fetch wallet balances and token lists. if your bot is calling the exchange every five seconds just to see how much money you have you are essentially burning cash for no reason you can use ai tools like cursor to help you write the python code even if you are a total beginner. i still use ai to explain complex functions and identify where my code is being inefficient or chewing through credits. i had to refactor my entire dashboard and timer logic to only check balances every thirty minutes instead of every few seconds to save those precious credits the man who made thirty one billion dollars in the markets had one rule he never broke throughout his entire career. jim simons was the greatest algorithmic trader to ever live and he proved that systems will always beat human intuition over a long enough timeline. his secret wasn't some complex formula that no one else could understand but a commitment to a specific way of thinking simons always said you just have to make your systems better and better because that is what everyone else is trying to do. the game never really ends because the markets are always evolving and your edge will eventually decay if you don't iterate. this is why i build in public and show every step of the process because the iteration is where the actual money is made the reason you get liquidated isn't the market or the whales or some conspiracy against your small account. the real reason is the conversation you have with yourself at two in the morning when you are down on a trade and decide to move your stop loss. humans are built for survival not for trading and our emotions like fomo and fear will always sabotage our results when you automate your trading you are essentially signing a non negotiable contract with yourself that the bot will execute without question. if the plan says to sell fifty percent in an uptrend and ninety five percent in a downtrend the bot does it every single time. it doesn't feel the panic when a red candle drops or the greed when a green one spikes it just follows the code i used to spend all day staring at screens chasing bars up and down thinking that more screen time equaled more profit. i got into trading to get my time back but i ended up becoming a slave to the charts until i finally learned to code. now i have fully automated systems trading for me instead of getting liquidated because i removed the weakest link in the system which was me you don't need to spend ten years learning how to code before you can start building your own trading bots. if you spend three to six months getting the gist of python and using ai to bridge the gap you can start building immediately. start with a simple supply and demand bot that looks for major coin trends and only enters when the odds are heavily in your favor by checking the trend of bitcoin ethereum and solana simultaneously you can ensure you aren't fighting the overall market direction. i look for at least two out of those three to be trending before my bot is even allowed to look for an entry. this simple filter alone can save you from thousands of dollars in paper cuts during choppy sideways markets if you can't fly then run and if you can't run then walk but by all means you must keep moving toward automation. the process of taking an idea out of your brain and putting it into a system is the most secretive and valuable skill in the world. don't follow the pack and try to solve the same problems as everyone else but find your own edge and code it into existence the deal you make with yourself at the start of your journey is what determines if you will actually make it or not. i made a contract with myself to learn live and show everything because i believe that transparency is the only way to truly learn this craft. stick to your plan and iterate every single day because the systems you build today are the equalizers that will change your life tomorrow

Moon Dev

11,726 views • 8 months ago

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUMP & EPSTEIN. The truth must be stated and not overlooked. Yes, Trump is in the Epstein files but not as many would think. So technically, Elon is not lying. Trump just is not implicated in the Epstein files in a nefarious sick way like many others are such as have half of Hollywood and people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and other wealthy elite individuals are. Everyone always shows the same video and same couple pictures and say's, see? He's guilty. But this couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes Trump is had another wealthy person at his events and knew Epstein before he was ever arrested in 2005-2006 for sexual crimes against a minor, Trump broke off his relationship and banned him from ever stepping foot in Mar-a-Lago ever again for hitting on another members young daughter. When it comes to being on the flight logs, yes, Trump is on it as well from the little time they spent together before anything was ever known or public or before he was ever even arrested. Epstein's own pilot admitted that Trump did fly from West Palm Beach to Newark New Jersey, on January 5, 1997, and it wasn't even on the Lolita Express that was the Epstein Island's main shuttle jet. It was on a completely other aircraft. Finally another huge revelation is the prosecutor in the Epstein case who admitted that out of every single person, politician, and celebrity he asked for help to prosecute Epstein, Trump was the ONLY ONE who helped him prosecute Epstein to make sure he made it behind bars and cooperated and gave him as much time as he needed. All the victims of Epstein and others also all supported Trump throughout the case and his presidency and many have stated that Trump has never done anything to them and that they have never seen him on the Island. Do you really believe if Trump was guilty in anyway, all his dirty laundry wouldn't have been aired out in 2016, or the 2 previous elections with Biden and Kamala? Give me a break. They'd be watering at the mouth the first chance they'd get to drop the news. There's nothing there folks. Stop buying everything at the surface level. This operation has never ended. Sometimes you need to force or push your opposition to make a move or expose themselves. Remember, there are layers, optics, and timing to everything you see happening. Don't buy everything at the surface level. Think deeper. Lastly, I am strictly for the people, the children, the country, and the truth. It doesn't matter who you are, what side your own, or your beliefs. As long as your for the same things, your good in my book. And if Donald Trump was involved in a nefarious way, then he can go down too. But one thing I will tell you is that many would have never supported him if he was ever guilty in the first place. The man can not be bought and is not compromised. He genuinely cares about people and his country. Think bigger people. The show must go on. There are no coincidences.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUMP & EPSTEIN. The truth must be stated and not overlooked. Yes, Trump is in the Epstein files but not as many would think. So technically, Elon is not lying. Trump just is not implicated in the Epstein files in a nefarious sick way like many others are such as have half of Hollywood and people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and other wealthy elite individuals are. Everyone always shows the same video and same couple pictures and say's, see? He's guilty. But this couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes Trump is had another wealthy person at his events and knew Epstein before he was ever arrested in 2005-2006 for sexual crimes against a minor, Trump broke off his relationship and banned him from ever stepping foot in Mar-a-Lago ever again for hitting on another members young daughter. When it comes to being on the flight logs, yes, Trump is on it as well from the little time they spent together before anything was ever known or public or before he was ever even arrested. Epstein's own pilot admitted that Trump did fly from West Palm Beach to Newark New Jersey, on January 5, 1997, and it wasn't even on the Lolita Express that was the Epstein Island's main shuttle jet. It was on a completely other aircraft. Finally another huge revelation is the prosecutor in the Epstein case who admitted that out of every single person, politician, and celebrity he asked for help to prosecute Epstein, Trump was the ONLY ONE who helped him prosecute Epstein to make sure he made it behind bars and cooperated and gave him as much time as he needed. All the victims of Epstein and others also all supported Trump throughout the case and his presidency and many have stated that Trump has never done anything to them and that they have never seen him on the Island. Do you really believe if Trump was guilty in anyway, all his dirty laundry wouldn't have been aired out in 2016, or the 2 previous elections with Biden and Kamala? Give me a break. They'd be watering at the mouth the first chance they'd get to drop the news. There's nothing there folks. Stop buying everything at the surface level. This operation has never ended. Sometimes you need to force or push your opposition to make a move or expose themselves. Remember, there are layers, optics, and timing to everything you see happening. Don't buy everything at the surface level. Think deeper. Lastly, I am strictly for the people, the children, the country, and the truth. It doesn't matter who you are, what side your own, or your beliefs. As long as your for the same things, your good in my book. And if Donald Trump was involved in a nefarious way, then he can go down too. But one thing I will tell you is that many would have never supported him if he was ever guilty in the first place. The man can not be bought and is not compromised. He genuinely cares about people and his country. Think bigger people. The show must go on. There are no coincidences.

The SCIF

793,651 views • 1 year ago

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 views • 4 months ago

"[My mom], she, honestly, started crying." ~BF Someone Is Lying "I'm willing to do [a lie detector test]...if people are that interested in whether this happened or not." ~BF ~ John Herrington (JH): "I am now beginning to think we got a Fauci syndrome underway in some of the area you're working." (Whenever JH had the chance, he made things political. Fauci, appointed by Biden = Bad. Clapper ("not a name I respect.") and John Brennan (Jesse: "also a mixed bag" JH: "Likewise"). Both were appointed by Obama. But who gives a f**k? Both have spoken about UFOs, with Brennan saying UFOs may constitute a different form of life and Clapper, according to Grusch, may have a managed a UFO crash retrieval program. Plus, JH added that, "I think [Trump is] gonna go down as a historic president. What he's doing is incredible.") ~ JH: "I watched one of your guys sit here, who I know, and I talked to you about this, who absolutely fabricated a total story." (He knows him? I thought he only knew him as a baby?) Jesse (Jesse Michels): "So tell the audience what you're talking about." JH: "You had a guy interviewed who used to be a neighbor of ours in Walnut Creek. And we hired him to drive our car to Washington. He then claims that he saw me..." (According to Brent Friedman (Brent Friedman), Ben Schreckinger contacted him in 2025.) Friedman: "I was approached last November by a journalist formerly with Politico. Ben [Schreckinger]. And he said that he had heard my story going around about John Herrington and wanted to get my side of the story. And this was pre, 'Sound, Light and Frequency.' So I said, 'Well, I'm gonna tell my story in the podcast. So when that comes out, you'll have everything you need to know.' "And he said, 'Okay, well, just so you understand, John says he doesn't even remember you. You you might have been his neighbor, he has no recollection. But you never drove any cars across the country, and he certainly never talked to you about aliens." Jesse Michels: "Did he publish that, that journalist?" Friedman: "Well, that journalist has reached back out to me because he is, oddly...coincidentally, this week or end of last week, he suddenly decided the story was viable or vital, and he wanted to give me one last chance to kind of refute everything, which I denied." (This is what Schreckinger published on September 17th after he spoke with Herrington late last year for "Paradigm News.") "Herrington also said that he really did pay to have his car driven across the country. “'That’s a true story, but Brent Friedman had nothing to do with it,' he said. Instead, Herrington said he had hired his son-in-law to drive his car." (From November of last year, to this recent interview with Jesse, its a major flip flop by Herrington. Did he realize there might be some evidence that Friedman drove the car and he decided (or was told) to change his story? A few of us speculated that maybe Herrington wants to share what he knows (assuming everything Friedman has said is true) but can't do it because of his NDAs or security oath. So...the next best thing is to make an obvious flip flop like that, to let people know he's throwing them a bone. I saw the same thing with Admiral Wilson. I'm gonna go with Herrington changing his story because he knew evidence might surface to show he's lying. Deep down, I think Herrington wants this all to remain secret and he gave you a reason early on in this interview with Jesse. I'll tackle that in another post.) ~ Jesse: "What's his name, real quick?" JH: "Brent Friedman. He said that I came home after he arrived in Washington, and I had been to a secret place, I carried a briefcase chained to my wrist. I had a driver in a limousine. You got to understand, I arrived in Washington as a peon." (At the time Friedman claims Herrington spilled his cuts (Summer of 1981), I believe Herrington was more than just a peon or intern in DC but I could be wrong.) Herrington: "At the time, I was working in personnel. We were reviewing resumes for positions in the government. I was working in the White House political office for Lyn Nofzinger as an intern for him, and we were going through early stages of the Reagan administration. It was later that I came in as personnel department, and I wasn't the head of it, I was..." Jesse: "What year was that? JH: "It would be June of '81." Jesse: "That was after Brent had come?" JH: "Right." Michels: "Okay." (Not okay. This seems to be another problem for JH. Brent says he drove JH's car across the country in the summer of 1981. Herrington is making it sound like he was an intern at that time and didn't move on to the personnel department until "later.") Here's what "The American Presidency Project" says.... "During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Mr. Herrington was a full-time volunteer advance man with the Reagan for President committee. Following the Republican National Convention he was named western regional director for advance. "[On May 6th, 1981] - The President...announced the appointment of John S. Herrington to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel." (Sounds like more than a peon or intern but maybe someone like Marik vR can dig deeper and clarify?) ~~~Back to Jesse~~~ JH: We didn't have briefcases chained, we didn't have limousines, we didn't have security, we didn't go to secret places. I was working in the White House at a lower level. So that's all a lie. "And then I told him that I had been locked away for a month, and I'd seen people from another planet? It's just total BS. He says I was like a father to him. I never even knew this kid except as a baby next door. So it was all...it was all made up." Jesse: "What elements of the story aren't true? Did he drive across the country?: JH: "He drove across with two other friends. We had to move our cars to Washington because I was going back to live there, and I had an appointment in the administration. And I think they drove...and our dog was in the car, too. He, I knew he was a student at UCLA. I was interesting (probably meant ("interested") because my mother went to UCLA, and I always like to meet UCLA people." (So, he only knew Friedman as a baby and yet he's trusting this 18-year-old to drive his dog across the country? Anybody who has a dog or cat knows that doesn't sound believable. And even if you wanna suggest that maybe the dog was more Mrs. Herrington's dog than JH's, you would think she'd step in and say no. I was paranoid about letting anybody watch our late dog Cookie for a few days, but having a teenager who I barely knew drive him across the country? No f*cking way. It's not a smoking gun but it doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.) JH: "He said his father's an artist. That's true. His mother was living next door. We knew the father and the mother...did not know Brent." (I wish Jesse would have asked how well JH knew Friedman's parents.) JH: "He says he came over and we threw the football together. That didn't happen. We watched telephone...television together. We [That] didn't happen. We had no get along at all. I was a kind of a father figure to him. That didn't happen. But we did get his name because we were looking for some guys to drive the car. So he agreed to do it, and we paid him, and they came back, and that was the end of it." Jesse: "I'm gonna get some flack if I don't offer this. Would we be able to maybe patch in Brent, and you could clear up the story and tell him if...? You know?" JH: "I'm through with Brent." (Through with him?" You haven't seen him since 1981.) JH: "He's a young man that's fallen in love with Hollywood, and he's got the Fauci syndrome, and he's, you know, he's welcome to it." (Hollywood = Democrats = Fauci = Bad. Jesse: "So you don't want to talk to him?" JH: "No, not really." (Should have had Friedman waiting in the back. Here he is!) Jesse: "Okay, fair enough. Yeah, I don't know., it's a bummer because, I don't know, he seemed..." JH: "I hope he sees the interview and realizes what an idiot he's been." Jesse:"Aww. Well, he seems kind of earnest, you know? He doesn't seem like..." JH: "Yeah, he does, doesn't he?" Jesse: "Yeah. So, his story's just..." JH: "Total and complete BS." ~Switch to Jesse's Interview with Friedman~ Jesse: "Brent, thank you for being here, man. I just did this long interview with John, and he actually brought you up. And he was like, you know, that story is totally made up. And he said he only knew you as a baby. He sort of, you know, created some distance. Said that like, you wouldn't come over and play football with him. How does it make you feel just him kind of denying the thing, outright?" Brent Friedman: "Two ways. The first way is the obvious, which is disappointment that after all of these years and, contextually, with disclosure coming out, and a lot of people feeling compelled to tell the truth. A lot of whistleblowers are putting their their their their reputation, and maybe in some cases, their life on the line for this greater good to get the truth out there. "You know...and honestly, you know, it's not true. John taught me how to play football. My father was an artist. He was an introvert. John was a man's man. John not only taught me to play football, he got me inspired in football. I was growing up to be an artist, and I ended up playing football all through grade school, junior high, high school, because he took the time to teach me how to play football. (We need some photos from that time period of Friedman and Herrington. It seems like Herrington denied anything where it would be hard to produce another witness or evidence. I'm sure he doesn't want to get her involved, but having Friedman's mom say she remembers her son hanging with Herrington would help A LOT. And if Friedman also has that note of congratulations he says he received from Herrington after "Dark Skies" premiered, that would REALLY help. He told Jesse he'd have to look for it.) Friedman: "And we used to watch football games on in his living room. He was a huge Redskin fan. He also taught me to be competitive, so I became a Cowboys fan. I am still a Cowboys fan, irrationally. I grew up in California, but it was great to just sit there and be competitive with him on the sofa." (Lot of details. And it's all made up? Hard for me to believe. BTW, I was a Raiders fan growing up on Long Island, N.Y. so Friedman being a Cowboys fan ("America's team") in Cali isn't that "irrational"). Friedman: "So, yeah, he can stiff arm me if he wants, but that was our relationship, and that's why I've said in different interviews and on 'Sound, Light and Frequency' that he was like a second father to me. I didn't... I was much more (laughs) than a baby. I lived there, next door to him between the ages of six and 12, the formative years. "On the other hand, I do have to respect the fact that, at the end of our conversation that I had with him that night out on the veranda, I kind of took all of what he said in, and I said to him, 'How do you know I'm not gonna tell other people about this?' And he said, 'Well, I'm sure you are. The question is, who's gonna believe you?' (Admiral Wilson told Dr. Eric Davis, "If you blow my trust, I’ll deny meeting you, deny everything said." And that's what Wilson has done in very interview.) Friedman: "And I didn't really think anything of it at the time. And he said, 'And by the way, if you use my name and everything, I'm just going to deny it.'" Jesse: "This exact interaction transpired in 1981, right?" Friedman: "Yes, the summer of 1981 was when I was...had graduated high school, and I was then going to go off to college at UCLA." Jesse: "And what was John Harrington's exact position then?" Friedman: "I believe it was something to the effect of he was on special assignment for the president. What I heard later through my mom was that he was involved in the ABSCAM investigation and had been for a period even leading up to after the election in November and before the administration took over. He was somehow involved in that." (I can't find anything connecting Herrington to the ABSCAM investigation.) Jesse: "I think a polygraph would be interesting. I think if you pass that, that would be awesome [laughs]. And I don't know if uh..." Friedman: "I'm willing to do...I mean, if people are that interested in whether this happened or not, I'm happy to do it." (This is, potentially, one of the most important stories ever. Definitely Top Ten or Five. IF people are interested? That's an odd reply. Please take a polygraph.) Friedman: "I talked to my mom, who always had stayed close with John and his...particularly, his wife Lois, and [I] said, 'Yeah, John said he didn't even remember us.' And she, I mean, she, honestly, started crying.' She was like, 'The Herringtons were some of our best friends. John threw me my 33rd birthday at his restaurant, Victoria Station. I have photos of it.'" (THIS is why I wanted Jesse to ask JH how close he was with Friedman's parents. I don't use the "liar" word very often, but right now, I lean heavily towards Herrington not telling the truth. Here's my REALLY-Long-Ass Post on the story from the other day...

"[My mom], she, honestly, started crying." ~BF Someone Is Lying "I'm willing to do [a lie detector test]...if people are that interested in whether this happened or not." ~BF ~ John Herrington (JH): "I am now beginning to think we got a Fauci syndrome underway in some of the area you're working." (Whenever JH had the chance, he made things political. Fauci, appointed by Biden = Bad. Clapper ("not a name I respect.") and John Brennan (Jesse: "also a mixed bag" JH: "Likewise"). Both were appointed by Obama. But who gives a f**k? Both have spoken about UFOs, with Brennan saying UFOs may constitute a different form of life and Clapper, according to Grusch, may have a managed a UFO crash retrieval program. Plus, JH added that, "I think [Trump is] gonna go down as a historic president. What he's doing is incredible.") ~ JH: "I watched one of your guys sit here, who I know, and I talked to you about this, who absolutely fabricated a total story." (He knows him? I thought he only knew him as a baby?) Jesse (Jesse Michels): "So tell the audience what you're talking about." JH: "You had a guy interviewed who used to be a neighbor of ours in Walnut Creek. And we hired him to drive our car to Washington. He then claims that he saw me..." (According to Brent Friedman (Brent Friedman), Ben Schreckinger contacted him in 2025.) Friedman: "I was approached last November by a journalist formerly with Politico. Ben [Schreckinger]. And he said that he had heard my story going around about John Herrington and wanted to get my side of the story. And this was pre, 'Sound, Light and Frequency.' So I said, 'Well, I'm gonna tell my story in the podcast. So when that comes out, you'll have everything you need to know.' "And he said, 'Okay, well, just so you understand, John says he doesn't even remember you. You you might have been his neighbor, he has no recollection. But you never drove any cars across the country, and he certainly never talked to you about aliens." Jesse Michels: "Did he publish that, that journalist?" Friedman: "Well, that journalist has reached back out to me because he is, oddly...coincidentally, this week or end of last week, he suddenly decided the story was viable or vital, and he wanted to give me one last chance to kind of refute everything, which I denied." (This is what Schreckinger published on September 17th after he spoke with Herrington late last year for "Paradigm News.") "Herrington also said that he really did pay to have his car driven across the country. “'That’s a true story, but Brent Friedman had nothing to do with it,' he said. Instead, Herrington said he had hired his son-in-law to drive his car." (From November of last year, to this recent interview with Jesse, its a major flip flop by Herrington. Did he realize there might be some evidence that Friedman drove the car and he decided (or was told) to change his story? A few of us speculated that maybe Herrington wants to share what he knows (assuming everything Friedman has said is true) but can't do it because of his NDAs or security oath. So...the next best thing is to make an obvious flip flop like that, to let people know he's throwing them a bone. I saw the same thing with Admiral Wilson. I'm gonna go with Herrington changing his story because he knew evidence might surface to show he's lying. Deep down, I think Herrington wants this all to remain secret and he gave you a reason early on in this interview with Jesse. I'll tackle that in another post.) ~ Jesse: "What's his name, real quick?" JH: "Brent Friedman. He said that I came home after he arrived in Washington, and I had been to a secret place, I carried a briefcase chained to my wrist. I had a driver in a limousine. You got to understand, I arrived in Washington as a peon." (At the time Friedman claims Herrington spilled his cuts (Summer of 1981), I believe Herrington was more than just a peon or intern in DC but I could be wrong.) Herrington: "At the time, I was working in personnel. We were reviewing resumes for positions in the government. I was working in the White House political office for Lyn Nofzinger as an intern for him, and we were going through early stages of the Reagan administration. It was later that I came in as personnel department, and I wasn't the head of it, I was..." Jesse: "What year was that? JH: "It would be June of '81." Jesse: "That was after Brent had come?" JH: "Right." Michels: "Okay." (Not okay. This seems to be another problem for JH. Brent says he drove JH's car across the country in the summer of 1981. Herrington is making it sound like he was an intern at that time and didn't move on to the personnel department until "later.") Here's what "The American Presidency Project" says.... "During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Mr. Herrington was a full-time volunteer advance man with the Reagan for President committee. Following the Republican National Convention he was named western regional director for advance. "[On May 6th, 1981] - The President...announced the appointment of John S. Herrington to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel." (Sounds like more than a peon or intern but maybe someone like Marik vR can dig deeper and clarify?) ~Back to Jesse~ JH: We didn't have briefcases chained, we didn't have limousines, we didn't have security, we didn't go to secret places. I was working in the White House at a lower level. So that's all a lie. "And then I told him that I had been locked away for a month, and I'd seen people from another planet? It's just total BS. He says I was like a father to him. I never even knew this kid except as a baby next door. So it was all...it was all made up." Jesse: "What elements of the story aren't true? Did he drive across the country?: JH: "He drove across with two other friends. We had to move our cars to Washington because I was going back to live there, and I had an appointment in the administration. And I think they drove...and our dog was in the car, too. He, I knew he was a student at UCLA. I was interesting (probably meant ("interested") because my mother went to UCLA, and I always like to meet UCLA people." (So, he only knew Friedman as a baby and yet he's trusting this 18-year-old to drive his dog across the country? Anybody who has a dog or cat knows that doesn't sound believable. And even if you wanna suggest that maybe the dog was more Mrs. Herrington's dog than JH's, you would think she'd step in and say no. I was paranoid about letting anybody watch our late dog Cookie for a few days, but having a teenager who I barely knew drive him across the country? No f*cking way. It's not a smoking gun but it doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.) JH: "He said his father's an artist. That's true. His mother was living next door. We knew the father and the mother...did not know Brent." (I wish Jesse would have asked how well JH knew Friedman's parents.) JH: "He says he came over and we threw the football together. That didn't happen. We watched telephone...television together. We [That] didn't happen. We had no get along at all. I was a kind of a father figure to him. That didn't happen. But we did get his name because we were looking for some guys to drive the car. So he agreed to do it, and we paid him, and they came back, and that was the end of it." Jesse: "I'm gonna get some flack if I don't offer this. Would we be able to maybe patch in Brent, and you could clear up the story and tell him if...? You know?" JH: "I'm through with Brent." (Through with him?" You haven't seen him since 1981.) JH: "He's a young man that's fallen in love with Hollywood, and he's got the Fauci syndrome, and he's, you know, he's welcome to it." (Hollywood = Democrats = Fauci = Bad. Jesse: "So you don't want to talk to him?" JH: "No, not really." (Should have had Friedman waiting in the back. Here he is!) Jesse: "Okay, fair enough. Yeah, I don't know., it's a bummer because, I don't know, he seemed..." JH: "I hope he sees the interview and realizes what an idiot he's been." Jesse:"Aww. Well, he seems kind of earnest, you know? He doesn't seem like..." JH: "Yeah, he does, doesn't he?" Jesse: "Yeah. So, his story's just..." JH: "Total and complete BS." ~Switch to Jesse's Interview with Friedman~ Jesse: "Brent, thank you for being here, man. I just did this long interview with John, and he actually brought you up. And he was like, you know, that story is totally made up. And he said he only knew you as a baby. He sort of, you know, created some distance. Said that like, you wouldn't come over and play football with him. How does it make you feel just him kind of denying the thing, outright?" Brent Friedman: "Two ways. The first way is the obvious, which is disappointment that after all of these years and, contextually, with disclosure coming out, and a lot of people feeling compelled to tell the truth. A lot of whistleblowers are putting their their their their reputation, and maybe in some cases, their life on the line for this greater good to get the truth out there. "You know...and honestly, you know, it's not true. John taught me how to play football. My father was an artist. He was an introvert. John was a man's man. John not only taught me to play football, he got me inspired in football. I was growing up to be an artist, and I ended up playing football all through grade school, junior high, high school, because he took the time to teach me how to play football. (We need some photos from that time period of Friedman and Herrington. It seems like Herrington denied anything where it would be hard to produce another witness or evidence. I'm sure he doesn't want to get her involved, but having Friedman's mom say she remembers her son hanging with Herrington would help A LOT. And if Friedman also has that note of congratulations he says he received from Herrington after "Dark Skies" premiered, that would REALLY help. He told Jesse he'd have to look for it.) Friedman: "And we used to watch football games on in his living room. He was a huge Redskin fan. He also taught me to be competitive, so I became a Cowboys fan. I am still a Cowboys fan, irrationally. I grew up in California, but it was great to just sit there and be competitive with him on the sofa." (Lot of details. And it's all made up? Hard for me to believe. BTW, I was a Raiders fan growing up on Long Island, N.Y. so Friedman being a Cowboys fan ("America's team") in Cali isn't that "irrational"). Friedman: "So, yeah, he can stiff arm me if he wants, but that was our relationship, and that's why I've said in different interviews and on 'Sound, Light and Frequency' that he was like a second father to me. I didn't... I was much more (laughs) than a baby. I lived there, next door to him between the ages of six and 12, the formative years. "On the other hand, I do have to respect the fact that, at the end of our conversation that I had with him that night out on the veranda, I kind of took all of what he said in, and I said to him, 'How do you know I'm not gonna tell other people about this?' And he said, 'Well, I'm sure you are. The question is, who's gonna believe you?' (Admiral Wilson told Dr. Eric Davis, "If you blow my trust, I’ll deny meeting you, deny everything said." And that's what Wilson has done in very interview.) Friedman: "And I didn't really think anything of it at the time. And he said, 'And by the way, if you use my name and everything, I'm just going to deny it.'" Jesse: "This exact interaction transpired in 1981, right?" Friedman: "Yes, the summer of 1981 was when I was...had graduated high school, and I was then going to go off to college at UCLA." Jesse: "And what was John Harrington's exact position then?" Friedman: "I believe it was something to the effect of he was on special assignment for the president. What I heard later through my mom was that he was involved in the ABSCAM investigation and had been for a period even leading up to after the election in November and before the administration took over. He was somehow involved in that." (I can't find anything connecting Herrington to the ABSCAM investigation.) Jesse: "I think a polygraph would be interesting. I think if you pass that, that would be awesome [laughs]. And I don't know if uh..." Friedman: "I'm willing to do...I mean, if people are that interested in whether this happened or not, I'm happy to do it." (This is, potentially, one of the most important stories ever. Definitely Top Ten or Five. IF people are interested? That's an odd reply. Please take a polygraph.) Friedman: "I talked to my mom, who always had stayed close with John and his...particularly, his wife Lois, and [I] said, 'Yeah, John said he didn't even remember us.' And she, I mean, she, honestly, started crying.' She was like, 'The Herringtons were some of our best friends. John threw me my 33rd birthday at his restaurant, Victoria Station. I have photos of it.'" (THIS is why I wanted Jesse to ask JH how close he was with Friedman's parents. I don't use the "liar" word very often, but right now, I lean heavily towards Herrington not telling the truth. Here's my REALLY-Long-Ass Post on the story from the other day...

Joe Murgia

20,927 views • 6 days ago