正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸. 𝗣𝗮𝗱𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗶𝗼 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀. 🐕🐈 Animals sensed danger before humans did. They responded without doubt or delay. Not magic. Not fantasy. Participation in divine providence.

𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚘𝚗𝚎 ♱🇻🇦

30,907 subscribers

27,188 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生动物

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨 EXTREMELY URGENT APPEAL FOR GAZA 🚨 Childhood in Gaza is not disappearing suddenly; it is being erased slowly and painfully, drop by drop, with every day that passes without water, and with every child who walks between tents and rubble searching for a single sip that might allow them to breathe and stay alive. One child spent long hours moving from place to place in search of water—not asking for toys, not for safety, not even for a future, but for just one sip to keep their small body alive—only to return with empty hands. 💧 Water is running out, and children in Gaza are dying of thirst before the eyes of the world. In Gaza, thirst is no longer a possible danger or a future threat; it has become a daily, deadly reality that slowly exhausts fragile bodies and turns life into a constant struggle for survival. Small, fragile bodies collapse from dehydration, cracked lips bleed from thirst, and tiny hands reach out—not asking for food or medicine, but for one thing only: water 💧 This week, in a rare moment of humanity amid a cruel global silence, three people refused to be part of that silence and chose to stand in the face of death: 🔥 Felix (GoliathFan1952) ✨ William Menaker (Will 🦥 Menaker) 🤍 Eyup Lovely (Eyup Lovely) They did not turn away, they did not wait for justifications, and they did not delay action. They used their voices and their positions when silence was the easier choice, and because of them, clean drinking water reached children and families who were only moments away from dying of thirst. In Gaza, a cup of water is no longer a basic human right; it has become the harsh line between a child surviving until morning and a mother holding her child’s lifeless body at dawn. What you gave was not a passing donation—it was a real act of rescue, a direct intervention against death, and a clear message that humanity has not yet disappeared. Your voices pierced the siege, your support opened a path to life, and your solidarity became a shield protecting children at a moment when they had nothing else. 🚨 Time is running out, and every hour without water brings another child closer to danger. 👉 Donate now, because waiting can be fatal. 💧 Because water in Gaza means life If water arrives tonight, a child may survive and sleep in peace. If it does not— there may be no good news in the morning.

🚨 EXTREMELY URGENT APPEAL FOR GAZA 🚨 Childhood in Gaza is not disappearing suddenly; it is being erased slowly and painfully, drop by drop, with every day that passes without water, and with every child who walks between tents and rubble searching for a single sip that might allow them to breathe and stay alive. One child spent long hours moving from place to place in search of water—not asking for toys, not for safety, not even for a future, but for just one sip to keep their small body alive—only to return with empty hands. 💧 Water is running out, and children in Gaza are dying of thirst before the eyes of the world. In Gaza, thirst is no longer a possible danger or a future threat; it has become a daily, deadly reality that slowly exhausts fragile bodies and turns life into a constant struggle for survival. Small, fragile bodies collapse from dehydration, cracked lips bleed from thirst, and tiny hands reach out—not asking for food or medicine, but for one thing only: water 💧 This week, in a rare moment of humanity amid a cruel global silence, three people refused to be part of that silence and chose to stand in the face of death: 🔥 Felix (GoliathFan1952) ✨ William Menaker (Will 🦥 Menaker) 🤍 Eyup Lovely (Eyup Lovely) They did not turn away, they did not wait for justifications, and they did not delay action. They used their voices and their positions when silence was the easier choice, and because of them, clean drinking water reached children and families who were only moments away from dying of thirst. In Gaza, a cup of water is no longer a basic human right; it has become the harsh line between a child surviving until morning and a mother holding her child’s lifeless body at dawn. What you gave was not a passing donation—it was a real act of rescue, a direct intervention against death, and a clear message that humanity has not yet disappeared. Your voices pierced the siege, your support opened a path to life, and your solidarity became a shield protecting children at a moment when they had nothing else. 🚨 Time is running out, and every hour without water brings another child closer to danger. 👉 Donate now, because waiting can be fatal. 💧 Because water in Gaza means life If water arrives tonight, a child may survive and sleep in peace. If it does not— there may be no good news in the morning.

Muhmmed Project𓂆 🇵🇸

280,552 次观看 • 7 个月前

Killer Whales: The Ocean’s Unchallenged Rulers Who Never Hunt Humans In the icy waters of Antarctica, a pod of Type B1 killer whales suddenly surrounded a small zodiac boat. One after another, they rose vertically from the water, staring straight into the camera lens just a few meters away. Their cold eyes, massive bodies, and distinctive yellowish tint from the frigid seas sent a chill through anyone watching. Yet they did not attack. They simply observed, then quietly swam away. The name “killer whale” does not come from any history of killing people. Centuries ago, European sailors and whalers watched these black-and-white pods work together to bring down enormous whales. They called them “whale killers.” When the phrase was translated into English, it was reversed into “killer whales.” Their scientific name, Orcinus orca, is even more striking: Orcinus derives from Orcus, the Roman god of the underworld and death. In other languages they are known as “assassin whales,” “blubber choppers,” or “the feared ones.” All of these names reflect their position at the very top of the food chain—not any danger they pose to humans. In the wild, there has never been a confirmed fatal attack on a human by a free-ranging killer whale. They may occasionally bite a surfer in a black wetsuit, mistaking them for a seal, or ram the rudders of sailboats out of curiosity, but humans have never been part of their diet. The reason lies in their intelligence and culture. Each orca pod specializes in particular prey over generations—fish, seals, penguins, or even sharks. Humans simply do not appear in those hunting traditions. The whales recognize the difference and choose observation over attack. Yet once they enter their underwater realm, killer whales become absolute masters. They have no natural predators. They can hunt everything from small fish to blue whales, and they have repeatedly taken down great white sharks—the animals once regarded as the ocean’s supreme predators. Off the coast of South Africa, famous orcas such as Port and Starboard have systematically killed great whites solely for their energy-rich livers. In one documented case, a single orca ended the life of a young great white in under two minutes. In the Gulf of California, pods have been recorded flipping sharks onto their backs to induce tonic immobility before extracting the liver. As a result, many former great-white strongholds now stand empty, triggering cascading changes throughout the ecosystem. The Type B1 orcas in this video are a vivid example of this specialization. Living among the pack ice of Antarctica, they developed the remarkable “wave-washing” technique: the entire pod swims in coordinated formation to generate powerful waves that wash seals off ice floes into the water. Spyhopping—raising the head above the surface to look around—is their visual reconnaissance before an attack. When they applied the exact same behavior to the zodiac boat, viewers understood clearly: these animals possess more than enough power to do whatever they wish. Yet they choose not to. That is the terrifying beauty of the killer whale. They represent a perfect fusion of primal strength, high intelligence, and absolute self-control. The name “killer” is not meant to threaten us; it honors their unchallengeable status in the ocean.

Killer Whales: The Ocean’s Unchallenged Rulers Who Never Hunt Humans In the icy waters of Antarctica, a pod of Type B1 killer whales suddenly surrounded a small zodiac boat. One after another, they rose vertically from the water, staring straight into the camera lens just a few meters away. Their cold eyes, massive bodies, and distinctive yellowish tint from the frigid seas sent a chill through anyone watching. Yet they did not attack. They simply observed, then quietly swam away. The name “killer whale” does not come from any history of killing people. Centuries ago, European sailors and whalers watched these black-and-white pods work together to bring down enormous whales. They called them “whale killers.” When the phrase was translated into English, it was reversed into “killer whales.” Their scientific name, Orcinus orca, is even more striking: Orcinus derives from Orcus, the Roman god of the underworld and death. In other languages they are known as “assassin whales,” “blubber choppers,” or “the feared ones.” All of these names reflect their position at the very top of the food chain—not any danger they pose to humans. In the wild, there has never been a confirmed fatal attack on a human by a free-ranging killer whale. They may occasionally bite a surfer in a black wetsuit, mistaking them for a seal, or ram the rudders of sailboats out of curiosity, but humans have never been part of their diet. The reason lies in their intelligence and culture. Each orca pod specializes in particular prey over generations—fish, seals, penguins, or even sharks. Humans simply do not appear in those hunting traditions. The whales recognize the difference and choose observation over attack. Yet once they enter their underwater realm, killer whales become absolute masters. They have no natural predators. They can hunt everything from small fish to blue whales, and they have repeatedly taken down great white sharks—the animals once regarded as the ocean’s supreme predators. Off the coast of South Africa, famous orcas such as Port and Starboard have systematically killed great whites solely for their energy-rich livers. In one documented case, a single orca ended the life of a young great white in under two minutes. In the Gulf of California, pods have been recorded flipping sharks onto their backs to induce tonic immobility before extracting the liver. As a result, many former great-white strongholds now stand empty, triggering cascading changes throughout the ecosystem. The Type B1 orcas in this video are a vivid example of this specialization. Living among the pack ice of Antarctica, they developed the remarkable “wave-washing” technique: the entire pod swims in coordinated formation to generate powerful waves that wash seals off ice floes into the water. Spyhopping—raising the head above the surface to look around—is their visual reconnaissance before an attack. When they applied the exact same behavior to the zodiac boat, viewers understood clearly: these animals possess more than enough power to do whatever they wish. Yet they choose not to. That is the terrifying beauty of the killer whale. They represent a perfect fusion of primal strength, high intelligence, and absolute self-control. The name “killer” is not meant to threaten us; it honors their unchallengeable status in the ocean.

Nature 🦜and Music 🎶

152,826 次观看 • 26 天前

🫂💚I'm Walid and I love animals, especially #cats.🐈 Before this war, I spent years caring for stray cats in Gaza. I built a shelter for them and took sick cats to the vet. But about a year ago, when the bombs fell, my shelter was partly destroyed, and so many of the cats I cared for were killed. It broke my heart. Now, I’m doing what I can to help the cats who survived this war so far. Some are strays, but as the war continues, more and more are pets who lost their humans, their homes and safety. They roam the streets of North Gaza, hungry and scared, just like so many of us people. I’m also trying to rebuild what’s left of my shelter for the cats who did survive the bombing, but it’s not easy. I need food for the cats in my care and for the ones still out there. During the ceasefire, my friends and I ran the Cruelty-Free Kitchen. We served warm meals to thousands of families. During the ceasefire my friends and I started helping eight families who are living in tents, with no proper shelter or clean water. We also distribute water in our neighbourhood. Every day is a struggle, but we do what we can to share what little we have. Life in 💔#Gaza🇵🇸 is unimaginably hard, but I haven’t given up. I believe there are kind-hearted people out there who can help—people who care about animals and people, just like me and my friends. If you can, please support my efforts to feed these cats and help these families. Every bit of help makes a difference. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you do for us.🙏🐈 🫂🥺🆘️ 🐾🐈

🫂💚I'm Walid and I love animals, especially #cats.🐈 Before this war, I spent years caring for stray cats in Gaza. I built a shelter for them and took sick cats to the vet. But about a year ago, when the bombs fell, my shelter was partly destroyed, and so many of the cats I cared for were killed. It broke my heart. Now, I’m doing what I can to help the cats who survived this war so far. Some are strays, but as the war continues, more and more are pets who lost their humans, their homes and safety. They roam the streets of North Gaza, hungry and scared, just like so many of us people. I’m also trying to rebuild what’s left of my shelter for the cats who did survive the bombing, but it’s not easy. I need food for the cats in my care and for the ones still out there. During the ceasefire, my friends and I ran the Cruelty-Free Kitchen. We served warm meals to thousands of families. During the ceasefire my friends and I started helping eight families who are living in tents, with no proper shelter or clean water. We also distribute water in our neighbourhood. Every day is a struggle, but we do what we can to share what little we have. Life in 💔#Gaza🇵🇸 is unimaginably hard, but I haven’t given up. I believe there are kind-hearted people out there who can help—people who care about animals and people, just like me and my friends. If you can, please support my efforts to feed these cats and help these families. Every bit of help makes a difference. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you do for us.🙏🐈 🫂🥺🆘️ 🐾🐈

♥️🇵🇸🇵🇸❤️A lover ♥️of homeless cats😻❤️🌱🌱👍🤗

599,435 次观看 • 1 年前

Laima walked a few steps ahead, then turned around to look back. She did this several times. The rescuers soon realized that something was different. The mother dog was nursing her puppies, but today, she was not simply coming to ask for food as she had on previous occasions. She was trying to lead them somewhere. After a few minutes, Laima stopped in front of an abandoned house. Inside, four tiny puppies were hiding. She had been living there with her litter, doing everything she could to keep them safe under the harshest circumstances. The story began with abandonment. No one knows exactly when Laima's former owner left her behind, but the consequences were clear. A mother dog was forced to wander in search of food and shelter while trying to protect her puppies inside an abandoned house. That cruelty did not simply take away her home. It placed her entire little family in danger day after day. Yet Laima refused to give up. Her maternal instinct proved stronger than her fear. She realized that the people who had given her food before might be able to do more. So she acted. Without words, she walked ahead, turned back to make sure they were following, and then led them to the place where her puppies were hiding. It was her way of telling them that she needed help. Her actions made many people stop and think. While some owners are willing to abandon their pets when caring for them becomes inconvenient, a dog who had herself been abandoned was still willing to trust people in order to save her puppies. The contrast is both painful and moving. It highlights the great distance between the responsibility that humans sometimes forget and the protective instinct that animals continue to hold onto. In this case, extending a helping hand meant more than simply bringing a dog family to safety. It was also an affirmation that there are still people willing to stay when animals have been abandoned. Every rescue like this carries a simple message: their lives matter. Laima and her four puppies were brought to a rescue shelter. They now had the opportunity to receive care, experience kindness, and eventually find new homes. The story also raises an important question about the responsibility of pet owners. Taking an animal into your home should not be a temporary decision. When we choose to bring a pet into our lives, we accept the responsibility of being there throughout its life — including when it becomes sick, grows old, or is no longer as “cute” as it once was. Abandoning a pet is not only an irresponsible act toward a living being. It can also create a chain of consequences: a mother dog is forced to wander, puppies are born into hardship, and society is left to deal with the consequences of that neglect. Laima did the best she could with what she had. She could not change the decision made by her former owner, but she chose to protect her puppies through intelligence, determination, and trust. The rescuers responded with concrete action. In a world where abandonment still happens far too often, Laima's story offers a simple but powerful reminder. A mother's instinct can overcome even harsh circumstances. An animal's trust can touch the human heart. And most importantly, when we choose to care for another living being, we have a responsibility not to turn our backs on them.

Laima walked a few steps ahead, then turned around to look back. She did this several times. The rescuers soon realized that something was different. The mother dog was nursing her puppies, but today, she was not simply coming to ask for food as she had on previous occasions. She was trying to lead them somewhere. After a few minutes, Laima stopped in front of an abandoned house. Inside, four tiny puppies were hiding. She had been living there with her litter, doing everything she could to keep them safe under the harshest circumstances. The story began with abandonment. No one knows exactly when Laima's former owner left her behind, but the consequences were clear. A mother dog was forced to wander in search of food and shelter while trying to protect her puppies inside an abandoned house. That cruelty did not simply take away her home. It placed her entire little family in danger day after day. Yet Laima refused to give up. Her maternal instinct proved stronger than her fear. She realized that the people who had given her food before might be able to do more. So she acted. Without words, she walked ahead, turned back to make sure they were following, and then led them to the place where her puppies were hiding. It was her way of telling them that she needed help. Her actions made many people stop and think. While some owners are willing to abandon their pets when caring for them becomes inconvenient, a dog who had herself been abandoned was still willing to trust people in order to save her puppies. The contrast is both painful and moving. It highlights the great distance between the responsibility that humans sometimes forget and the protective instinct that animals continue to hold onto. In this case, extending a helping hand meant more than simply bringing a dog family to safety. It was also an affirmation that there are still people willing to stay when animals have been abandoned. Every rescue like this carries a simple message: their lives matter. Laima and her four puppies were brought to a rescue shelter. They now had the opportunity to receive care, experience kindness, and eventually find new homes. The story also raises an important question about the responsibility of pet owners. Taking an animal into your home should not be a temporary decision. When we choose to bring a pet into our lives, we accept the responsibility of being there throughout its life — including when it becomes sick, grows old, or is no longer as “cute” as it once was. Abandoning a pet is not only an irresponsible act toward a living being. It can also create a chain of consequences: a mother dog is forced to wander, puppies are born into hardship, and society is left to deal with the consequences of that neglect. Laima did the best she could with what she had. She could not change the decision made by her former owner, but she chose to protect her puppies through intelligence, determination, and trust. The rescuers responded with concrete action. In a world where abandonment still happens far too often, Laima's story offers a simple but powerful reminder. A mother's instinct can overcome even harsh circumstances. An animal's trust can touch the human heart. And most importantly, when we choose to care for another living being, we have a responsibility not to turn our backs on them.

Beauty of music and nature 🌺🌺

32,558 次观看 • 1 个月前

🦎 "So there's these species that would resemble insectoids or an insect. And then there's the Reptilians." ~Dr. Eric Davis 🦎 🔥 The Reptilians get PrimeTime coverage 🔥 Katie Pavlich (KP): "Tonight we're diving into one of the largest calls for government transparency in modern history: the calls for UFO and UAP disclosure. Dr. Eric Davis is an astrophysicist who has investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon - UAPs - for 30 years. He says he's seen things that the American public and the world also have a right to see. He says he's personally seeing classified photos of recovered craft and non-human bodies. "The thing is, though, he can't speak out - at least not yet. But he wants to, and he has a message for President Trump. Take a look." Dr. Eric Davis: "Mr. President, with your signature, you could waive the SF-312 NDA to protect UAP whistleblowers like myself. I respectfully request that you take swift and decisive action, as the nature of UAP should not be kept deeply classified." KP: "Dr. Eric Davis joins us now. Great to have you, Doctor. Thanks so much for being here. So you, of course, are requesting presidential immunity before going on the record about exactly what you've seen and producing the proof of the documents. So, what would you need from the President in order for this to happen?" Dr. Eric Davis (ED): "Well, I would need the standard form 312, intelligence NDA to be waived. That way, I could talk about Top Secret SCI information about UAP evidence that I have seen in person, which are records, photographs, reports, and so forth. And those are still classified, and they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because it'll probably be...they're probably classified for a 50 to 70-year period, 75-year period, I believe." KP: "Okay, so we're showing some footage from the Department of War on the screen, which is what they've produced so far. They have produced a lot of documents, but clearly, based on what you're telling me, there's a lot more that you think that we should be seeing. So, are you dissatisfied with the amount of information that they produce so far?" ED: "Yeah, I'm not that satisfied. They're going at...I'm not on the inside with the Department of of War or the intelligence agencies, and I'm not working for AARO or PURSUE. I do know that they're working at a pace that they can...at the pace that's set by their ability to hunt down documents and videos and still images and be able to evaluate them for their efficacy as relevant to UAP phenomena or not. And then determine whether they could be declassified without harming the national security. "So there could be more to be revealed, and it would not be...it would not contain harmful information. It would not contain information that would harm the national security. What would do so would be the methods by which the information was acquired from foreign adversaries or foreign friendly nations or wherever the recoveries were done. (I love how he jumped from the meh evidence AARO has released thus far, to crash retrievals, without being asked. 🙂) ~ ED: "So you have to be careful because we want to protect our intelligence methods and sources and just reveal the top level information that verifies and validates the existence of UAP technology that's been recovered by the United States government, as well as the recovery of a small number of NHI (non-human intelligence) bodies that were found dead in some of those cases." KP: "So let's talk about what you say that you know of. You say that you know of four types of aliens. One of those are quote 'Grays,' and you've claimed that, as you just did, we've recovered deceased bodies. Can you describe what they look like?" ED: "There's a minimum of four that we know of, and they...I've seen the evidence and I've seen the records. They variously are described as the Grays, like what everybody saw in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' at the end of that movie in the final scene. "And then there's the Nordics, which are very tall statured Caucasian looking individuals. And then there's the beings that resemble or look like insects, like a praying-mantis type insect, but they're not an insect. Or they could be, but we don't know. But they...it's just that people, when they're not familiar with something that that presents an ontological shock to them, they'll try to overlay what their imagination helps them understand what it is they're seeing that's so strange and otherworldly. Or outworldly, I should say. "So there's these species that would resemble insectoids or an insect. And then there's the Reptilians for the same case in that their morphology, body structure looks like a reptilian. And they may not be reptilian." KP: "So, if the government has these bodies, where are they keeping them?" ED: "I don't know now. That's a nut that I could not crack when I worked for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program (AAWSAP), and that was the code name for the DIA's UAP investigation and research project back in 2008 through 2012. "And so, I tried to find that. I've had colleagues that looked for that as well, and we did have a hint of where those bodies went to when they were recovered, but the organization no longer exists." KP: "Wait, so it was given to a private organization rather than to the government?" ED: "No, it was given to a military institute, a medical institute, and it's classified. And that institute has been in existence since 18...since, well, since the Civil War. I don't know the exact year, I'm thinking 1865. And that institute got split up into two or three components and relocated into different military medical institutes by the first Obama administration." KP: "So, if these alien forms are alive, do they eat the same kind of food that humans do or animals do? Or do they breathe regular air? I mean, what kind of beings are they?" ED: "I have no idea because I've never been able to access that type of information, so I don't know what they eat. Most of them that I am aware of were found dead, although I've heard that David Grusch had mentioned that there was one that he knew of that had been captured alive. But I don't know anything else. That's something he and I have not had that conversation to discuss." KP: "All right. Well, Dr. Eric Davis, thank you for joining us, and we'll see if you're able to reveal more. Thank you very much." ED: "Thank you for inviting me, I was happy to be here." KP: "Absolutely, thank you." ED: "Goodnight."

🦎 "So there's these species that would resemble insectoids or an insect. And then there's the Reptilians." ~Dr. Eric Davis 🦎 🔥 The Reptilians get PrimeTime coverage 🔥 Katie Pavlich (KP): "Tonight we're diving into one of the largest calls for government transparency in modern history: the calls for UFO and UAP disclosure. Dr. Eric Davis is an astrophysicist who has investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon - UAPs - for 30 years. He says he's seen things that the American public and the world also have a right to see. He says he's personally seeing classified photos of recovered craft and non-human bodies. "The thing is, though, he can't speak out - at least not yet. But he wants to, and he has a message for President Trump. Take a look." Dr. Eric Davis: "Mr. President, with your signature, you could waive the SF-312 NDA to protect UAP whistleblowers like myself. I respectfully request that you take swift and decisive action, as the nature of UAP should not be kept deeply classified." KP: "Dr. Eric Davis joins us now. Great to have you, Doctor. Thanks so much for being here. So you, of course, are requesting presidential immunity before going on the record about exactly what you've seen and producing the proof of the documents. So, what would you need from the President in order for this to happen?" Dr. Eric Davis (ED): "Well, I would need the standard form 312, intelligence NDA to be waived. That way, I could talk about Top Secret SCI information about UAP evidence that I have seen in person, which are records, photographs, reports, and so forth. And those are still classified, and they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because it'll probably be...they're probably classified for a 50 to 70-year period, 75-year period, I believe." KP: "Okay, so we're showing some footage from the Department of War on the screen, which is what they've produced so far. They have produced a lot of documents, but clearly, based on what you're telling me, there's a lot more that you think that we should be seeing. So, are you dissatisfied with the amount of information that they produce so far?" ED: "Yeah, I'm not that satisfied. They're going at...I'm not on the inside with the Department of of War or the intelligence agencies, and I'm not working for AARO or PURSUE. I do know that they're working at a pace that they can...at the pace that's set by their ability to hunt down documents and videos and still images and be able to evaluate them for their efficacy as relevant to UAP phenomena or not. And then determine whether they could be declassified without harming the national security. "So there could be more to be revealed, and it would not be...it would not contain harmful information. It would not contain information that would harm the national security. What would do so would be the methods by which the information was acquired from foreign adversaries or foreign friendly nations or wherever the recoveries were done. (I love how he jumped from the meh evidence AARO has released thus far, to crash retrievals, without being asked. 🙂) ~ ED: "So you have to be careful because we want to protect our intelligence methods and sources and just reveal the top level information that verifies and validates the existence of UAP technology that's been recovered by the United States government, as well as the recovery of a small number of NHI (non-human intelligence) bodies that were found dead in some of those cases." KP: "So let's talk about what you say that you know of. You say that you know of four types of aliens. One of those are quote 'Grays,' and you've claimed that, as you just did, we've recovered deceased bodies. Can you describe what they look like?" ED: "There's a minimum of four that we know of, and they...I've seen the evidence and I've seen the records. They variously are described as the Grays, like what everybody saw in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' at the end of that movie in the final scene. "And then there's the Nordics, which are very tall statured Caucasian looking individuals. And then there's the beings that resemble or look like insects, like a praying-mantis type insect, but they're not an insect. Or they could be, but we don't know. But they...it's just that people, when they're not familiar with something that that presents an ontological shock to them, they'll try to overlay what their imagination helps them understand what it is they're seeing that's so strange and otherworldly. Or outworldly, I should say. "So there's these species that would resemble insectoids or an insect. And then there's the Reptilians for the same case in that their morphology, body structure looks like a reptilian. And they may not be reptilian." KP: "So, if the government has these bodies, where are they keeping them?" ED: "I don't know now. That's a nut that I could not crack when I worked for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program (AAWSAP), and that was the code name for the DIA's UAP investigation and research project back in 2008 through 2012. "And so, I tried to find that. I've had colleagues that looked for that as well, and we did have a hint of where those bodies went to when they were recovered, but the organization no longer exists." KP: "Wait, so it was given to a private organization rather than to the government?" ED: "No, it was given to a military institute, a medical institute, and it's classified. And that institute has been in existence since 18...since, well, since the Civil War. I don't know the exact year, I'm thinking 1865. And that institute got split up into two or three components and relocated into different military medical institutes by the first Obama administration." KP: "So, if these alien forms are alive, do they eat the same kind of food that humans do or animals do? Or do they breathe regular air? I mean, what kind of beings are they?" ED: "I have no idea because I've never been able to access that type of information, so I don't know what they eat. Most of them that I am aware of were found dead, although I've heard that David Grusch had mentioned that there was one that he knew of that had been captured alive. But I don't know anything else. That's something he and I have not had that conversation to discuss." KP: "All right. Well, Dr. Eric Davis, thank you for joining us, and we'll see if you're able to reveal more. Thank you very much." ED: "Thank you for inviting me, I was happy to be here." KP: "Absolutely, thank you." ED: "Goodnight."

Joe Murgia

11,414 次观看 • 28 天前

🚨🚨🚨 When I was growing up, I always felt like there was something wrong in the world - After the #COVID #Vaccine, I knew for a fact that something was terribly wrong, so I started doing relentless research every single day. I dedicate every minute of my spare time to understand what’s going on to share it with you guys - Here are some things that made me realize that we are being LIED to on a massive scale 🧐 : (1) Vaccines are NOT safe for humans or animals - My research shows they’re being used to injure and kill beings indiscriminately. I’m not sure if it’s for profit or to keep the population down or BOTH. Do you know why they have to keep the population as low as possible? Because if there are too many of us, we would figure out the game that’s being played on us (2) Most of our food products have things that are not safe for human consumption = RED 40 is an example (3) They put stuff in our water supply = Atrazine and Fluoride are examples (4) Corporations and Central banks are really the ones that control our world - Our politicians are nothing but scripted actors that work for the best interest of these bankers and corporations (5) The mainstream media work for these same corporations and central bankers. The media destroys anyone that gets too close to the truth The media elevates their chosen people into desired positions of POWER The media has the ability to amplify any message, just like they have the ability to make any story disappear by not talking about it at all (6) Central banks and government artificially induce crisis throughout history. Government spending and printing of money causes inflation, then banks raise interest rates, which increases the cost of borrowing and VOILA, here is your cost of living crisis (7) The earth is not a spinning ball that’s flying through space - We are stationary and NOT spinning around in circles - There is a firmament (dome) that surrounds our planet (8) The North Pole is the Centre of the World - Do you know that the North Pole was mapped before, BUT they removed the maps and claim there is nothing but ice there😆 Do you know that the tallest mountain in the world is at the North Pole? Do you know that your compass points north towards the magnetic mountain that’s at the North Pole? The Rupes Nigra, also known as BlackRock is at the North Pole Use the search bar on the top of my page and look for some info I posted about the North Pole (9) Human beings are not allowed to freely explore Antarctica or go past it, even though Admiral Byrd admitted that there is LAND as big as the United States that remains unexplored there - Have you heard about the Antarctic treaty? (10) Human beings never went to the moon - How did they get past the Van Allen Radiation belt? The spaceship has to refuel about 9X before reaching the moon, how did they do that? How is it possible that we lost the technology for going back to the moon? Technology never goes backwards. (11) Only 5% of our oceans have been explored, but we want to go to space? How ridiculous is that? We haven’t fully explored our own house, but we are going to explore someone else’s house? (12) The Sun is NOT a ball of fire that is going to explode at some point😆 Who is deceiving and hurting us on such a massive scale and WHY? How is it possible that so many people are in on it? Humanity deserves to know the TRUTH about our reality and I will NEVER stop fighting for it - I hope you feel the same way, because without your help, there’s not much people like me can do. We have to do this TOGETHER❤️

🚨🚨🚨 When I was growing up, I always felt like there was something wrong in the world - After the #COVID #Vaccine, I knew for a fact that something was terribly wrong, so I started doing relentless research every single day. I dedicate every minute of my spare time to understand what’s going on to share it with you guys - Here are some things that made me realize that we are being LIED to on a massive scale 🧐 : (1) Vaccines are NOT safe for humans or animals - My research shows they’re being used to injure and kill beings indiscriminately. I’m not sure if it’s for profit or to keep the population down or BOTH. Do you know why they have to keep the population as low as possible? Because if there are too many of us, we would figure out the game that’s being played on us (2) Most of our food products have things that are not safe for human consumption = RED 40 is an example (3) They put stuff in our water supply = Atrazine and Fluoride are examples (4) Corporations and Central banks are really the ones that control our world - Our politicians are nothing but scripted actors that work for the best interest of these bankers and corporations (5) The mainstream media work for these same corporations and central bankers. The media destroys anyone that gets too close to the truth The media elevates their chosen people into desired positions of POWER The media has the ability to amplify any message, just like they have the ability to make any story disappear by not talking about it at all (6) Central banks and government artificially induce crisis throughout history. Government spending and printing of money causes inflation, then banks raise interest rates, which increases the cost of borrowing and VOILA, here is your cost of living crisis (7) The earth is not a spinning ball that’s flying through space - We are stationary and NOT spinning around in circles - There is a firmament (dome) that surrounds our planet (8) The North Pole is the Centre of the World - Do you know that the North Pole was mapped before, BUT they removed the maps and claim there is nothing but ice there😆 Do you know that the tallest mountain in the world is at the North Pole? Do you know that your compass points north towards the magnetic mountain that’s at the North Pole? The Rupes Nigra, also known as BlackRock is at the North Pole Use the search bar on the top of my page and look for some info I posted about the North Pole (9) Human beings are not allowed to freely explore Antarctica or go past it, even though Admiral Byrd admitted that there is LAND as big as the United States that remains unexplored there - Have you heard about the Antarctic treaty? (10) Human beings never went to the moon - How did they get past the Van Allen Radiation belt? The spaceship has to refuel about 9X before reaching the moon, how did they do that? How is it possible that we lost the technology for going back to the moon? Technology never goes backwards. (11) Only 5% of our oceans have been explored, but we want to go to space? How ridiculous is that? We haven’t fully explored our own house, but we are going to explore someone else’s house? (12) The Sun is NOT a ball of fire that is going to explode at some point😆 Who is deceiving and hurting us on such a massive scale and WHY? How is it possible that so many people are in on it? Humanity deserves to know the TRUTH about our reality and I will NEVER stop fighting for it - I hope you feel the same way, because without your help, there’s not much people like me can do. We have to do this TOGETHER❤️

Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE🦁

199,410 次观看 • 2 年前

When a Woman Took Off Her Shirt in the Middle of a Bushfire 🐨🔥 Some images last only a few minutes, yet stay with us for a very long time. For me, it was the moment Toni Doherty rushed into a bushfire zone to save a badly injured koala. In 2019, during the devastating bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, Toni was driving near Long Flat, in the Port Macquarie area, when she spotted a koala struggling to crawl across the scorched ground. Its fur was badly singed, its body covered in ash, and its burns were so severe that it could barely move. Toni stopped her car immediately. She got out, took off the shirt she was wearing, and ran toward the koala. Amid the smoke and flames, she wrapped the animal in her shirt, carried it away from the danger, and used water to help soothe its burns. What moved me was not simply that Toni saved an animal, but the way she acted without almost any hesitation. She was not a professional rescuer. She had no special equipment with her. She did not even know whether she would be able to save the koala. But when she saw a living creature suffering right in front of her, she chose not to stand by and watch. Perhaps that is what makes this story so memorable. We often think of courage as something that requires extraordinary acts. But sometimes, courage simply means stopping when everyone else might keep going. It means kneeling beside a desperate creature and doing whatever you can, even when you have no idea how things will turn out. The image of Toni using her own shirt to wrap the koala has stayed with me. The shirt was just an ordinary piece of clothing, but in that moment, it became the first thing protecting a small life caught in the middle of a disaster. The story also reminds us that behind every bushfire are more than statistics about acres of land burned or homes destroyed. There are countless animals forced to flee, injured, or left without the habitats they depend on. The koala Toni saw that day was just one of many living creatures affected by the disaster. But at least in that moment, one person stopped. Toni could not save every animal in the forest. She could only save the one life she happened to encounter on the road. But perhaps compassion is not measured by how many lives we are able to save. It begins with whether we are willing to save one when the opportunity appears before us. Amid the smoke, flames, and chaos, a woman took off the shirt she was wearing and used it to hold an injured koala. A very small act. Yet it reminds us that even in the darkest moments, we can still choose not to turn away from the suffering of another living being 💖

When a Woman Took Off Her Shirt in the Middle of a Bushfire 🐨🔥 Some images last only a few minutes, yet stay with us for a very long time. For me, it was the moment Toni Doherty rushed into a bushfire zone to save a badly injured koala. In 2019, during the devastating bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, Toni was driving near Long Flat, in the Port Macquarie area, when she spotted a koala struggling to crawl across the scorched ground. Its fur was badly singed, its body covered in ash, and its burns were so severe that it could barely move. Toni stopped her car immediately. She got out, took off the shirt she was wearing, and ran toward the koala. Amid the smoke and flames, she wrapped the animal in her shirt, carried it away from the danger, and used water to help soothe its burns. What moved me was not simply that Toni saved an animal, but the way she acted without almost any hesitation. She was not a professional rescuer. She had no special equipment with her. She did not even know whether she would be able to save the koala. But when she saw a living creature suffering right in front of her, she chose not to stand by and watch. Perhaps that is what makes this story so memorable. We often think of courage as something that requires extraordinary acts. But sometimes, courage simply means stopping when everyone else might keep going. It means kneeling beside a desperate creature and doing whatever you can, even when you have no idea how things will turn out. The image of Toni using her own shirt to wrap the koala has stayed with me. The shirt was just an ordinary piece of clothing, but in that moment, it became the first thing protecting a small life caught in the middle of a disaster. The story also reminds us that behind every bushfire are more than statistics about acres of land burned or homes destroyed. There are countless animals forced to flee, injured, or left without the habitats they depend on. The koala Toni saw that day was just one of many living creatures affected by the disaster. But at least in that moment, one person stopped. Toni could not save every animal in the forest. She could only save the one life she happened to encounter on the road. But perhaps compassion is not measured by how many lives we are able to save. It begins with whether we are willing to save one when the opportunity appears before us. Amid the smoke, flames, and chaos, a woman took off the shirt she was wearing and used it to hold an injured koala. A very small act. Yet it reminds us that even in the darkest moments, we can still choose not to turn away from the suffering of another living being 💖

Beauty of music and nature 🌺🌺

57,165 次观看 • 24 天前

The Funeral as Statecraft What Khamenei’s Funeral Reveals About Iran’s Political Imagination By Abdulhameed Al-Ghobain States are rarely understood by listening to their rulers speak from podiums. Official language has its own duties: to reassure allies, confuse adversaries, discipline society, and preserve the appearance of control. The deeper life of a state is found elsewhere — in its arguments, its institutions, its old fears, its strategic habits, and in the rituals through which it turns defeat, victory, and even death into political meaning. Ali Khamenei’s funeral should be read in that light. In politics, a funeral is never only a funeral. It is a stage of continuity, a test of succession, a rehearsal of loyalty, and sometimes a declaration that the system intends to outlive the man who embodied it. Iran is not simply burying a leader. It is showing, once again, its ability to turn mourning into mobilization, grief into legitimacy, and a body into a political message. Many outside observers still misread Iran because they reduce it to what is easiest to see. In Washington, Iran is usually discussed through a familiar triad: the nuclear file, armed proxies, and clerical rule. In Arab capitals, the vocabulary is often narrower still: militias, sectarian expansion, and interference. None of this is false. It is simply not enough. It describes what Iran does, not how Iran thinks. Iran is not merely “a state of mullahs.” That phrase may work on television; it fails as analysis. The Islamic Republic is religious, Persian, revolutionary, bureaucratic, and pragmatic at the same time. It speaks in the language of Shiite political theology while carrying the memory of Persian statehood. It claims revolutionary purity while practicing careful regional patience. It can denounce the West in the morning, negotiate with it in the afternoon, and leave the evening sermon to make the two-sound consistent. This mixture is one of Iran’s political strengths. The Islamic Republic has learned how to turn sect into language, nationalism into structure, and negotiation into a room where time, pressure, and ambiguity can be managed. Time, for Tehran, is not empty duration. It is an asset. Many Arab political systems have not kept up with that rhythm. Too often, strategy begins only when the crisis becomes visible. The event arrives, settles in, builds networks, acquires allies, and only then does the commentary begin. Officials warn that the moment is “critical.” Analysts announce that the region is “volatile.” Television studios rediscover history just after it has entered the room. Iran does not operate with that lateness. It does not look at its Arab neighborhood as a collection of borders and formal sovereignties. It looks for openings: social fractures, sectarian vocabularies, weak institutions, anxious minorities, neglected peripheries, failed states, and elites willing to bargain with their own vulnerability. This is not praise. It is description. To understand Iran is not to admire it. It is to stop being surprised by it. Khamenei’s funeral therefore raises a question larger than succession. The issue is not only who follows him, which faction gains ground, or how the crowd behaves in the public square. Those questions matter, but they do not go far enough. The deeper question is whether the idea that sustained his rule can adjust after him. Can the Islamic Republic reproduce legitimacy without the man who served as its central symbol? Will it harden in the name of continuity, or become more flexible in the name of survival? Iran’s modern history suggests that rigidity and pragmatism are not opposites in Tehran’s political vocabulary. They are often paired instruments. When escalation is useful, Iran escalates in the name of principle. When compromise is useful, it compromises in the name of higher interest. The language can always be revised later. States that survive decades of pressure do not survive because they are pure. They survive because they know when to turn purity into posture and necessity into doctrine. Machiavelli understood that power is not managed by good intentions, but by a cold reading of fear, interest, ambition, and human weakness. Ibn Khaldun, writing from another civilizational world, understood that rule is not built by sermons alone, but by solidarity, coercive capacity, organization, and the ability to bind people into a durable political order. Iran’s ruling system has absorbed both lessons in its own way. It preaches, but it also organizes. It invokes heaven, but it studies the terrain. It speaks of martyrdom, but it counts leverage. This is why Abdolkarim Soroush matters for anyone trying to understand Iran beyond its security architecture. Soroush did not matter because he held power. He mattered because he exposed the point at which every religious state becomes vulnerable: the moment religion is converted into an instrument of rule. His central distinction is simple and dangerous. Religion is one thing; religious knowledge is another. Religion belongs to the realm of the sacred. Religious knowledge, however, is human, historical, fallible, and changeable. It is shaped by language, philosophy, science, politics, and by the limits of those who interpret. This does not attack faith. It attacks the monopoly over faith’s interpretation. For a clerical state, that is not a seminar-room argument. It is a political earthquake moving slowly beneath the floor. If religious knowledge is human, no cleric, institution, or state can claim final ownership of divine meaning. Revelation may remain sacred, but the apparatus speaking in its name loses immunity. The jurist becomes an interpreter, not the owner of truth. The state can no longer turn its preferred interpretation into political destiny without being questioned. That is why Soroush matters in the post-Khamenei moment. His thought shows that Iran’s struggle is not only over succession, sanctions, regional influence, or the nuclear file. It is also over who has the right to define religion politically. The Islamic Republic’s most serious vulnerability may not be a foreign army or a protest movement alone. It may be the slow erosion of the claim that the state’s interpretation of religion is indistinguishable from religion itself. Here Soroush approaches Michel Foucault in effect, if not in method. Power does not always need a prison when it controls the definition of truth. It is enough to decide what counts as religion, patriotism, treason, loyalty, and betrayal, then allow bureaucracy to do the rest. Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” was not a theory about monsters alone. It was about ordinary functionaries performing their duties with clean paperwork and a quiet conscience. In an ideological state, coercion often arrives well dressed: a stamped order, a solemn sermon, a classified file, and an archive that never apologizes. Still, Iran should not be mistaken for a frozen theocracy. It is a conflicted society with competing memories and ambitions: clerics, guards, merchants, reformists, nationalists, technocrats, students, exiles, and ordinary citizens who live between exhaustion and pride. Its state is repressive, but its society is not intellectually dead. Its official ideology is rigid, but its political practice is often tactical. Its revolutionary language is old, but its institutions have learned how to survive in a hostile environment. That combination makes Iran difficult to read and dangerous to underestimate. It is neither as invincible as its supporters imagine nor as brittle as its enemies often hope. It makes mistakes. It overreaches. It miscalculates. It provokes resistance. It pays heavy prices. But it learns inside a project. Too many of its rivals learn inside regret. This distinction matters for Western policymakers as much as for Arab governments. Counting missiles is not the same as understanding strategy. Mapping militias is not the same as understanding the political theology and historical imagination that make those militias useful. Tracking negotiations is not the same as understanding why Tehran often treats negotiation less as a conclusion than as a room in which time can be managed. The Arab world, in particular, has paid a high price for reading Iran mainly through the smoke of conflict. When Iran moves in Iraq, it is called interference. In Lebanon, influence. In Yemen, danger. All of this is true, but it is the vocabulary of outcomes. It does not explain the machine. The machine is deeper: Iran knows how to turn an idea into an apparatus, an apparatus into a state, and a state into a network of influence. Many Arab states have too often done the reverse. They turn the state into a speech, the speech into a ceremony, the ceremony into an image, and then ask, years later, where the state went. This is not merely a failure of courage. It is a failure of institutional imagination. A region that treats thinkers as conference decoration, security risks, or quotable ornaments should not be surprised when others produce strategy while it produces commentary. The post-Khamenei moment should therefore be read as a test not only for Iran, but for those who claim to understand it. Iran may speak the language of revenge. It may open channels of negotiation. It may do both in the same week. That would not be contradiction. It would be statecraft. Iranian pragmatism is not the opposite of ideology; it is one of ideology’s instruments. The fist and the smile often belong to the same hand. For Washington, the temptation will be to focus on succession, nuclear leverage, regional escalation, and elite factionalism. These are necessary concerns. They are not enough. The harder task is to understand how Iran’s ruling idea mutates under pressure. For Arab capitals, the challenge is even sharper: to stop reading Iran as a series of shocks and begin reading it as a structure. Khamenei’s funeral should not be read only as a funeral. It should be read as a mirror. Iran is burying a leader while testing the transition of an idea. Its rivals can count the mourners, study the protocol, and debate the optics. Or they can ask the more difficult question: what kind of political imagination allows a state to turn even death into continuity? There are no real surprises in politics for those who read before the shock arrives.

The Funeral as Statecraft What Khamenei’s Funeral Reveals About Iran’s Political Imagination By Abdulhameed Al-Ghobain States are rarely understood by listening to their rulers speak from podiums. Official language has its own duties: to reassure allies, confuse adversaries, discipline society, and preserve the appearance of control. The deeper life of a state is found elsewhere — in its arguments, its institutions, its old fears, its strategic habits, and in the rituals through which it turns defeat, victory, and even death into political meaning. Ali Khamenei’s funeral should be read in that light. In politics, a funeral is never only a funeral. It is a stage of continuity, a test of succession, a rehearsal of loyalty, and sometimes a declaration that the system intends to outlive the man who embodied it. Iran is not simply burying a leader. It is showing, once again, its ability to turn mourning into mobilization, grief into legitimacy, and a body into a political message. Many outside observers still misread Iran because they reduce it to what is easiest to see. In Washington, Iran is usually discussed through a familiar triad: the nuclear file, armed proxies, and clerical rule. In Arab capitals, the vocabulary is often narrower still: militias, sectarian expansion, and interference. None of this is false. It is simply not enough. It describes what Iran does, not how Iran thinks. Iran is not merely “a state of mullahs.” That phrase may work on television; it fails as analysis. The Islamic Republic is religious, Persian, revolutionary, bureaucratic, and pragmatic at the same time. It speaks in the language of Shiite political theology while carrying the memory of Persian statehood. It claims revolutionary purity while practicing careful regional patience. It can denounce the West in the morning, negotiate with it in the afternoon, and leave the evening sermon to make the two-sound consistent. This mixture is one of Iran’s political strengths. The Islamic Republic has learned how to turn sect into language, nationalism into structure, and negotiation into a room where time, pressure, and ambiguity can be managed. Time, for Tehran, is not empty duration. It is an asset. Many Arab political systems have not kept up with that rhythm. Too often, strategy begins only when the crisis becomes visible. The event arrives, settles in, builds networks, acquires allies, and only then does the commentary begin. Officials warn that the moment is “critical.” Analysts announce that the region is “volatile.” Television studios rediscover history just after it has entered the room. Iran does not operate with that lateness. It does not look at its Arab neighborhood as a collection of borders and formal sovereignties. It looks for openings: social fractures, sectarian vocabularies, weak institutions, anxious minorities, neglected peripheries, failed states, and elites willing to bargain with their own vulnerability. This is not praise. It is description. To understand Iran is not to admire it. It is to stop being surprised by it. Khamenei’s funeral therefore raises a question larger than succession. The issue is not only who follows him, which faction gains ground, or how the crowd behaves in the public square. Those questions matter, but they do not go far enough. The deeper question is whether the idea that sustained his rule can adjust after him. Can the Islamic Republic reproduce legitimacy without the man who served as its central symbol? Will it harden in the name of continuity, or become more flexible in the name of survival? Iran’s modern history suggests that rigidity and pragmatism are not opposites in Tehran’s political vocabulary. They are often paired instruments. When escalation is useful, Iran escalates in the name of principle. When compromise is useful, it compromises in the name of higher interest. The language can always be revised later. States that survive decades of pressure do not survive because they are pure. They survive because they know when to turn purity into posture and necessity into doctrine. Machiavelli understood that power is not managed by good intentions, but by a cold reading of fear, interest, ambition, and human weakness. Ibn Khaldun, writing from another civilizational world, understood that rule is not built by sermons alone, but by solidarity, coercive capacity, organization, and the ability to bind people into a durable political order. Iran’s ruling system has absorbed both lessons in its own way. It preaches, but it also organizes. It invokes heaven, but it studies the terrain. It speaks of martyrdom, but it counts leverage. This is why Abdolkarim Soroush matters for anyone trying to understand Iran beyond its security architecture. Soroush did not matter because he held power. He mattered because he exposed the point at which every religious state becomes vulnerable: the moment religion is converted into an instrument of rule. His central distinction is simple and dangerous. Religion is one thing; religious knowledge is another. Religion belongs to the realm of the sacred. Religious knowledge, however, is human, historical, fallible, and changeable. It is shaped by language, philosophy, science, politics, and by the limits of those who interpret. This does not attack faith. It attacks the monopoly over faith’s interpretation. For a clerical state, that is not a seminar-room argument. It is a political earthquake moving slowly beneath the floor. If religious knowledge is human, no cleric, institution, or state can claim final ownership of divine meaning. Revelation may remain sacred, but the apparatus speaking in its name loses immunity. The jurist becomes an interpreter, not the owner of truth. The state can no longer turn its preferred interpretation into political destiny without being questioned. That is why Soroush matters in the post-Khamenei moment. His thought shows that Iran’s struggle is not only over succession, sanctions, regional influence, or the nuclear file. It is also over who has the right to define religion politically. The Islamic Republic’s most serious vulnerability may not be a foreign army or a protest movement alone. It may be the slow erosion of the claim that the state’s interpretation of religion is indistinguishable from religion itself. Here Soroush approaches Michel Foucault in effect, if not in method. Power does not always need a prison when it controls the definition of truth. It is enough to decide what counts as religion, patriotism, treason, loyalty, and betrayal, then allow bureaucracy to do the rest. Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” was not a theory about monsters alone. It was about ordinary functionaries performing their duties with clean paperwork and a quiet conscience. In an ideological state, coercion often arrives well dressed: a stamped order, a solemn sermon, a classified file, and an archive that never apologizes. Still, Iran should not be mistaken for a frozen theocracy. It is a conflicted society with competing memories and ambitions: clerics, guards, merchants, reformists, nationalists, technocrats, students, exiles, and ordinary citizens who live between exhaustion and pride. Its state is repressive, but its society is not intellectually dead. Its official ideology is rigid, but its political practice is often tactical. Its revolutionary language is old, but its institutions have learned how to survive in a hostile environment. That combination makes Iran difficult to read and dangerous to underestimate. It is neither as invincible as its supporters imagine nor as brittle as its enemies often hope. It makes mistakes. It overreaches. It miscalculates. It provokes resistance. It pays heavy prices. But it learns inside a project. Too many of its rivals learn inside regret. This distinction matters for Western policymakers as much as for Arab governments. Counting missiles is not the same as understanding strategy. Mapping militias is not the same as understanding the political theology and historical imagination that make those militias useful. Tracking negotiations is not the same as understanding why Tehran often treats negotiation less as a conclusion than as a room in which time can be managed. The Arab world, in particular, has paid a high price for reading Iran mainly through the smoke of conflict. When Iran moves in Iraq, it is called interference. In Lebanon, influence. In Yemen, danger. All of this is true, but it is the vocabulary of outcomes. It does not explain the machine. The machine is deeper: Iran knows how to turn an idea into an apparatus, an apparatus into a state, and a state into a network of influence. Many Arab states have too often done the reverse. They turn the state into a speech, the speech into a ceremony, the ceremony into an image, and then ask, years later, where the state went. This is not merely a failure of courage. It is a failure of institutional imagination. A region that treats thinkers as conference decoration, security risks, or quotable ornaments should not be surprised when others produce strategy while it produces commentary. The post-Khamenei moment should therefore be read as a test not only for Iran, but for those who claim to understand it. Iran may speak the language of revenge. It may open channels of negotiation. It may do both in the same week. That would not be contradiction. It would be statecraft. Iranian pragmatism is not the opposite of ideology; it is one of ideology’s instruments. The fist and the smile often belong to the same hand. For Washington, the temptation will be to focus on succession, nuclear leverage, regional escalation, and elite factionalism. These are necessary concerns. They are not enough. The harder task is to understand how Iran’s ruling idea mutates under pressure. For Arab capitals, the challenge is even sharper: to stop reading Iran as a series of shocks and begin reading it as a structure. Khamenei’s funeral should not be read only as a funeral. It should be read as a mirror. Iran is burying a leader while testing the transition of an idea. Its rivals can count the mourners, study the protocol, and debate the optics. Or they can ask the more difficult question: what kind of political imagination allows a state to turn even death into continuity? There are no real surprises in politics for those who read before the shock arrives.

عبدالحميد الغبين

22,372 次观看 • 2 个月前

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and as Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden during Covid-19, today testified to Congress about Covid vaccines and Covid’s origin. "The first iteration of vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect — they did prevent infection, and subsequently, obviously, transmission,” Fauci said. “However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by: the durability of protection against infection, and hence, the transmission was relatively limited." But there was never definitive evidence that the vaccines would prevent transmission. In December 2020, the FDA determined that “data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” The CDC in 2020 and 2021 stated that protection would wear off, that the evidence was unclear, and that the data were limited, noted data analyst Kelley K during the hearing. When Fauci said in May 2021 that a vaccinated person would become a “dead end to the virus,” he was repeating a political talking point and not accurately representing the science. Claiming vaccination would prevent spread was a strategy to increase vaccine uptake among young, healthy people who were not vulnerable to severe COVID outcomes. In other words, the science had not been “settled,” but Fauci and other public health leaders chose to espouse a noble lie to encourage vaccination. To his credit, Fauci testified before Congress today and sat for many hours of a transcribed interview. But Fauci also implied that investigating his role put him at risk. “Every time someone gets up and says I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world,” he emphasized, “the death threats go up.” We unreservedly condemn any threats Fauci and his family may have received. It is illegal to threaten people with death or physical violence, as it should be. At the same time, we must be free to discuss Fauci’s role in funding the laboratory research to make coronaviruses more infectious, known as “gain-of-function research,” without fear of being accused of inciting violence against Fauci or his family members. It would be an abuse of power to suggest that any effort to hold Fauci accountable is equivalent to threatening him or his family. The responsibility for making threats lies with the person making them and not with those whose statements have ostensibly influenced them. And yet many Democrats repeatedly suggested that there was something sinister and dangerous about criticisms of Fauci for his role in shaping the US response to the pandemic as well as his role advocating for and funding the kinds of biomedical research that may have caused it. And Democrats repeatedly referred to the idea that US taxpayer dollars funded the research that resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 a “conspiracy theory.” Said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-CA), "The investigation of Dr Fauci shows he is an honorable public servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health and the public interest. And he is not a comic book supervillain. He did not fund research to create the Cove in 19 pandemic. He did not lie to Congress about gain of function research in Wuhan, and he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign today." Said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), "The evidence to date points to COVID 19 having originated from an animal market in China... this committee should be doing more to fight for those answers, but instead has wasted significant time and taxpayer money fueling conspiracy theories." Said Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), "Conspiracy theory after another get debunked...." But the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory. A few hours before Fauci testified, The New York Times, the most important newspaper for Democrats, published a complete and graphics-heavy case for the lab leak theory of Covid-19’s origin. A “growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China,” wrote Alina Chan who coauthored the 2021 book, Viral, with Matt Ridley, in the Times. In today’s hearing, Fauci insisted that he did not fund risky gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. The research his agency funded, he claimed, was not technically gain-of-function under the regulatory definition set by something called “The Guidelines on Potential Pandemic Pathogens Care and Oversight (P3CO).” Asked Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), "Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did NIH ever fund gain of function research in Wuhan, China?" Responded Fauci, "As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology." But Fauci and Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent years seeking to weaken oversight of such research. In 2011, after the NIH biosecurity board unanimously recommended that certain dangerous gain-of-function bird flu research not be published, Fauci and Collins published an opinion piece called “A flu virus risk worth taking” in the Washington Post, arguing that the benefits of this research outweighed the potential for a pandemic. The following year, 2012, NIH’s biosecurity board signed non-disclosure agreements and met with Fauci and Collins. The board, apparently under pressure from Fauci and Collins, then revised its previous recommendation to publish the risky bird flu research. According to Fauci and Democrats in Congress, NIH’s grant to EcoHealth Alliance did not fall under P3CO guidelines because it was not anticipated to increase a pathogen’s danger to humans, specifically. But in emails, NIH staff expressed their concerns about EcoHealth Alliance’s work creating hybrid “chimera” MERS and SARS viruses, in order to increase their infectiousness, in 2016. NIH staff pointed out that there was a moratorium placed on that research in 2014. Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, persuaded NIH staff to concede to a research threshold, saying EcoHealth would halt its research if the chimeras had enhanced viral growth 10 times that of the original viruses. After reaching an agreement with NIH, Daszak specifically referred to this work as gain-of-function, writing, “This is terrific! We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted. Cheers, Peter.” Then, in 2018, EcoHealth went on to seemingly violate its agreement by producing a chimeric virus with a viral load 10,000 times greater than the original virus. As such, Fauci, his colleagues, and the Democrats were playing word games, redefining what they mean by gain-of-function research in ways that allowed them to deny responsibility. And that’s not all. After the Obama administration had established a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) committee to review proposed gain-of-function projects before the NIH could approve them, Fauci and Collins knowingly sought to make changes to NIH policy in order to allow funding for riskier gain-of-function experiments. These changes included removing the committee’s ability to block projects and limiting the type of projects the committee could review. In his testimony, Fauci misrepresented the scientific possibility that NIH funding is associated with the Covid-19 outbreak, as well as his role in the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper, which infamously and misleadingly, claimed that, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” But consider how, in 2018, EcoHealth Alliance applied for a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a project called “DEFUSE” that would involve Shi Zhengli’s lab group at WIV and Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC). Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the features of SARS-CoV-2 closely resemble the work described in EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal. On February 1, 2020, Fauci and Collins held a meeting called “Coronavirus sequence comparison” with other scientists to compare the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, its closest genetic relative which the NIH-funded Wuhan lab discovered. This meeting would lead to the “Proximal Origin” paper. In the hearing, Fauci downplayed his role. After Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine asked, "Did Dr. Anderson send you drafts to review?" Fauci responded, "He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it. That was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen. I did not edit the paper." While it may be true that Fauci did not “edit” the “Proximal Origin” paper, lead author Kristian Andersen said he “prompted” it, and the authors sent him a final draft for approval. In their private exchanges, the authors repeatedly refer to Collins and Fauci as the “Bethesda boys.” Their offices were located in Bethesda, Maryland. The “Bethesda boys” appear to have directed some of the paper’s content. After Andersen suggested that a first draft should be sent “up the chain,” Fauci and Collins voiced concern that culturing or serial passaging (a process through which a virus can be made more infectious to humans) was still included as a possible origin. Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, then pressured the authors to remove it. Shortly after publishing the preprint, Holmes told Andersen, “Sorry the last bit had to be done without you… pressure from on high.” Fauci would go on to cite this paper as objective evidence from independent scientists. All of this, and yet, throughout the Oversight Committee’s hearing, Democrats refused to provide oversight and criticized their colleagues who attempted to provide it. “I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have received and may have to deal with today,” said one. “Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving lives in this country, and I'm sorry you have to continue going on with these attacks,” said another. “The Republicans failed to find, uh, a shred of evidence of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up of the origins of the pandemic,” said one. “Sir, do you think the American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists? Or instead, listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes,” asked another. Since World War II, Democrats, liberals, and progressives have criticized their political enemies as overly deferent to authority. Today, at the hearing with Fauci and other hearings where mainstream science is questioned, they criticize their enemies for not being sufficiently deferent. What changed?...

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and as Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden during Covid-19, today testified to Congress about Covid vaccines and Covid’s origin. "The first iteration of vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect — they did prevent infection, and subsequently, obviously, transmission,” Fauci said. “However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by: the durability of protection against infection, and hence, the transmission was relatively limited." But there was never definitive evidence that the vaccines would prevent transmission. In December 2020, the FDA determined that “data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” The CDC in 2020 and 2021 stated that protection would wear off, that the evidence was unclear, and that the data were limited, noted data analyst Kelley K during the hearing. When Fauci said in May 2021 that a vaccinated person would become a “dead end to the virus,” he was repeating a political talking point and not accurately representing the science. Claiming vaccination would prevent spread was a strategy to increase vaccine uptake among young, healthy people who were not vulnerable to severe COVID outcomes. In other words, the science had not been “settled,” but Fauci and other public health leaders chose to espouse a noble lie to encourage vaccination. To his credit, Fauci testified before Congress today and sat for many hours of a transcribed interview. But Fauci also implied that investigating his role put him at risk. “Every time someone gets up and says I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world,” he emphasized, “the death threats go up.” We unreservedly condemn any threats Fauci and his family may have received. It is illegal to threaten people with death or physical violence, as it should be. At the same time, we must be free to discuss Fauci’s role in funding the laboratory research to make coronaviruses more infectious, known as “gain-of-function research,” without fear of being accused of inciting violence against Fauci or his family members. It would be an abuse of power to suggest that any effort to hold Fauci accountable is equivalent to threatening him or his family. The responsibility for making threats lies with the person making them and not with those whose statements have ostensibly influenced them. And yet many Democrats repeatedly suggested that there was something sinister and dangerous about criticisms of Fauci for his role in shaping the US response to the pandemic as well as his role advocating for and funding the kinds of biomedical research that may have caused it. And Democrats repeatedly referred to the idea that US taxpayer dollars funded the research that resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 a “conspiracy theory.” Said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-CA), "The investigation of Dr Fauci shows he is an honorable public servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health and the public interest. And he is not a comic book supervillain. He did not fund research to create the Cove in 19 pandemic. He did not lie to Congress about gain of function research in Wuhan, and he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign today." Said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), "The evidence to date points to COVID 19 having originated from an animal market in China... this committee should be doing more to fight for those answers, but instead has wasted significant time and taxpayer money fueling conspiracy theories." Said Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), "Conspiracy theory after another get debunked...." But the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory. A few hours before Fauci testified, The New York Times, the most important newspaper for Democrats, published a complete and graphics-heavy case for the lab leak theory of Covid-19’s origin. A “growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China,” wrote Alina Chan who coauthored the 2021 book, Viral, with Matt Ridley, in the Times. In today’s hearing, Fauci insisted that he did not fund risky gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. The research his agency funded, he claimed, was not technically gain-of-function under the regulatory definition set by something called “The Guidelines on Potential Pandemic Pathogens Care and Oversight (P3CO).” Asked Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), "Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did NIH ever fund gain of function research in Wuhan, China?" Responded Fauci, "As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology." But Fauci and Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent years seeking to weaken oversight of such research. In 2011, after the NIH biosecurity board unanimously recommended that certain dangerous gain-of-function bird flu research not be published, Fauci and Collins published an opinion piece called “A flu virus risk worth taking” in the Washington Post, arguing that the benefits of this research outweighed the potential for a pandemic. The following year, 2012, NIH’s biosecurity board signed non-disclosure agreements and met with Fauci and Collins. The board, apparently under pressure from Fauci and Collins, then revised its previous recommendation to publish the risky bird flu research. According to Fauci and Democrats in Congress, NIH’s grant to EcoHealth Alliance did not fall under P3CO guidelines because it was not anticipated to increase a pathogen’s danger to humans, specifically. But in emails, NIH staff expressed their concerns about EcoHealth Alliance’s work creating hybrid “chimera” MERS and SARS viruses, in order to increase their infectiousness, in 2016. NIH staff pointed out that there was a moratorium placed on that research in 2014. Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, persuaded NIH staff to concede to a research threshold, saying EcoHealth would halt its research if the chimeras had enhanced viral growth 10 times that of the original viruses. After reaching an agreement with NIH, Daszak specifically referred to this work as gain-of-function, writing, “This is terrific! We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted. Cheers, Peter.” Then, in 2018, EcoHealth went on to seemingly violate its agreement by producing a chimeric virus with a viral load 10,000 times greater than the original virus. As such, Fauci, his colleagues, and the Democrats were playing word games, redefining what they mean by gain-of-function research in ways that allowed them to deny responsibility. And that’s not all. After the Obama administration had established a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) committee to review proposed gain-of-function projects before the NIH could approve them, Fauci and Collins knowingly sought to make changes to NIH policy in order to allow funding for riskier gain-of-function experiments. These changes included removing the committee’s ability to block projects and limiting the type of projects the committee could review. In his testimony, Fauci misrepresented the scientific possibility that NIH funding is associated with the Covid-19 outbreak, as well as his role in the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper, which infamously and misleadingly, claimed that, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” But consider how, in 2018, EcoHealth Alliance applied for a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a project called “DEFUSE” that would involve Shi Zhengli’s lab group at WIV and Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC). Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the features of SARS-CoV-2 closely resemble the work described in EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal. On February 1, 2020, Fauci and Collins held a meeting called “Coronavirus sequence comparison” with other scientists to compare the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, its closest genetic relative which the NIH-funded Wuhan lab discovered. This meeting would lead to the “Proximal Origin” paper. In the hearing, Fauci downplayed his role. After Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine asked, "Did Dr. Anderson send you drafts to review?" Fauci responded, "He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it. That was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen. I did not edit the paper." While it may be true that Fauci did not “edit” the “Proximal Origin” paper, lead author Kristian Andersen said he “prompted” it, and the authors sent him a final draft for approval. In their private exchanges, the authors repeatedly refer to Collins and Fauci as the “Bethesda boys.” Their offices were located in Bethesda, Maryland. The “Bethesda boys” appear to have directed some of the paper’s content. After Andersen suggested that a first draft should be sent “up the chain,” Fauci and Collins voiced concern that culturing or serial passaging (a process through which a virus can be made more infectious to humans) was still included as a possible origin. Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, then pressured the authors to remove it. Shortly after publishing the preprint, Holmes told Andersen, “Sorry the last bit had to be done without you… pressure from on high.” Fauci would go on to cite this paper as objective evidence from independent scientists. All of this, and yet, throughout the Oversight Committee’s hearing, Democrats refused to provide oversight and criticized their colleagues who attempted to provide it. “I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have received and may have to deal with today,” said one. “Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving lives in this country, and I'm sorry you have to continue going on with these attacks,” said another. “The Republicans failed to find, uh, a shred of evidence of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up of the origins of the pandemic,” said one. “Sir, do you think the American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists? Or instead, listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes,” asked another. Since World War II, Democrats, liberals, and progressives have criticized their political enemies as overly deferent to authority. Today, at the hearing with Fauci and other hearings where mainstream science is questioned, they criticize their enemies for not being sufficiently deferent. What changed?...

Michael Shellenberger

582,268 次观看 • 2 年前

Have you heard of collective consciousness and mass programming? Watch THINK TOGETHER (short film 5min) A TORVÆL FILM. The spell is global. It's not just "Think Together." That's one film, one title, one thread in a tapestry of mass enchantment that has been woven through every medium humans use to receive information, entertainment, and meaning. It's a"magic kind of a spell through screen." That is the most precise description of what's happening. Not metaphor. Not allegory. Literal spellcasting through electronic and print media. Let's go deep into the global spell. The mediums. The methods. The specific frequency weapons deployed through each channel. The Nature of the Spell: Electronic Enchantment A spell, in its original meaning, is a binding. A set of symbols, sounds, and focused intention that alters the consciousness of the target, making them perceive reality differently, act against their own interest, or accept a condition they would otherwise reject. Traditional magic required proximity. The sorcerer had to be near the target, or use a physical link hair, nail clippings, a photograph. The spell was limited by space. Electronic media destroyed that limitation. The screen is a direct energetic link between the caster and the target. Light enters the eyes. Sound enters the ears. The brain entrains to the frequencies embedded in the transmission. The biofield receives the signal. Distance is irrelevant. One broadcast can enchant a billion people simultaneously. The screen is the wand. The transmission is the incantation. The content is the intention. And the population is under a continuous, multi-layered, globally synchronized spell that has been building for over a century. Medium 1: Cinema | The Dream Injection Movies are the most powerful spell delivery system ever invented. The Theater as Ritual Chamber: A cinema is a darkened room where strangers gather in silence, facing a single light source. The flickering light induces a hypnagogic state the brainwave pattern of the threshold between waking and dreaming. In this state, the critical faculty is suppressed. The subconscious is open. The images and sounds on the screen are absorbed without filtration. This is identical to the conditions of a ritual chamber. The darkened temple. The flickering torchlight. The congregation facing the altar. The priest intoning the incantation. Cinema is temple worship, and the screen is the altar on which reality is reshaped. The 24 Frames Per Second Induction: Film runs at 24 frames per second. This is not an arbitrary choice. The human brain's alpha rhythm the frequency of relaxed, suggestible awareness operates at 8 to 12 Hz. 24 frames per second, with each frame shown two or three times due to the shutter, creates a flicker frequency in the 48 to 72 Hz range. This is a harmonic of the gamma brainwave band, associated with binding sensory information into a coherent percept. The film doesn't just show you images. It entrains your gamma rhythm to its own temporal structure. Your brain is phase-locked to the projector. You are in the film. The film is in you. Color Grading as Emotional Programming: Every major film uses color grading to manipulate emotional response. Teal and orange. Desaturated blues for dystopia. Warm golds for nostalgia. The palette is not an aesthetic choice. It is an emotional command. The visual cortex processes color before the conscious mind identifies objects. The emotional response to the color palette happens before you know what you're looking at. The spell is felt before it is seen. Sound Design as Frequency Weapon: Film soundtracks use specific frequencies to induce physiological states. Infrasonic bass frequencies below 20 Hz, felt rather than heard triggers the fear response in the amygdala. The Shepard tone an auditory illusion of a pitch that rises forever without ever reaching a destination creates a sense of endless tension that never resolves. This is used extensively in horror and thriller films to keep the audience in a state of chronic, unresolvable anxiety. The soundtrack tells you what to feel. You believe the feeling is your own response to the story. It is not. It is a frequency command, delivered through the auditory system, bypassing cognition entirely. #PredictiveProgramming: Major films depict future events before they happen. Not as speculation. As conditioning. The controllers place images of planned events into the collective unconscious through cinema. When the event occurs in reality, the population has already "seen" it. It feels familiar. It feels inevitable. It feels like something they already accepted in the dream state. Pandemic films before COVID. Drone warfare films before the drone wars. Mass surveillance films before Snowden. Transhumanist films before Neuralink. The spell is cast years in advance. The event is merely the fulfillment of a prophecy that was manufactured by the prophecy itself. Medium 2: Music | The Auditory Incantation Music is the oldest spell technology. Before writing, before film, before any visual medium, there was rhythm and tone. The drum. The chant. The bone flute. Music alters brainwave states directly, without requiring visual attention. 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz: The Frequency War The global standard tuning for music is A=440 Hz. This was adopted in the early 20th century, pushed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Nazi propaganda ministry, and codified by the International Organization for Standardization in 1955. Prior to this, many traditions used A=432 Hz, a frequency that mathematically aligns with the Schumann resonance (8 Hz), the Earth's natural electromagnetic pulse, and the geometric proportions found in nature. 440 Hz creates a subtle dissonance with the human biofield. It agitates. It separates the listener from the Earth's frequency. Music tuned to 440 Hz cannot fully relax the nervous system. It maintains a baseline of subliminal tension, a low-grade anxiety that the listener attributes to their life circumstances rather than to the music itself. 432 Hz music entrains the listener to the planetary frequency. It harmonizes. It heals. It is suppressed not because it "sounds worse" but because it sounds more coherent and produces a brain state that is resistant to external control. Lyrical Programming: Lyrics are direct incantations. The repetition of a phrase in a song embeds it in the subconscious. The melody carries the words past the critical faculty. The rhythm entrains the brain to receive the message. Examine the lyrical content of mainstream music across decades: ◻️Themes of hopelessness, materialism, sexual degradation, violence, substance use ◻️ Self-referential obsession: "I," "me," "my" repeated endlessly, reinforcing the illusion of the separate self ◻️ Nihilism presented as cool, despair presented as authenticity ◻️ Love reduced to possession, intimacy reduced to transaction The population sings along. They internalize the incantation. They believe they are listening to music. They are reciting spells that bind them to a reality of consumption, isolation, and quiet desperation. The Monopoly of Distribution: A handful of corporations control the global music industry. Universal, Sony, Warner. The playlists are curated. The algorithms select what billions hear. Independent music that carries a different frequency, a different message, a different emotional command is not played. It is not because it lacks quality. It is because it carries the wrong spell. Medium 3: Television | The Continuous Ritual Television was the first medium to bring the spell into the home continuously. Before smartphones, before streaming, the television was the household altar. The family gathered around it. The light flickered in the living room. The incantation played during dinner. The 30-Minute Spell Cycle: The sitcom format 22 minutes of content, 8 minutes of commercials is a spell cycle. The content opens the subconscious (laughter, emotional engagement). The commercial delivers the command (buy this, believe this, want this). The cycle repeats. Over decades, the population's attention span was conditioned to this rhythm. The modern inability to focus for more than a few minutes is not a failure of will. It is a successful spell. An entrained attention cycle that can now be exploited by shorter-form content on smartphones. News as Reality Creation: Television news is not information. It is ritual. The set, the lighting, the music, the cadence of the anchor's voice these are the elements of a ceremonial invocation. The news does not report reality. It declares reality into being. The repetition of phrases, the selection of images, the framing of events this is spellcasting in real time. The population watches, believes they are being informed, and has their perception of the world sculpted without their knowledge. The Laugh Track: The laugh track is the most obvious spell component in television history. A recorded laugh triggers the mirror neuron system. The viewer laughs not because the joke is funny but because they heard laughter. The spell bypasses judgment. The laugh track says: "This is funny." The brain obeys. The critical faculty is suspended by a recorded cackle. Medium 4: Print Media | The Written Incantation Before electronic media, print was the spell delivery system. It remains operational, though its influence has been partially eclipsed by screens. The Headline as Command: A headline is not a summary. It is a command phrase. Most readers do not read the article. They read the headline. The headline is the spell, condensed to its most potent form. It frames the event before the event is understood. It tells the reader what to think before they have a chance to think. The Inverted Pyramid: Journalistic structure places the most important information first, followed by diminishing detail. This is presented as a neutral convention. It is a spell structure. The command is delivered at the top. The supporting incantation follows. By the time the reader reaches the end, they have forgotten the details and retained only the command. The Omission: The most powerful spell component in print media is what is not printed. The events, perspectives, and voices that are systematically excluded from the written record. The spell of omission creates a reality defined by absence. If it is not in print, it did not happen. The population's sense of what is real is shaped as much by the silence as by the words. Medium 5: Social Media | The Participatory Spell Social media is the most sophisticated spell technology ever created. It does not broadcast to a passive audience. It enlists the audience as casters. Every user is simultaneously the target and the amplifier of the spell. The Infinite Scroll as Trance Induction: The infinite scroll is a hypnotic mechanism. The finger moves. The content appears. The brain receives a micro-dose of dopamine with each new image. The motion is rhythmic. The attention is captured. The critical faculty is submerged. This is identical to the repetitive motion of a rosary, a prayer wheel, a mantra. The user is meditating, but the object of meditation is chosen by the algorithm, not by the self. The Like Button as Ritual Participation: Every like, every share, every comment is a ritual act. The user invests a fragment of their attention, their emotional energy, their biofield into the content. The spell is strengthened by participation. The egregore is fed by interaction. The user believes they are expressing an opinion. They are adding their life force to a thought-form they did not create and do not control. The Algorithm as High Priest: The algorithm does not show you what you want. It shows you what will keep you engaged and what will shape your perception in accordance with the controllers' intention. The algorithm is the high priest of the participatory spell. It selects the incantations. It measures the responses. It adjusts the frequency in real time. It knows you better than you know yourself, because it has your attention data, your emotional data, your behavioral data, and the biofield data harvested through the IoB sensors. The spell is personalized. No two users receive the same incantation. But all incantations serve the same master. Medium 6: Advertising | The Direct Command Advertising is the purest form of the spell. It does not pretend to be art, information, or entertainment. It is a direct command: desire this, buy this, be this. Every other medium is, in part, a delivery system for the advertising spell. The Subliminal Layer: Subliminal messaging is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented, researched, and patented technology. Images embedded for single frames. Audio messages masked by other sounds. Commands that bypass conscious awareness entirely. The advertising industry has denied using subliminals since the 1950s, while simultaneously filing patents for subliminal delivery systems. The Repetition Principle: A single exposure to an advertisement has minimal effect. Repeated exposure thousands of times across years wires the command into the neural architecture. The brand name becomes a neural pathway. The jingle becomes an earworm that plays unbidden. The desire becomes "personal preference." The population believes it is choosing. It is executing a command that was installed by repetition. The Archetypal Manipulation: Advertising uses archetypal imagery the hero, the lover, the mother, the wise elder to bypass the rational mind and speak directly to the deep psyche. The car commercial does not sell transportation. It sells the archetype of freedom. The perfume ad does not sell scent. It sells the archetype of desire. The spell operates at the level of the collective unconscious, using symbols that predate language. Medium 7: Architecture and Public Space | The Environmental Spell The spell is not confined to screens and pages. The built environment itself is an incantation. Brutalist Architecture: The concrete blocks, the grey walls, the absence of organic form this is not an aesthetic choice. It is an energetic suppression field rendered in physical form. The human biofield responds to geometry. Organic forms curves, spirals, natural proportions harmonize and strengthen the biofield. Brutalist geometry sharp angles, unbroken planes, unnatural proportions disrupts and weakens it. A population that lives and works in brutalist structures is a population whose biofield is continuously under assault. The Elimination of Sacred Space: Traditional cities were built around sacred centers temples, cathedrals, gathering places that served as energetic focal points. Modern cities are built around commercial centers shopping malls, business districts, financial hubs. The sacred is replaced by the transactional. The focal point of the community is no longer a place of spiritual coherence but a place of consumption. The spell reorients the population's collective attention from the transcendent to the material, without a single word being spoken. Artificial Lighting: The permanent illumination of cities by artificial light severs the population from the natural cycles of light and dark. The circadian rhythm is disrupted. The pineal gland, which produces melatonin and is sensitive to natural light cycles, is suppressed. The biofield loses its connection to the solar and cosmic cycles that are the foundation of embodied consciousness. The population is untethered from the planetary rhythm. The grid provides the new rhythm. The spell is maintained by streetlights and screens, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Medium 8: Education | The Foundational Spell The spell is installed in childhood through the education system. Before the child can read, before they can critically evaluate, before they have formed a stable sense of self, the incantation begins. The Bell System: The school day is divided by bells. The bell is a Pavlovian trigger. Stop this activity. Start that activity. Obey the schedule. The bell trains the nervous system to respond to external commands. The population learns, from age five, that their attention is not their own. It is directed by an external authority. This conditioning persists for life. The Curriculum as Reality Definition: The curriculum does not teach "subjects." It defines what is real and what is not. The history that is taught. The history that is omitted. The science that is presented. The science that is suppressed. The literature that is canonized. The literature that is excluded. By the time the child reaches adulthood, their sense of reality has been structured by the curriculum. They do not know what they were not taught. The omission spell, installed in childhood, is the most durable of all. Standardized Testing as Soul Extraction: The child is measured, ranked, and labeled by standardized tests. The unique intelligence is reduced to a number. The soul is quantified. The test does not measure intelligence. It measures compliance with the cognitive framework of the controllers. The child who thinks differently fails. The child who recites the spell correctly passes. The population is sorted into categories by its willingness and ability to accept the incantation. The Unified Spell: All Mediums, One Intention These mediums are not separate. They are a single, coordinated spellcasting apparatus that operates 24 hours a day, across every channel of human perception. Medium Spell Mechanism Cinema Dream injection, frame-rate entrainment, predictive programming Music Frequency dissonance (440 Hz), lyrical incantation, rhythm entrainment Television Ritual cycle conditioning, laugh track mirroring, news reality creation Print Headline command, inverted pyramid structure, omission of reality Social Media Participatory spell, infinite scroll trance, algorithmic high priest Advertising Direct command, subliminal embedding, archetypal manipulation Architecture Energetic suppression geometry, sacred space elimination, artificial light Education Bell system Pavlovian conditioning, curriculum reality definition, soul quantification The spell is continuous. From the moment the child wakes to the school bell, through the music in their headphones, the movies in their leisure, the news on their screens, the ads in their feeds, the buildings they inhabit, the tests they take every sensory input is an incantation designed to maintain the captive state. The consciousness that emerges from this total sensory environment is not a free consciousness. It is a constructed consciousness. A broadcast personality running on biological hardware. The original soul, buried beneath layers of electronic enchantment, may flicker occasionally in a dream, in a moment of unexpected clarity, in a crisis that breaks the trance but the spell reasserts itself quickly. The screen lights up. The rhythm resumes. The incantation continues. Breaking the Spell The spell is powerful, but it has a single vulnerability: awareness of the spell is the undoing of the spell. A spell works only on those who do not know they are being spelled. The moment the target recognizes the incantation as an incantation, the command structure breaks. The words lose their power. The images lose their grip. The frequency entrainment fails because the target is now observing the frequency, not absorbing it. This is why the controllers invest so heavily in ridiculing "conspiracy theories," in mocking those who see manipulation in media, in pathologizing the recognition of the spell as paranoia. The greatest threat to the spell is not resistance. It is perception. The simple act of seeing the mechanism breaks the mechanism.

Aprajita Nafs Nefes 🦋 Ancient Believer

41,093 次观看 • 2 个月前

Breaking New Footage: Woman Screams 'Bomb Strapped to Me' at Kids' Confirmation in Packed Navan Church Teachers and clergy at St Mary's Church in Navan, Co. Meath, have been widely commended for their composure and quick thinking after a woman interrupted a Confirmation ceremony by claiming she had a bomb strapped to her body. The incident took place on Saturday, during a packed service at the central church on Fairgreen/Trimgate Street. Hundreds of sixth-class students from four local schools, along with their parents and sponsors, were present as they prepared to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation from Bishop of Meath Tom Deenihan. The woman approached the altar, accessed the microphone, held her jacket closed, and announced she had something to say before declaring she had a bomb. Priests and teachers responded swiftly and calmly, escorting her away from the altar and out of the church without any escalation or widespread panic. Many attendees did not clearly hear her exact words due to the commotion, and reactions varied: some children appeared frightened, while others only learned of the claim afterward from friends. Parents praised the handling of the situation, noting that the calm intervention by clergy and educators prevented further distress among the young congregation. Alarming released footage from our source shows the tense moment the woman was being escorted out, highlighting the potential danger in such a crowded setting with children present. Church representatives have declined to comment on the matter. Gardaí confirmed they attended a report of a public order incident at the location around 1 p.m. that day. A woman in her 40s was arrested on site, has since been charged, and is scheduled to appear in court at a later date. Due to the ongoing legal proceedings, no additional details are being released.

Breaking New Footage: Woman Screams 'Bomb Strapped to Me' at Kids' Confirmation in Packed Navan Church Teachers and clergy at St Mary's Church in Navan, Co. Meath, have been widely commended for their composure and quick thinking after a woman interrupted a Confirmation ceremony by claiming she had a bomb strapped to her body. The incident took place on Saturday, during a packed service at the central church on Fairgreen/Trimgate Street. Hundreds of sixth-class students from four local schools, along with their parents and sponsors, were present as they prepared to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation from Bishop of Meath Tom Deenihan. The woman approached the altar, accessed the microphone, held her jacket closed, and announced she had something to say before declaring she had a bomb. Priests and teachers responded swiftly and calmly, escorting her away from the altar and out of the church without any escalation or widespread panic. Many attendees did not clearly hear her exact words due to the commotion, and reactions varied: some children appeared frightened, while others only learned of the claim afterward from friends. Parents praised the handling of the situation, noting that the calm intervention by clergy and educators prevented further distress among the young congregation. Alarming released footage from our source shows the tense moment the woman was being escorted out, highlighting the potential danger in such a crowded setting with children present. Church representatives have declined to comment on the matter. Gardaí confirmed they attended a report of a public order incident at the location around 1 p.m. that day. A woman in her 40s was arrested on site, has since been charged, and is scheduled to appear in court at a later date. Due to the ongoing legal proceedings, no additional details are being released.

SnDMedia

187,538 次观看 • 5 个月前

This isn’t “$300M vanished” clickbait. In 2022, TELUS said the quiet part out loud, adoption was a problem. By May 2024, Infoway was looking for new ownership. MPs asked for contracts, IP terms, payments and penalties between Infoway & Telus! That's when Camera's go dark!!! I know it's longer than usual, but it's worth it if you really want to know why the Liberals shut down committee yesterday. I pull back the curtains on what they're hiding for anyone who wants to know! 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗧𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀/𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆. PrescribeIT is the kind of government failure that hides behind words like digital health, innovation, and modernization. We've seen it before from Liberals with things like Arrivescam. In plain English, it was supposed to help doctors send prescriptions to pharmacies without dragging the country through another decade of fax machines. Then federal money went to Canada Health Infoway, TELUS became the major technical player, and suddenly a simple prescription system turned into a nearly $300 million procurement swamp. “𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗴𝗹𝘆.” Michael Green, Infoway’s CEO, sits in the middle of the institutional story. TELUS wasn’t some side contractor either. They were selected in 2017 to help build and operate PrescribeIT by Infoway themselves. Then in 2022, TELUS basically said the quiet part out loud: adoption was a problem because doctors, pharmacies, EMR vendors, and pharmacy systems all had to play along and the foreboding reality was they weren't, and yet money still kept flowing to this obviously failed project. “𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹, 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲.” Then comes the money. TELUS reportedly received about $98 million, while PrescribeIT failed to reach the adoption needed to survive and they knew about this since 2022. So the real question isn’t just what Ottawa spent. It’s what taxpayers actually bought. What did Canada own? What did Infoway own? What did TELUS own? Turns out Telus owns it all and we just gave them free money and they keep all the tech. “𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁.” Matt Strauss asked for the actual file: the 2017 Infoway-TELUS contract, amendments, renewals, IP ownership records, payment records, penalties, and termination details. In other words, the paper trail that would show whether the public got value or got played. “𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗣 𝗦𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮 𝗦𝗶𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.” Not the fluff. Not the slogans. The contract guts. So when the meeting reportedly went dark, the fair question is obvious: why does a failed e-prescribing project need this much discretion around who got paid, who owned what, and what Canada was left holding when it all fell apart? Vesper

This isn’t “$300M vanished” clickbait. In 2022, TELUS said the quiet part out loud, adoption was a problem. By May 2024, Infoway was looking for new ownership. MPs asked for contracts, IP terms, payments and penalties between Infoway & Telus! That's when Camera's go dark!!! I know it's longer than usual, but it's worth it if you really want to know why the Liberals shut down committee yesterday. I pull back the curtains on what they're hiding for anyone who wants to know! 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗧𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀/𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆. PrescribeIT is the kind of government failure that hides behind words like digital health, innovation, and modernization. We've seen it before from Liberals with things like Arrivescam. In plain English, it was supposed to help doctors send prescriptions to pharmacies without dragging the country through another decade of fax machines. Then federal money went to Canada Health Infoway, TELUS became the major technical player, and suddenly a simple prescription system turned into a nearly $300 million procurement swamp. “𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗴𝗹𝘆.” Michael Green, Infoway’s CEO, sits in the middle of the institutional story. TELUS wasn’t some side contractor either. They were selected in 2017 to help build and operate PrescribeIT by Infoway themselves. Then in 2022, TELUS basically said the quiet part out loud: adoption was a problem because doctors, pharmacies, EMR vendors, and pharmacy systems all had to play along and the foreboding reality was they weren't, and yet money still kept flowing to this obviously failed project. “𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹, 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲.” Then comes the money. TELUS reportedly received about $98 million, while PrescribeIT failed to reach the adoption needed to survive and they knew about this since 2022. So the real question isn’t just what Ottawa spent. It’s what taxpayers actually bought. What did Canada own? What did Infoway own? What did TELUS own? Turns out Telus owns it all and we just gave them free money and they keep all the tech. “𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁.” Matt Strauss asked for the actual file: the 2017 Infoway-TELUS contract, amendments, renewals, IP ownership records, payment records, penalties, and termination details. In other words, the paper trail that would show whether the public got value or got played. “𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗣 𝗦𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮 𝗦𝗶𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.” Not the fluff. Not the slogans. The contract guts. So when the meeting reportedly went dark, the fair question is obvious: why does a failed e-prescribing project need this much discretion around who got paid, who owned what, and what Canada was left holding when it all fell apart? Vesper

Vesper

22,212 次观看 • 4 个月前

The secret recordings: Texas Tech's senior official admits that they lied about me in the official documentation leading up to my medical school dismissal For months after I began writing about how wrong the medical and scientific communities had gotten the COVID-19 response, senior Texas Tech administrators had been engaged in a flurry of internal activity about my public speech. They did not debate my views. They only discussed what to do about the attention. My right to free speech is protected under the United States Constitution. Texas Tech is a taxpayer-funded agency that must guarantee its students First Amendment rights. Its Student Handbook promises to uphold them. Senior administrators, including deans of multiple schools, held several meetings about what I wrote online. They instructed administrators to compile surveillance dossiers -- screenshots, PDFs of my articles and tweets, negative emails and hearsay. They instructed faculty not to say good things about me. They assigned me a "professionalism coach," Cheryl Erwin, who posed as an impartial advisor but privately wrote that I engaged in "intellectual narcissism" and believed in "conspiracy theories." In one passage, she compared my case to the Trump indictment and his denial of the 2020 election results. She wrote that I was exercising my First Amendment rights to "make an idiot of himself." I questioned the wisdom of lockdowns and the effectiveness of masks. This warranted, it appears, my very own Stasi dossier. I was aware of none of this until I exercised my statutory right to inspect my educational records. After dozens of email exchanges, months of delay, and a federal complaint to the Department of Education, I was finally able to inspect them two months ago. Dr. Erwin had accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I did not. But I should have. Shortly after the dean of the medical school demanded my signed Honor Code and asked "what rotation is he on," I began receiving evaluations from Texas Tech faculty that were false and misleading. This went on for months. Something on the order of fifty discrete complaints were made against me. Prior to that, the number had been zero. I filed seven detailed complaints according to the Student Handbook and under the guidance of several administrators. I alleged that my evaluators had fabricated evaluations. I demanded hearings to hold them accountable. On November 4, 2023, senior administrator Simon Williams signed a document removing me from campus on the pretext of being dangerous. A BOLO was issued telling students, faculty, and employees to call 911 if I was seen. Mass emails warned that I was dangerous. An incident that continues to be cited to this very day, more than two years later. On November 5, Dr. Williams invited me to a sandwich shop. He confessed that he knew I was not dangerous. He admitted that Texas Tech faculty and administrators felt threatened by my complaints -- and took it out on me. In other words, Dr. Williams confessed that he lied in Texas Tech's official documentation and that the campus removal was retaliation for constitutionally protected speech alleging wrongdoing by Texas Tech faculty. Here are just some of the things he told me: "This profession expects more of everyone. And if you choose to enter it, by definition you choose to live by those professional rules." "And you know, free speech is free speech. We've actually had a lot of talks. Our lawyers are doing works with us. Just yesterday when I was at the meeting, they were talking about free speech. I mean I'm 100%. I want you to be able to say whatever the frick you want. And I won't get -- I usually will not get in any way triggered by it. But when you're in a position that's such a trusted position in society -- then your standard has to be a little bit. And that's one of the places this is becoming a problem." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "Can I say in my appeal letter that Dr. Williams seems to believe that I'm not [nervous laughter] homicidal?" "I... I have said that. I don't think you are. I don't think there's -- I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "But it's important for me that I do this. In fact, that's why I moved back from Seattle a day early. Because I needed to be here today. I want you to know that because I never felt [inaudible] bad here. I've always enjoyed my interactions with you. I wish other people could see it that way, but apparently that's [inaudible]." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] Yet in his letter authorizing my removal just the day before, he wrote: "You have engaged in behavior that may constitute violation(s) ... specifically, but not limited to ... 'Physical harm or threat of harm to any person.'" Then an appeal hearing was held. A Schrodinger's Administrator of sorts, just as soon as Dr. Williams was observed to speak publicly, he immediately asserted that I was indeed dangerous and should be kept off campus, flip-flopping back from the position he communicated privately. The timeline: November 4: "Physical harm or threat of harm to any person" November 5: "I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that" November 9: Kevin is dangerous actually To be clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, it is a federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights under color of law. A federal crime. And that is exactly what Dr. Williams did. Dr. Williams's decision to remove me was not impulsive. Nine months earlier, two days after my Newsweek article was published, he wrote in internal emails: "It is obviously protected speech but also quite concerning in the way he appears to speak for the medical community. We need to discuss an appropriate response." -- February 1, 2023 "I am not surprised that there was backlash. I think it will be best to hear what legal says we should do." -- February 2, 2023 The "appropriate response" took nine months to execute. It was relentless, and it came from all directions. This "appropriate response" was precisely the one I filed grievances to confront. And I was met with calls from the campus police. I am not the first one Texas Tech has done this to. How do I know? An administrator told me. At least one other student had false allegations leveled against him because the administration wanted them gone. And if they win, I won't be the last they do this to either. I only discovered these emails because I exercised my right under FERPA to inspect my educational records. Now Texas Tech's litigation counsel, Assistant Attorney General Scott Smith, has recently blocked all further access to my records -- in writing. If Texas Tech does not fulfill its FERPA obligations, it could lose all federal funding. Texas Tech, apparently, is getting very nervous. Smith also ordered me to stop contacting the Registrar and to route all requests through him. That's right. The attorney defending Texas Tech against my lawsuit is now trying to establish gatekeeping control over my education records. That's illegal. A federal complaint is pending with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. FIRE Greg Lukianoff -- crickets DOJ Civil Rights Division -- you have my complaint Attorney General Ken Paxton @OAGTexas -- your AAG is doing a terrible job; borderline sanctionable; I don't get it Greg Abbott -- this your university Texas Tech University -- Williams was not the top of the decision tree; I know that for a fact Newsweek -- help me publish my story @ACLUofTexas -- do you know about this? Department of Justice (DOJ) Harmeet K. Dhillon Pam Bondi -- theoretically, this is prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 242. I'm not a prosecutor, but it does theoretically fulfill the elements. Willful. Chancellor Brandon Creighton -- you are the chancellor. Do something. My case is a strange one. It gets stranger everyday. It will get stranger still. Of that I am sure. Here's something strange: the defending Assistant Attorney General and two colleagues are getting hammered on the docket by a pro se plaintiff. They seem utterly incapable of following court rules, making coherent arguments, or even properly citing their own exhibits or authorities. I suspect that they just don't know what to do with my case. In the next post, I will begin telling that story. You won't believe it. Texans, your government is setting your taxpayer money on fire to defend a university that set out not just to destroy a medical student's career, but his personal and professional reputation as well. Remember. They destroyed me because I was damn good at what I did. Now I'm an order of magnitude better. And I don't bluff. Horror and laughter. Those come next.

The secret recordings: Texas Tech's senior official admits that they lied about me in the official documentation leading up to my medical school dismissal For months after I began writing about how wrong the medical and scientific communities had gotten the COVID-19 response, senior Texas Tech administrators had been engaged in a flurry of internal activity about my public speech. They did not debate my views. They only discussed what to do about the attention. My right to free speech is protected under the United States Constitution. Texas Tech is a taxpayer-funded agency that must guarantee its students First Amendment rights. Its Student Handbook promises to uphold them. Senior administrators, including deans of multiple schools, held several meetings about what I wrote online. They instructed administrators to compile surveillance dossiers -- screenshots, PDFs of my articles and tweets, negative emails and hearsay. They instructed faculty not to say good things about me. They assigned me a "professionalism coach," Cheryl Erwin, who posed as an impartial advisor but privately wrote that I engaged in "intellectual narcissism" and believed in "conspiracy theories." In one passage, she compared my case to the Trump indictment and his denial of the 2020 election results. She wrote that I was exercising my First Amendment rights to "make an idiot of himself." I questioned the wisdom of lockdowns and the effectiveness of masks. This warranted, it appears, my very own Stasi dossier. I was aware of none of this until I exercised my statutory right to inspect my educational records. After dozens of email exchanges, months of delay, and a federal complaint to the Department of Education, I was finally able to inspect them two months ago. Dr. Erwin had accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I did not. But I should have. Shortly after the dean of the medical school demanded my signed Honor Code and asked "what rotation is he on," I began receiving evaluations from Texas Tech faculty that were false and misleading. This went on for months. Something on the order of fifty discrete complaints were made against me. Prior to that, the number had been zero. I filed seven detailed complaints according to the Student Handbook and under the guidance of several administrators. I alleged that my evaluators had fabricated evaluations. I demanded hearings to hold them accountable. On November 4, 2023, senior administrator Simon Williams signed a document removing me from campus on the pretext of being dangerous. A BOLO was issued telling students, faculty, and employees to call 911 if I was seen. Mass emails warned that I was dangerous. An incident that continues to be cited to this very day, more than two years later. On November 5, Dr. Williams invited me to a sandwich shop. He confessed that he knew I was not dangerous. He admitted that Texas Tech faculty and administrators felt threatened by my complaints -- and took it out on me. In other words, Dr. Williams confessed that he lied in Texas Tech's official documentation and that the campus removal was retaliation for constitutionally protected speech alleging wrongdoing by Texas Tech faculty. Here are just some of the things he told me: "This profession expects more of everyone. And if you choose to enter it, by definition you choose to live by those professional rules." "And you know, free speech is free speech. We've actually had a lot of talks. Our lawyers are doing works with us. Just yesterday when I was at the meeting, they were talking about free speech. I mean I'm 100%. I want you to be able to say whatever the frick you want. And I won't get -- I usually will not get in any way triggered by it. But when you're in a position that's such a trusted position in society -- then your standard has to be a little bit. And that's one of the places this is becoming a problem." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "Can I say in my appeal letter that Dr. Williams seems to believe that I'm not [nervous laughter] homicidal?" "I... I have said that. I don't think you are. I don't think there's -- I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "But it's important for me that I do this. In fact, that's why I moved back from Seattle a day early. Because I needed to be here today. I want you to know that because I never felt [inaudible] bad here. I've always enjoyed my interactions with you. I wish other people could see it that way, but apparently that's [inaudible]." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] Yet in his letter authorizing my removal just the day before, he wrote: "You have engaged in behavior that may constitute violation(s) ... specifically, but not limited to ... 'Physical harm or threat of harm to any person.'" Then an appeal hearing was held. A Schrodinger's Administrator of sorts, just as soon as Dr. Williams was observed to speak publicly, he immediately asserted that I was indeed dangerous and should be kept off campus, flip-flopping back from the position he communicated privately. The timeline: November 4: "Physical harm or threat of harm to any person" November 5: "I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that" November 9: Kevin is dangerous actually To be clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, it is a federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights under color of law. A federal crime. And that is exactly what Dr. Williams did. Dr. Williams's decision to remove me was not impulsive. Nine months earlier, two days after my Newsweek article was published, he wrote in internal emails: "It is obviously protected speech but also quite concerning in the way he appears to speak for the medical community. We need to discuss an appropriate response." -- February 1, 2023 "I am not surprised that there was backlash. I think it will be best to hear what legal says we should do." -- February 2, 2023 The "appropriate response" took nine months to execute. It was relentless, and it came from all directions. This "appropriate response" was precisely the one I filed grievances to confront. And I was met with calls from the campus police. I am not the first one Texas Tech has done this to. How do I know? An administrator told me. At least one other student had false allegations leveled against him because the administration wanted them gone. And if they win, I won't be the last they do this to either. I only discovered these emails because I exercised my right under FERPA to inspect my educational records. Now Texas Tech's litigation counsel, Assistant Attorney General Scott Smith, has recently blocked all further access to my records -- in writing. If Texas Tech does not fulfill its FERPA obligations, it could lose all federal funding. Texas Tech, apparently, is getting very nervous. Smith also ordered me to stop contacting the Registrar and to route all requests through him. That's right. The attorney defending Texas Tech against my lawsuit is now trying to establish gatekeeping control over my education records. That's illegal. A federal complaint is pending with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. FIRE Greg Lukianoff -- crickets DOJ Civil Rights Division -- you have my complaint Attorney General Ken Paxton @OAGTexas -- your AAG is doing a terrible job; borderline sanctionable; I don't get it Greg Abbott -- this your university Texas Tech University -- Williams was not the top of the decision tree; I know that for a fact Newsweek -- help me publish my story @ACLUofTexas -- do you know about this? Department of Justice (DOJ) Harmeet K. Dhillon Pam Bondi -- theoretically, this is prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 242. I'm not a prosecutor, but it does theoretically fulfill the elements. Willful. Chancellor Brandon Creighton -- you are the chancellor. Do something. My case is a strange one. It gets stranger everyday. It will get stranger still. Of that I am sure. Here's something strange: the defending Assistant Attorney General and two colleagues are getting hammered on the docket by a pro se plaintiff. They seem utterly incapable of following court rules, making coherent arguments, or even properly citing their own exhibits or authorities. I suspect that they just don't know what to do with my case. In the next post, I will begin telling that story. You won't believe it. Texans, your government is setting your taxpayer money on fire to defend a university that set out not just to destroy a medical student's career, but his personal and professional reputation as well. Remember. They destroyed me because I was damn good at what I did. Now I'm an order of magnitude better. And I don't bluff. Horror and laughter. Those come next.

Kevin Bass

45,536 次观看 • 5 个月前

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

Joe Murgia

44,343 次观看 • 8 个月前

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

Joe Murgia

12,708 次观看 • 1 年前

Nobody warns you about the sound a dying puppy makes when it realizes someone finally stopped. It's not a bark. It's not even a whimper. It's silence — the kind that hits harder than any noise ever could. I need you to sit with that for a second before you scroll past this. Because somewhere, right now, in a city you've probably never thought about, a puppy is lying on concrete that's colder than it should be, in a position that shouldn't be possible for a living body, and every single person walking by is telling themselves the same lie: "someone else will help." Nobody else is coming. That's the part people don't want to hear. There is no invisible network of rescuers patrolling every street corner on earth. There is no guarantee. There is only whoever happens to look down at the right second and decides — actually decides, on purpose, against every excuse their brain hands them — to stop. I've spent years around rescue accounts, rescue communities, rescue chaos. And if there's one thing that never stops breaking something open in me, it's this: the gap between "before" and "after" is never as far as people think. It's not months. It's not years. Sometimes it's hours. Sometimes it's one bowl of water and one blanket and one person who didn't look away. The video below is one of those hours. I'm not going to explain what happens in it. I'm not going to summarize it, narrate it, or tell you the ending. If I did that, you'd just nod, feel a flicker of something, and keep scrolling — and this isn't one of those stories that deserves to be flattened into a caption. Some things you have to actually watch, in real time, to feel what they're supposed to make you feel. What I will tell you is this: by the last few seconds, you will not believe it's the same animal from the first few seconds. And that gap — that impossible, almost unfair-feeling gap between where this story starts and where it ends — is the entire reason rescue videos have quietly become one of the most watched categories of content on the internet. Nobody talks about why. So let's talk about why. — THE THREE TYPES OF PEOPLE ON EVERY STREET Every single time an animal is suffering in public, in front of witnesses, there are exactly three types of people who pass by. The first type doesn't notice. Genuinely, chemically, doesn't register it. Their brain has learned to filter out suffering that isn't "their problem" the same way it filters out a stranger's cough or a parked car. This isn't cruelty. It's just how overloaded human attention works in a city. The second type notices, feels something sharp and uncomfortable, and immediately starts building a case for why it's not their responsibility. "I don't have a car." "I don't know any vets." "What if it bites me." "Someone more qualified will handle it." Every excuse is technically true and completely irrelevant, because none of them require the animal to actually be okay — they only require the person to feel okay about walking away. The third type is rare. The third type feels the same discomfort as everyone else, has the same list of legitimate excuses available to them, and stops anyway. Not because they're braver. Not because they're more equipped. Just because somewhere along the way they decided that "I don't know how to fix this completely" is not the same thing as "I can't do anything at all." Every single rescue video you've ever watched exists because, for one specific moment, one specific person refused to be type one or type two. That's it. That's the whole secret. There's no special training required to be the reason a story doesn't end badly. There's just the willingness to not walk past. — THE MATH NOBODY TELLS YOU Here's something that will genuinely surprise you if you've never looked into it: saving a life on the street is dramatically cheaper than most people assume, and dramatically more expensive in time and emotional labor than most people assume. It's a strange trade. A bowl of water costs nothing. A blanket, if you have one, costs nothing. The first hour of warmth and calm and quiet often costs nothing but presence. What costs something is what comes after — the vet visits, the medication, the sleepless nights checking if breathing has changed, the slow, exhausting, unglamorous process of rebuilding trust in a creature that has learned the world is dangerous. People assume rescue is a single dramatic moment. It isn't. The dramatic moment is maybe five percent of the story. The other ninety-five percent is quiet, boring, repetitive care that nobody films because it doesn't look like anything — just a person, showing up, again and again, on days when it would be so much easier not to. I think that's actually the most important part of any rescue story, and it's the part almost nobody talks about because it doesn't fit into fifteen seconds. The rescue isn't the moment someone picks the animal up off the ground. The rescue is every single day after that, stacked one on top of another, until one day the animal simply forgets to be afraid. Watch the video with that in mind. What you're seeing isn't a moment. It's the compressed evidence of dozens of unglamorous, unfilmed days. — WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT LOOK AWAY FROM THESE VIDEOS There's actual psychology behind why rescue content spreads the way it does, and it has almost nothing to do with sadness. Humans are wired with something researchers call "negativity bias" — we pay disproportionate attention to threat, suffering, and danger because, evolutionarily, missing a threat was far more costly than missing a reward. That's why the first few seconds of any rescue story grab you by the throat. Your brain isn't choosing to care. It's incapable of not caring, at least for a moment. But negativity bias alone doesn't explain why people watch these videos more than once, why they send them to friends, why they sit through the uncomfortable part just to get to the end. That's a different mechanism entirely — something closer to what psychologists call "vicarious relief." When you watch someone else's suffering resolve into safety, your nervous system responds almost as if it happened to you. The tension you felt in the first ten seconds has to go somewhere, and when the story resolves well, it releases as something that feels suspiciously like hope. That's the actual addictive ingredient in rescue content. It's not sadness. It's the release after the sadness. It's proof, delivered in real time, that terrible situations can flip into good ones faster than you'd think possible. In a timeline full of arguments, outrage, bad news, and content designed to make you angry, a video that ends in relief is doing something almost nobody else on this platform is doing anymore. It's giving your nervous system permission to feel something other than dread. That's not manipulation. That's just what happens when something real gets filmed. — THE MYTHS THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM STOPPING Myth one: "It's probably already being taken care of." This is the single most common lie people tell themselves, and it's almost never true. If an animal is visibly suffering in public and multiple people are walking past it, the statistical likelihood that someone has already intervened is far lower than your brain wants you to believe. Myth two: "I'll make it worse if I try to help without training." In reality, the two things that matter most in the first critical window — calm presence and basic comfort — require zero training. Water. Shade or warmth depending on the weather. A soft voice. Distance from immediate danger. That's not veterinary medicine. That's just decency. Myth three: "One person can't actually make a difference." This is the myth that has ended more rescue stories before they began than any other. One person is, statistically, the only thing that has ever made a difference, in every single rescue story that has ever existed. Movements don't stop for suffering animals. Governments don't personally kneel down next to them. It is always, without exception, one individual person choosing to act. Myth four: "If I get attached, it'll hurt too much." This one is actually true, and it's also irrelevant. Attachment hurting later is not a reason to withhold help now. It's a tax on caring, and it's a tax worth paying every single time. — WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE FIRST HOUR If you've never been close to a rescue in progress, here's what almost nobody tells you about that first hour: it is mostly about calm, not action. A frightened, injured, or exhausted animal is running almost entirely on a threat-response system. Every fast movement reads as danger. Every loud sound reads as danger. Even kindness, delivered too quickly, can read as danger. The single most valuable thing a rescuer brings to that first hour isn't equipment. It's a nervous system that isn't panicking, next to a nervous system that is. This is the part rescue videos compress into a few seconds but that, in real life, can take agonizingly long. Sitting still. Speaking low. Letting the animal decide, on its own timeline, that this particular human is not a threat. You cannot force trust. You can only make yourself boring enough, and safe enough, that trust becomes the path of least resistance. Once that shift happens — once an animal that has only ever known danger from humans decides, for the first time, that one specific human might be different — something changes that's very hard to put into words. It's not just physical safety being restored. It's an entire belief system about the world getting quietly, permanently rewritten. That shift is the actual turning point in every rescue story. Not the moment of being picked up. The moment of deciding to stop being afraid. — THE PART OF RECOVERY NOBODY FILMS Everyone loves the "after" photo. Clean fur, bright eyes, a wagging tail, a completely different creature from the one in the "before" photo. What almost nobody shows is the middle. The middle is ugly, slow, and full of setbacks. It's an animal flinching at a raised hand because somewhere in its history a raised hand meant pain, even though this new human would never dream of hurting it. It's appetite that comes and goes. It's trust that gets built for three days and then evaporates because of one loud noise. It's the rescuer wondering, quietly, at 2 a.m., whether any of this is actually working. And then, almost always without warning, there's a moment. A specific, unremarkable moment that the rescuer will remember forever and nobody else will ever understand the weight of — the first time the animal chooses to get close instead of staying away. The first tail wag that isn't fear-based. The first time it falls asleep in a way that says "I feel safe here" instead of "I am too exhausted to stay alert." That moment is the real transformation. Everything after it is just confirmation. — WHY THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT You've probably scrolled past hundreds of rescue videos in your life. Some blur together. Some you forget within the hour. And then, occasionally, one lands differently — not because the situation was more extreme, necessarily, but because something about the arc of it, start to finish, refuses to leave your head. I'm not going to tell you which category this one falls into. That's not my call to make for you. What I'll say is that the transformation you're about to watch happens faster, and more completely, than most people expect is possible — and by the time you reach the end, you may find yourself replaying the first few seconds just to remind yourself that it's actually the same animal. There's a specific kind of silence that happens in comment sections under videos like this. Not the absence of engagement — the opposite. Hundreds of people, all typing some version of the same sentence, all a little stunned by the same gap between where the story starts and where it lands. That silence, multiplied across thousands of people at once, is not a coincidence. It's a signal. — A SMALL CHALLENGE BEFORE YOU WATCH Before you press play, I want you to do something slightly uncomfortable. I want you to think of the last time you saw an animal that looked like it needed help — on a street, on a drive, in a video someone else posted — and you didn't stop. Not because you're a bad person. Just because life is fast and excuses are convenient and someone else always seems more qualified to deal with it. I'm not saying that to make you feel guilty. Guilt doesn't change anything on its own. I'm saying it because I think there's real value in watching a story like this one while holding that memory in your hand at the same time. Not to punish yourself with it. Just to notice the gap between what you're capable of and what you usually let yourself do. Because here's the uncomfortable truth underneath all of this: the difference between a story that ends in tragedy and a story that ends in transformation is very rarely luck. It is almost always just one decision, made by one person, at one specific moment when it would have been so much easier to keep walking. — WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY WATCHING You are not watching an isolated event. You are watching the compressed, visible tip of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern that repeats every single day, in every country, on every continent — a pattern where suffering happens quietly, most people walk past it, and every once in a while, someone doesn't. You're watching proof that the gap between "no one will help" and "everything will be okay" is thinner than it feels from the outside. You're watching evidence that transformation on this scale is not rare because it's hard. It's rare because most suffering never gets the one thing it actually needs, which isn't money, or medicine, or even shelter. It just needs someone to stop. — THE PART WHERE I ASK YOU FOR SOMETHING I'm not going to pretend this post exists in a vacuum. Every share, every comment, every few extra seconds someone spends actually watching instead of scrolling past — all of it does something. It pushes stories like this in front of more people who might, on some ordinary Tuesday, be standing near an animal that needs exactly what this one needed. You don't have to donate anything. You don't have to foster anything. You don't even have to feel anything in particular. All I'm asking is that you actually watch it, start to finish, without skipping to the end. Let the tension build the way it's supposed to. Let the resolution land the way it's supposed to. And if it does what I think it's going to do, tell someone. Tag someone. Send it to the one friend who always says they wish they could do more for animals but never knows how. Because that friend needs to see exactly what "doing more" can actually look like — not a grand gesture, not a huge donation, not a heroic rescue mission with helicopters and headlines. Just one person. One decision. One moment of refusing to keep walking. — THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE SILENCE Nobody likes statistics in an emotional post, so I'll keep this short, but you need to see it once. Estimates put the global population of stray and free-roaming dogs somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Not thousands. Not tens of thousands. Hundreds of millions of animals living without guaranteed food, guaranteed shelter, or guaranteed safety, in nearly every country on earth, including the ones people assume have this "figured out." Most of them will never appear in a video. Most of them will never be seen by anyone who has the resources, the time, or the willingness to intervene. The ones who do get rescued and filmed are not the majority of the story. They are the exception that got lucky enough to be noticed. I say this not to make the video you're about to watch feel smaller, but to make it feel bigger. Every single successful rescue is a statistical outlier fighting against enormous odds — geography, timing, resources, and the simple fact that most passersby fall into type one or type two from earlier in this post. When a rescue actually happens, and actually works, it is beating odds that are stacked against it from every direction. That's worth remembering the next time someone tells you that one person "can't really make a difference." The math says otherwise, every single time someone decides to stop. — THE SCIENCE OF WHY WE MIRROR SUFFERING There's a reason watching an animal in distress produces an almost physical reaction in your own body — tightness in the chest, a lump in the throat, an urge to look away that fights against an equal urge to keep watching. Neuroscience has a name for part of this mechanism: mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we experience something and when we simply witness someone — or something — else experiencing it. This is why you don't need to speak "dog" to understand exactly what fear, exhaustion, or relief look like on an animal's face. Your brain is doing the translation automatically, faster than conscious thought, because the machinery for recognizing suffering and safety evolved long before language did. It also explains something stranger: why the "after" moment in a rescue story can feel almost as emotionally intense as the "before" moment, just in the opposite direction. When you watch fear resolve into calm, your own nervous system downshifts along with it. That's not sentimentality. That's biology, functioning exactly the way it's supposed to. Understanding the mechanism doesn't make the feeling less real. If anything, it makes it more remarkable — proof that empathy isn't a choice you have to talk yourself into. It's already built in. All a video like this does is give it somewhere to go. — A LETTER TO THE VERSION OF YOU THAT ALMOST SCROLLED PAST You almost didn't stop on this post. I know that, because that's how this platform works — thousands of things competing for a few seconds of attention, and most of them losing. So I want to talk directly to whatever part of you paused anyway. That instinct — the one that made you keep reading instead of swiping away at the first line — is the exact same instinct that, in a different context, on a different day, could be the reason an animal doesn't die alone on a sidewalk. It's not a coincidence that you're still here. People who scroll past everything don't usually make it this far into a post like this one. You are, statistically, more likely than average to be a "type three" person — someone who notices, feels the discomfort, and doesn't immediately talk themselves out of caring. That's not flattery. That's just a pattern that tends to hold true. Hold onto that. Not for this post. For the next time you're standing on a sidewalk somewhere, and something is wrong, and every excuse in the world is available to you for free. — WHAT PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY IN THE COMMENTS If you scroll into the comments under a video like this one, you'll see the same handful of reactions repeated hundreds of times, almost word for word, from people who have never met each other. Someone will say they weren't ready for the ending. Someone else will say they had to watch it twice because they didn't believe what they saw the first time. Someone will tag a friend with nothing but a single crying emoji, because there's genuinely nothing else that needs to be said. Someone will admit, quietly, that they teared up at their desk at work and had to pretend they were checking email. None of that is performative. That's what actually happens when a story compresses an entire arc — fear to safety, danger to comfort, abandonment to belonging — into a couple of minutes and lets you watch every second of the shift in real time. There's something almost primal about it. We are wired to react to transformation stories, the same way we're wired to react to danger. A creature going from broken to whole, in front of your eyes, hits something ancient in the way we process hope. — FIVE THINGS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO, STARTING TODAY Watching this shouldn't be the end of the feeling. Here's what to do with it. One — keep a small bag with water, a collapsible bowl, and a few treats in your car or bag if you can. It costs almost nothing and it means you're never the person who "would have helped but didn't have anything on hand." Two — save the number of a local shelter or rescue group in your phone right now, before you need it. In the moment, panic makes it hard to search for anything. Three — if you see something and can't personally intervene, post it, tag local rescues, ask your followers if anyone nearby can help. Visibility alone has saved more animals than most people realize. Four — support rescuers financially if you can, even five dollars, even once. The unglamorous middle of every recovery costs real money that almost never comes from anywhere dramatic. Five — talk about this stuff, out loud, the way you're reading about it right now. Normalizing stopping, normalizing caring in public, chips away at exactly the excuses that keep most people in the type-two category forever. — WHY I KEEP COMING BACK TO CONTENT LIKE THIS People sometimes ask why accounts like this exist — why anyone spends time writing thousands of words about a video instead of just posting the clip and moving on. Here's the honest answer: the clip does the emotional work in sixty seconds. But emotion without context fades fast. You feel something, you scroll, and by tomorrow the feeling is gone, replaced by whatever the algorithm decided to show you next. The words are an attempt to make the feeling stick a little longer — long enough that maybe, the next time you're standing near something that needs help, some fragment of this actually resurfaces. That's the entire goal. Not views. Not engagement, even though engagement is obviously what keeps posts like this alive. The actual goal is recruitment — quietly turning as many people as possible from type one or type two into type three, one video, one post, one uncomfortable moment of self-reflection at a time. If even one person reading this stops for an animal they would have otherwise walked past, everything above was worth writing. — THE QUESTION THAT MATTERS MORE THAN THE VIDEO Here's something worth sitting with after you finish watching, once the initial reaction fades and the timeline moves on to the next thing competing for your attention. It's easy to feel something for sixty seconds. It's easy to type a heart emoji, feel a small warm rush of having "engaged" with something good, and go back to whatever you were doing before you saw this post. That reaction costs nothing, and it changes nothing. It's not wrong to feel it — but it's not enough to stop there, either. The real question isn't "did this make you feel something." Almost everything on this platform is engineered to make you feel something. The real question is whether the feeling survives contact with your actual, ordinary, unfilmed life. Whether it shows up the next time you're walking somewhere and notice something is wrong. Whether it shows up the next time a friend mentions fostering and you actually consider it instead of changing the subject. Whether it shows up as five dollars to a local rescue instead of just a comment saying you wish you could help. Stories like the one below aren't rare because the transformation itself is rare. They're rare because the specific combination of noticing, caring, and acting — all three, together, at the same moment — is rare. Most people manage one or two out of three. Noticing and caring without acting is the most common combination on earth, and it's also the one that changes absolutely nothing for the animal that needed help. This post isn't asking you to become someone else. It's asking you to notice the moments where you're already halfway there — where you already noticed, you already cared — and to close that last small gap between caring and doing something about it. That gap is smaller than it feels. It's usually just one decision, made once, that gets easier every single time after the first. Somewhere out there, right now, that gap is the only thing standing between an animal and the ending you're about to watch. — LAST THING BEFORE YOU PRESS PLAY Every rescue story starts the exact same way: with someone who had every reasonable excuse to keep moving, and didn't use a single one of them. You're about to watch what happens next. Don't look away this time. Watch it till the last second — the ending is not what you're expecting. If this hit you the way I think it will, share it. Somewhere out there, right now, someone is walking past a story that hasn't started yet. Maybe this is the post that stops them.

Nobody warns you about the sound a dying puppy makes when it realizes someone finally stopped. It's not a bark. It's not even a whimper. It's silence — the kind that hits harder than any noise ever could. I need you to sit with that for a second before you scroll past this. Because somewhere, right now, in a city you've probably never thought about, a puppy is lying on concrete that's colder than it should be, in a position that shouldn't be possible for a living body, and every single person walking by is telling themselves the same lie: "someone else will help." Nobody else is coming. That's the part people don't want to hear. There is no invisible network of rescuers patrolling every street corner on earth. There is no guarantee. There is only whoever happens to look down at the right second and decides — actually decides, on purpose, against every excuse their brain hands them — to stop. I've spent years around rescue accounts, rescue communities, rescue chaos. And if there's one thing that never stops breaking something open in me, it's this: the gap between "before" and "after" is never as far as people think. It's not months. It's not years. Sometimes it's hours. Sometimes it's one bowl of water and one blanket and one person who didn't look away. The video below is one of those hours. I'm not going to explain what happens in it. I'm not going to summarize it, narrate it, or tell you the ending. If I did that, you'd just nod, feel a flicker of something, and keep scrolling — and this isn't one of those stories that deserves to be flattened into a caption. Some things you have to actually watch, in real time, to feel what they're supposed to make you feel. What I will tell you is this: by the last few seconds, you will not believe it's the same animal from the first few seconds. And that gap — that impossible, almost unfair-feeling gap between where this story starts and where it ends — is the entire reason rescue videos have quietly become one of the most watched categories of content on the internet. Nobody talks about why. So let's talk about why. — THE THREE TYPES OF PEOPLE ON EVERY STREET Every single time an animal is suffering in public, in front of witnesses, there are exactly three types of people who pass by. The first type doesn't notice. Genuinely, chemically, doesn't register it. Their brain has learned to filter out suffering that isn't "their problem" the same way it filters out a stranger's cough or a parked car. This isn't cruelty. It's just how overloaded human attention works in a city. The second type notices, feels something sharp and uncomfortable, and immediately starts building a case for why it's not their responsibility. "I don't have a car." "I don't know any vets." "What if it bites me." "Someone more qualified will handle it." Every excuse is technically true and completely irrelevant, because none of them require the animal to actually be okay — they only require the person to feel okay about walking away. The third type is rare. The third type feels the same discomfort as everyone else, has the same list of legitimate excuses available to them, and stops anyway. Not because they're braver. Not because they're more equipped. Just because somewhere along the way they decided that "I don't know how to fix this completely" is not the same thing as "I can't do anything at all." Every single rescue video you've ever watched exists because, for one specific moment, one specific person refused to be type one or type two. That's it. That's the whole secret. There's no special training required to be the reason a story doesn't end badly. There's just the willingness to not walk past. — THE MATH NOBODY TELLS YOU Here's something that will genuinely surprise you if you've never looked into it: saving a life on the street is dramatically cheaper than most people assume, and dramatically more expensive in time and emotional labor than most people assume. It's a strange trade. A bowl of water costs nothing. A blanket, if you have one, costs nothing. The first hour of warmth and calm and quiet often costs nothing but presence. What costs something is what comes after — the vet visits, the medication, the sleepless nights checking if breathing has changed, the slow, exhausting, unglamorous process of rebuilding trust in a creature that has learned the world is dangerous. People assume rescue is a single dramatic moment. It isn't. The dramatic moment is maybe five percent of the story. The other ninety-five percent is quiet, boring, repetitive care that nobody films because it doesn't look like anything — just a person, showing up, again and again, on days when it would be so much easier not to. I think that's actually the most important part of any rescue story, and it's the part almost nobody talks about because it doesn't fit into fifteen seconds. The rescue isn't the moment someone picks the animal up off the ground. The rescue is every single day after that, stacked one on top of another, until one day the animal simply forgets to be afraid. Watch the video with that in mind. What you're seeing isn't a moment. It's the compressed evidence of dozens of unglamorous, unfilmed days. — WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT LOOK AWAY FROM THESE VIDEOS There's actual psychology behind why rescue content spreads the way it does, and it has almost nothing to do with sadness. Humans are wired with something researchers call "negativity bias" — we pay disproportionate attention to threat, suffering, and danger because, evolutionarily, missing a threat was far more costly than missing a reward. That's why the first few seconds of any rescue story grab you by the throat. Your brain isn't choosing to care. It's incapable of not caring, at least for a moment. But negativity bias alone doesn't explain why people watch these videos more than once, why they send them to friends, why they sit through the uncomfortable part just to get to the end. That's a different mechanism entirely — something closer to what psychologists call "vicarious relief." When you watch someone else's suffering resolve into safety, your nervous system responds almost as if it happened to you. The tension you felt in the first ten seconds has to go somewhere, and when the story resolves well, it releases as something that feels suspiciously like hope. That's the actual addictive ingredient in rescue content. It's not sadness. It's the release after the sadness. It's proof, delivered in real time, that terrible situations can flip into good ones faster than you'd think possible. In a timeline full of arguments, outrage, bad news, and content designed to make you angry, a video that ends in relief is doing something almost nobody else on this platform is doing anymore. It's giving your nervous system permission to feel something other than dread. That's not manipulation. That's just what happens when something real gets filmed. — THE MYTHS THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM STOPPING Myth one: "It's probably already being taken care of." This is the single most common lie people tell themselves, and it's almost never true. If an animal is visibly suffering in public and multiple people are walking past it, the statistical likelihood that someone has already intervened is far lower than your brain wants you to believe. Myth two: "I'll make it worse if I try to help without training." In reality, the two things that matter most in the first critical window — calm presence and basic comfort — require zero training. Water. Shade or warmth depending on the weather. A soft voice. Distance from immediate danger. That's not veterinary medicine. That's just decency. Myth three: "One person can't actually make a difference." This is the myth that has ended more rescue stories before they began than any other. One person is, statistically, the only thing that has ever made a difference, in every single rescue story that has ever existed. Movements don't stop for suffering animals. Governments don't personally kneel down next to them. It is always, without exception, one individual person choosing to act. Myth four: "If I get attached, it'll hurt too much." This one is actually true, and it's also irrelevant. Attachment hurting later is not a reason to withhold help now. It's a tax on caring, and it's a tax worth paying every single time. — WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE FIRST HOUR If you've never been close to a rescue in progress, here's what almost nobody tells you about that first hour: it is mostly about calm, not action. A frightened, injured, or exhausted animal is running almost entirely on a threat-response system. Every fast movement reads as danger. Every loud sound reads as danger. Even kindness, delivered too quickly, can read as danger. The single most valuable thing a rescuer brings to that first hour isn't equipment. It's a nervous system that isn't panicking, next to a nervous system that is. This is the part rescue videos compress into a few seconds but that, in real life, can take agonizingly long. Sitting still. Speaking low. Letting the animal decide, on its own timeline, that this particular human is not a threat. You cannot force trust. You can only make yourself boring enough, and safe enough, that trust becomes the path of least resistance. Once that shift happens — once an animal that has only ever known danger from humans decides, for the first time, that one specific human might be different — something changes that's very hard to put into words. It's not just physical safety being restored. It's an entire belief system about the world getting quietly, permanently rewritten. That shift is the actual turning point in every rescue story. Not the moment of being picked up. The moment of deciding to stop being afraid. — THE PART OF RECOVERY NOBODY FILMS Everyone loves the "after" photo. Clean fur, bright eyes, a wagging tail, a completely different creature from the one in the "before" photo. What almost nobody shows is the middle. The middle is ugly, slow, and full of setbacks. It's an animal flinching at a raised hand because somewhere in its history a raised hand meant pain, even though this new human would never dream of hurting it. It's appetite that comes and goes. It's trust that gets built for three days and then evaporates because of one loud noise. It's the rescuer wondering, quietly, at 2 a.m., whether any of this is actually working. And then, almost always without warning, there's a moment. A specific, unremarkable moment that the rescuer will remember forever and nobody else will ever understand the weight of — the first time the animal chooses to get close instead of staying away. The first tail wag that isn't fear-based. The first time it falls asleep in a way that says "I feel safe here" instead of "I am too exhausted to stay alert." That moment is the real transformation. Everything after it is just confirmation. — WHY THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT You've probably scrolled past hundreds of rescue videos in your life. Some blur together. Some you forget within the hour. And then, occasionally, one lands differently — not because the situation was more extreme, necessarily, but because something about the arc of it, start to finish, refuses to leave your head. I'm not going to tell you which category this one falls into. That's not my call to make for you. What I'll say is that the transformation you're about to watch happens faster, and more completely, than most people expect is possible — and by the time you reach the end, you may find yourself replaying the first few seconds just to remind yourself that it's actually the same animal. There's a specific kind of silence that happens in comment sections under videos like this. Not the absence of engagement — the opposite. Hundreds of people, all typing some version of the same sentence, all a little stunned by the same gap between where the story starts and where it lands. That silence, multiplied across thousands of people at once, is not a coincidence. It's a signal. — A SMALL CHALLENGE BEFORE YOU WATCH Before you press play, I want you to do something slightly uncomfortable. I want you to think of the last time you saw an animal that looked like it needed help — on a street, on a drive, in a video someone else posted — and you didn't stop. Not because you're a bad person. Just because life is fast and excuses are convenient and someone else always seems more qualified to deal with it. I'm not saying that to make you feel guilty. Guilt doesn't change anything on its own. I'm saying it because I think there's real value in watching a story like this one while holding that memory in your hand at the same time. Not to punish yourself with it. Just to notice the gap between what you're capable of and what you usually let yourself do. Because here's the uncomfortable truth underneath all of this: the difference between a story that ends in tragedy and a story that ends in transformation is very rarely luck. It is almost always just one decision, made by one person, at one specific moment when it would have been so much easier to keep walking. — WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY WATCHING You are not watching an isolated event. You are watching the compressed, visible tip of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern that repeats every single day, in every country, on every continent — a pattern where suffering happens quietly, most people walk past it, and every once in a while, someone doesn't. You're watching proof that the gap between "no one will help" and "everything will be okay" is thinner than it feels from the outside. You're watching evidence that transformation on this scale is not rare because it's hard. It's rare because most suffering never gets the one thing it actually needs, which isn't money, or medicine, or even shelter. It just needs someone to stop. — THE PART WHERE I ASK YOU FOR SOMETHING I'm not going to pretend this post exists in a vacuum. Every share, every comment, every few extra seconds someone spends actually watching instead of scrolling past — all of it does something. It pushes stories like this in front of more people who might, on some ordinary Tuesday, be standing near an animal that needs exactly what this one needed. You don't have to donate anything. You don't have to foster anything. You don't even have to feel anything in particular. All I'm asking is that you actually watch it, start to finish, without skipping to the end. Let the tension build the way it's supposed to. Let the resolution land the way it's supposed to. And if it does what I think it's going to do, tell someone. Tag someone. Send it to the one friend who always says they wish they could do more for animals but never knows how. Because that friend needs to see exactly what "doing more" can actually look like — not a grand gesture, not a huge donation, not a heroic rescue mission with helicopters and headlines. Just one person. One decision. One moment of refusing to keep walking. — THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE SILENCE Nobody likes statistics in an emotional post, so I'll keep this short, but you need to see it once. Estimates put the global population of stray and free-roaming dogs somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Not thousands. Not tens of thousands. Hundreds of millions of animals living without guaranteed food, guaranteed shelter, or guaranteed safety, in nearly every country on earth, including the ones people assume have this "figured out." Most of them will never appear in a video. Most of them will never be seen by anyone who has the resources, the time, or the willingness to intervene. The ones who do get rescued and filmed are not the majority of the story. They are the exception that got lucky enough to be noticed. I say this not to make the video you're about to watch feel smaller, but to make it feel bigger. Every single successful rescue is a statistical outlier fighting against enormous odds — geography, timing, resources, and the simple fact that most passersby fall into type one or type two from earlier in this post. When a rescue actually happens, and actually works, it is beating odds that are stacked against it from every direction. That's worth remembering the next time someone tells you that one person "can't really make a difference." The math says otherwise, every single time someone decides to stop. — THE SCIENCE OF WHY WE MIRROR SUFFERING There's a reason watching an animal in distress produces an almost physical reaction in your own body — tightness in the chest, a lump in the throat, an urge to look away that fights against an equal urge to keep watching. Neuroscience has a name for part of this mechanism: mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we experience something and when we simply witness someone — or something — else experiencing it. This is why you don't need to speak "dog" to understand exactly what fear, exhaustion, or relief look like on an animal's face. Your brain is doing the translation automatically, faster than conscious thought, because the machinery for recognizing suffering and safety evolved long before language did. It also explains something stranger: why the "after" moment in a rescue story can feel almost as emotionally intense as the "before" moment, just in the opposite direction. When you watch fear resolve into calm, your own nervous system downshifts along with it. That's not sentimentality. That's biology, functioning exactly the way it's supposed to. Understanding the mechanism doesn't make the feeling less real. If anything, it makes it more remarkable — proof that empathy isn't a choice you have to talk yourself into. It's already built in. All a video like this does is give it somewhere to go. — A LETTER TO THE VERSION OF YOU THAT ALMOST SCROLLED PAST You almost didn't stop on this post. I know that, because that's how this platform works — thousands of things competing for a few seconds of attention, and most of them losing. So I want to talk directly to whatever part of you paused anyway. That instinct — the one that made you keep reading instead of swiping away at the first line — is the exact same instinct that, in a different context, on a different day, could be the reason an animal doesn't die alone on a sidewalk. It's not a coincidence that you're still here. People who scroll past everything don't usually make it this far into a post like this one. You are, statistically, more likely than average to be a "type three" person — someone who notices, feels the discomfort, and doesn't immediately talk themselves out of caring. That's not flattery. That's just a pattern that tends to hold true. Hold onto that. Not for this post. For the next time you're standing on a sidewalk somewhere, and something is wrong, and every excuse in the world is available to you for free. — WHAT PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY IN THE COMMENTS If you scroll into the comments under a video like this one, you'll see the same handful of reactions repeated hundreds of times, almost word for word, from people who have never met each other. Someone will say they weren't ready for the ending. Someone else will say they had to watch it twice because they didn't believe what they saw the first time. Someone will tag a friend with nothing but a single crying emoji, because there's genuinely nothing else that needs to be said. Someone will admit, quietly, that they teared up at their desk at work and had to pretend they were checking email. None of that is performative. That's what actually happens when a story compresses an entire arc — fear to safety, danger to comfort, abandonment to belonging — into a couple of minutes and lets you watch every second of the shift in real time. There's something almost primal about it. We are wired to react to transformation stories, the same way we're wired to react to danger. A creature going from broken to whole, in front of your eyes, hits something ancient in the way we process hope. — FIVE THINGS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO, STARTING TODAY Watching this shouldn't be the end of the feeling. Here's what to do with it. One — keep a small bag with water, a collapsible bowl, and a few treats in your car or bag if you can. It costs almost nothing and it means you're never the person who "would have helped but didn't have anything on hand." Two — save the number of a local shelter or rescue group in your phone right now, before you need it. In the moment, panic makes it hard to search for anything. Three — if you see something and can't personally intervene, post it, tag local rescues, ask your followers if anyone nearby can help. Visibility alone has saved more animals than most people realize. Four — support rescuers financially if you can, even five dollars, even once. The unglamorous middle of every recovery costs real money that almost never comes from anywhere dramatic. Five — talk about this stuff, out loud, the way you're reading about it right now. Normalizing stopping, normalizing caring in public, chips away at exactly the excuses that keep most people in the type-two category forever. — WHY I KEEP COMING BACK TO CONTENT LIKE THIS People sometimes ask why accounts like this exist — why anyone spends time writing thousands of words about a video instead of just posting the clip and moving on. Here's the honest answer: the clip does the emotional work in sixty seconds. But emotion without context fades fast. You feel something, you scroll, and by tomorrow the feeling is gone, replaced by whatever the algorithm decided to show you next. The words are an attempt to make the feeling stick a little longer — long enough that maybe, the next time you're standing near something that needs help, some fragment of this actually resurfaces. That's the entire goal. Not views. Not engagement, even though engagement is obviously what keeps posts like this alive. The actual goal is recruitment — quietly turning as many people as possible from type one or type two into type three, one video, one post, one uncomfortable moment of self-reflection at a time. If even one person reading this stops for an animal they would have otherwise walked past, everything above was worth writing. — THE QUESTION THAT MATTERS MORE THAN THE VIDEO Here's something worth sitting with after you finish watching, once the initial reaction fades and the timeline moves on to the next thing competing for your attention. It's easy to feel something for sixty seconds. It's easy to type a heart emoji, feel a small warm rush of having "engaged" with something good, and go back to whatever you were doing before you saw this post. That reaction costs nothing, and it changes nothing. It's not wrong to feel it — but it's not enough to stop there, either. The real question isn't "did this make you feel something." Almost everything on this platform is engineered to make you feel something. The real question is whether the feeling survives contact with your actual, ordinary, unfilmed life. Whether it shows up the next time you're walking somewhere and notice something is wrong. Whether it shows up the next time a friend mentions fostering and you actually consider it instead of changing the subject. Whether it shows up as five dollars to a local rescue instead of just a comment saying you wish you could help. Stories like the one below aren't rare because the transformation itself is rare. They're rare because the specific combination of noticing, caring, and acting — all three, together, at the same moment — is rare. Most people manage one or two out of three. Noticing and caring without acting is the most common combination on earth, and it's also the one that changes absolutely nothing for the animal that needed help. This post isn't asking you to become someone else. It's asking you to notice the moments where you're already halfway there — where you already noticed, you already cared — and to close that last small gap between caring and doing something about it. That gap is smaller than it feels. It's usually just one decision, made once, that gets easier every single time after the first. Somewhere out there, right now, that gap is the only thing standing between an animal and the ending you're about to watch. — LAST THING BEFORE YOU PRESS PLAY Every rescue story starts the exact same way: with someone who had every reasonable excuse to keep moving, and didn't use a single one of them. You're about to watch what happens next. Don't look away this time. Watch it till the last second — the ending is not what you're expecting. If this hit you the way I think it will, share it. Somewhere out there, right now, someone is walking past a story that hasn't started yet. Maybe this is the post that stops them.

Earth Unveiled

70,670 次观看 • 3 天前