Fung Tjoe

@jatkinson33 It is much better now. Thank you

@FungTjoe is it not visible?

This $ASA chart is the closest chart that resembles the long term $BGMI chart....even though it's lacking 35 years. This might be the most important chart to monitor if lower levels are seen. A backtest of this 45 year breakout is significant imo. I would consider $40 a low-risk entry. $GOLD $SILVER $GDX $GDXJ

No. This line is a bitter and simplistic cope. Strikes on the Iranian theocracy have achieved the below: 1) From Khamenei down, the entire belligerent mad-mullah leadership of the Iranian theocracy has been completely eliminated. We are thus now talking to a new leadership in Tehran who will negotiate a long term peace that will actually last. 2) The Iranian theocracy’s demand for a ‘global jihad’ against America failed. By attacking Sunni Muslim Arabs during Ramadan, the Iranian theocrats overreached, and exposed their malicious regional intent, thereby permanently harming their coveted claim to Islamic leadership. 3) Israeli and Iranian mutual permawar games are exhausted, have never been more unpopular and are now exposed for the entire world to see. Trump will now resume his Gaza peace Board & continue unhindered with his grand regional settlement for peace. 4) Iranian regional colonialism has ended. The Iranian theocracy’s attacks on Sunni Muslim Arabs have caused a major ‘Middle-East Nato’ security realignment of Sunni Muslim states, via nuclear Pakistan. This will lead to the emergence of an independent Sunni Muslim regional power bloc, in addition to existing US, Russian & Chinese regional blocs. It is a new dawn for Sunni Muslims. 5) Russia & China stayed out of this, increasing the chances of solving Ukraine and Taiwan in similar spirit. We are hence actively avoiding any chance of WWIII & the Thucydides Trap. 6) In the process of these major & historic permanent *strategic* shifts, tactically, the Strait of Hormuz was closed by Iran’s - NOW DEAD - leadership. It is only natural to demand that the Strait be reopened. This does not cancel out the above strategic wins.

@TheDailyGold @Sorenthek @Brien_Lundin @SeanBrodrick @RonStoeferle Very similar set up to 1972....backtesting the 200 month like Dec 1972. Would be pretty classic if something broke in July on the 250th anniversary.

That's it. I give up.. Donald Trump is a time traveler. 20/20 interview 1987. Wtf.

@jeffreytucker It’s Country Crook

Amazing to think of all the fake food distributed over the last 50 years. Just looking this up, I had no idea the Velveeta is not real cheese, nor Kraft singles nor Cheezwhiz. Consider too CountryCrock with "country fresh taste" and a picture of a farm: it's not even butter!

@AbudBakri Pinealon pairs with Vesugen

2-3mg Pinealon then HIIT 60 mins later Notice I squeeze out more output per round + Feel way better after. More clarity less brian fog Pinealon main effects appear to be mitochondrial A few people are reporting the same Let me know your experiences 👇

@drmarlonperalta send please tq

I’ve bought from 10+ peptide vendors the last 2 months. I wrote up a peptide sourcing guide and a review of 10 vendors (some with pretty cheap reta) If you want it, reply below and I’ll send it. (This isn’t automated so it might take me a min)

"So consider this point, Ghislaine Maxwell remains the only woman to have been convicted of trafficking underage victims to absolutely nobody. Who were Epstein's VIP clients? And that's what we mean when we say the 'Epstein client list'. What we're saying is: who were the men who committed the crimes for which Ghislaine Maxwell went to jail? It isn't that complicated. Was Bill Clinton one of them? Was Peter Thiel one of them? Was Lord Mandelson one of them? Was Richard Branson one of them? All of them are mentioned variously and in different forms in trial documents and other such documents. Was Prince Andrew one of them? The public would like to know, because what some people already know, according to..The Times..is that some people, such as Near Intelligence, a defence data intelligence firm, some people have 200 names who visited the island. Well, the rest of us would like to know exactly who they are. Because we'd like to know if they're being blackmailed to support permanent war in foreign countries and to send billions of our taxpayer-funded money, whether in Britain, millions or America, billions, to fund those wars abroad while our own population is struggling. And we would like to know, is it the blackmail that continues to take effect and answers the question as to why these politicians continue to support and fund insane wars abroad?" WARRIOR CREED:

I'm concerned that many people do not understand the historical and institutional context in which the DOGE labor reforms are unfolding. They look at this as if these are some random, chaotic, arbitrary, strange, and even cruel measures to impose on a devoted civil service. The reality is very different, and I'm not even sure that Elon entirely understands this. For more than a century, even dating back to 1883, the civil service has grown and grown without check from the elected branch, either the presidency or the legislature . The bureaucracies have ballooned from a few to 450 or so. The bloat and absurdities have grown too. Get this: no one has ever known what to do about it. Not Coolidge, not Hoover, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Clinton, no one. No president has been able to crack this nut. The only reforms ever to have made it through are those that make the administrative state bigger, never smaller. Countless cabinet secretaries have come and gone, always with the intention of making a change but leaving saddened, demoralized, outwitted, outgunned, and ultimately devoured. No president has seriously taken on this problem because they simply did not know how. The unions are powerful, the intimidation from the deep institutional knowledge is overwhelming, the fear of the media as been powerful, and every single president comes to power vaguely feeling threatened by the intelligence agencies. The industries that have captured every single agency were also far too powerful to unseat or control. This combination of institutional inertia has blocked serious reform for a full century. No one has dared. No one has even had a theory or strategy about what to do about this problem. It had become so terrible that most people in politics have simply surrendered, like homeowners who know there are rats in the basement and bats in the attic but long ago gave up trying to fix the issue. All this time, the American people have felt themselves ever more oppressed, weighed upon, taxed and regulated, spied upon, brow beaten, and otherwise overwhelmed. Voting never made any difference because the politicians no longer controlled the system. The bureaucracies ruled all. The Biden years underscored the point. We didn't even need a conscious and present executive. We only needed a figurehead to pretend to be president, just like the Soviet premiers in the old days. The institutions ran everything and the people controlled nothing. How to deal with this? Trump alone figured it out in his last term: he simply took charge of the agencies in a limited way. There were screams of horror and plots galore. They performed a long stream of clever schemes to destroy him and show him who is boss, which is not the democratically elected president but the forces behind the scenes. The job of the president, goes the message from all the insiders, is to PRETEND to be in charge but not actually do anything meaningful. Shut up, mug up, obey, and disturb nothing, let the administrative state do its thing without oversight or disruption, and then you will get your honorary library and bestselling autobiography and go down in history as great. Trump refused the deal and look what happened. Four years have gone by and Trump is back again, this time with a determination to slay this beast, one that he knows all-to-well. The efforts of DOGE and MAHA and MAGA are epic in scope, breaking a century of pathetic acquiescence toward the deep, middle, and shallow states, at last using moral courage to confront the problem head on, come what may. They are profoundly aware that they MUST act fast and with some degree of ferocity, even recklessness, else we will default back to the status quo of leaders who pretend to be in charge while the embedded system runs things behind the scenes. It has been this way for TOO LONG. The voters this time have demanded change, and mustered the faith to believe that change is possible. This is precisely what DOGE is attempting, to make good on a promise, a promise that for once the voters actually believed was credible. They simply must succeed. There might never be another chance. The way of failure is the path everyone knows the US was on, toward economic stagnation, political scolerosis, and eventual irrelevance in the unfolding of the next stage of social evolution.

This is beyond insane: Keith Kellog, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, confirms that Europe will NOT have a seat at the table in the negotiations to end the war. When asked at the Munich Security Conference “Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?”, his response was: “the answer to that last question is no.” By “last question”, he meant whether Europeans will be at the table. Later on in the conversation, he was asked to confirm this: “So the Europeans [...] you don't think should be at the table directly?”. His answer again was “I’m from the school of realism, I think that’s not going to happen”, and that he understood hearing this might be “like fingers on a chalkboard, may grate a little bit but I'm telling you something that's really quite honest.” He was very clear though that he still expected Europeans to provide security guarantees and abide by the deal: “you have to understand, when you sign up for these security guarantees, that is an obligation and the reason I say that and I challenge many people that are out there, right now, 2014 Wales declaration, all the NATO allies, 2% of GDP, 20% of that was modernization, there are still 8 nations who've not even gotten to that number, okay? So when we get to it make sure you check your 6 as they say that the obligation is upon YOU when WE make these commitments.” So to sum up, the US position is that Europe should stay out of negotiations that will fundamentally affect their security architecture - yet bear the primary responsibility and cost for the negotiations' outcome. And on top of that, it’s quite clear from previous Trump declarations (like here: nypost.com/2025/02/10/us-…) that the U.S. will be looking in the deal to take control of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as payment for the military aid it has provided, leaving presumably nothing to Europe. I’ve repeatedly warned that Europe was fast walking towards its own century of humiliation if it continued on its current path. I think it’s now pretty damn clear that we’re very much there already. If this goes through, this would possibly be unprecedented in European history - never before, to my knowledge, has Europe's security architecture been redrawn without any European power at the table. Even during Europe's darkest moments - including the Mongol invasions, the Ottoman expansions, or the Yalta Conference - European powers always had some voice in negotiations affecting their future. To be clear, the primary culprit here isn’t the U.S. or Trump: any student of history knows that we live in a deeply unfair world where, as ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote 2,500 years ago, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." As such the blame lies almost entirely on us Europeans, or more precisely on our immensely incompetent leaders. And I want to stress this last point: they are literally incompetent on a millennia scale, given that they've managed to reduce Europe to a position that lacks any historical parallel, where it's expected to simply accept and implement whatever security arrangements others decide for it. Trump himself does what’s best for the U.S. - “America first”, remember? - and to be fair to him the Biden administration left him with a pretty bad hand. It’s crystal clear that Russia won in Ukraine, despite all of NATO’s efforts, and as such the U.S. very much risked coming out of it looking like the loser that it objectively is. Faced with this, Trump’s strategy clearly is to reframe this defeat into an “art of the deal” victory by securing U.S. access to Ukraine's natural resources while offloading the costs and responsibilities of the post-war security arrangement onto Europe. Meanwhile Europe, which has failed to develop any meaningful strategic autonomy over the past decades (in fact it’s moved in the opposite direction), finds itself with little leverage to prevent this. In fact, European “leaders”, in their treasonous meekness, are already signaling that they’ll resign themselves to their fate. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, for instance enticed Europeans not to complain about the situation ("to my European friends, I would say, get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up (defense) spending", voanews.com/a/europe-will-…). And Keir Starmer, invited by Macron at a “crisis summit” in Paris to discuss the situation, said that his primary goal in the meeting would be “to ensure we keep the US and Europe together. We cannot allow any divisions in the alliance to distract from the external enemies we face.” (theguardian.com/world/2025/feb…). I let you appreciate the perfect illustration this provides of the very mindset that has led Europe to this unprecedented position of weakness - responding to diplomatic humiliation with calls for even more subservience. So what could Europe do? After all, it is true that they have very little leverage, mainly due to the fact that they are “protected” by the very power that decided to put them on the menu instead of at the table. One idea could be to out-Trump Trump, and to angle for a deal where the U.S., not Europe, ends up the loser. They could for instance finally tell the truth about what led to the war in the first place, namely NATO expansion pushed by the U.S., as well as the U.S.-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, and dissociate themselves from this, just the way Trump is very conveniently trying to dissociate himself from his own country’s previous policies. They could make it clear that they reject any deal that gives the U.S. access to any of Ukraine's resources, and signal to Russia that they're open to a different kind of security architecture in Europe - one that doesn't rely on U.S. leadership or NATO. After all, if Trump can say he'll make deals with Putin, why couldn't Europe do the same? They could also reach out to China, which has already made it very clear that it opposed a deal in Ukraine without Europe at the table (reuters.com/world/china-ca…) and which is anyhow much better positioned to negotiate with Russia than Trump is. We could end up with a Europe freed from American tutelage for the first time since 1945, establishing a new multipolar equilibrium with China and Russia - turning Trump's attempt to exclude Europe into the very catalyst that finally enables European strategic autonomy. But this would require a level of strategic thinking that current European leaders have consistently shown themselves incapable of. Instead I’m afraid they'll continue their current path of attempting to maintain the façade of transatlantic unity even as they're being openly humiliated.

@premium Can I just subscribe Grok?

Grok's new image generation model has launched! Try it out now: x.com/i/grok Reply with one creative image you've made with Grok, and we'll pick 10 of our favorite in the next 24 hrs to receive a year of free Premium+