Bruens IT

Today, Telegram notified all its users in Spain with this alert: Pedro Sánchez’s government is pushing dangerous new regulations that threaten your internet freedoms. Announced just yesterday, these measures could turn Spain into a surveillance state under the guise of “protection.” Here’s why they’re a red flag for free speech and privacy: 1. Ban on social media for under-16s with mandatory age verification: This isn’t just about kids—it requires platforms to use strict checks, like needing IDs or biometrics. ⚠️ Danger: It sets a precedent for tracking EVERY user’s identity, eroding anonymity and opening doors to mass data collection. What starts with minors could expand to all, stifling open discourse. 2. Personal and criminal liability for platform executives: If “illegal, hateful, or harmful” content isn’t removed fast enough, bosses face jail. ⚠️ Danger: This will force over-censorship—platforms will delete anything remotely controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissent, journalism, and everyday opinions. Your voice could be next if it challenges the status quo. 3. Criminalizing algorithm amplification: Amplifying “harmful” content via algorithms becomes a crime. ⚠️ Danger: Governments will dictate what you see, burying opposing views and creating echo chambers controlled by the state. Free exploration of ideas? Gone—replaced by curated propaganda. 4. “Hate and polarization footprint” tracking: Platforms must monitor and report how they “fuel division.” ⚠️ Danger: Vague definitions of “hate” could label criticism of the government as divisive, leading to shutdowns or fines. This can be a tool for suppressing opposition. These aren’t safeguards; they’re steps toward total control. We’ve seen this playbook before—governments weaponizing “safety” to censor critics. On Telegram, we prioritize your privacy and freedom: strong encryption, no backdoors, and resistance to overreach. ✊ Stay vigilant, Spain. Demand transparency and fight for your rights. Share this widely—before it’s too late.

A few surprising things I learned from reading about the founder of Red Bull: 1. He started the company when he was 41 years old. 2. He was making $500 to $800 million a year and his 49% stake was worth $20 to $30 billion. 3. The company was started with just $500,000 from him and $500,000 from his partner. Outside of a small loan from a local bank all other expansion was funded by profits. 4. The company reached profitability in its 3rd year and has been profitable every year since. (33 years and counting) 5. He took no dividends for the first 13 years and reinvested all profits into growth instead. 6. He viewed Red Bull as a “marketing conglomerate” and tried to outsource everything else. 7. He was intensely private. When an author tried to interview his elderly mother for an unauthorized biography Mateschitz threatened to have the author's knee caps broken. He said it would only cost $500 to hire a Russian to do the job. 8. There are no biographies written in English about Mateschitz. 9. He believed a handshake agreement among gentlemen was sufficient and regularly did business with trusted partners with no written contract. 10. He bought a popular magazine just so he wouldn’t appear in it. 11. He didn’t like spending time socializing. He said: “I don't believe in 50 friends. I believe in a smaller number. Nor do I care about society events. It's the most senseless use of time. When I do go out, from time to time, it's just to convince myself again that I'm not missing a lot." 12. He was universally described by former employees as a gentleman, charismatic, and fiercely loyal. 13. He owned a private island in Fiji and said he was attracted to having his own independent state. His state would have the shortest set of laws in the world: “The rules are simple: Nobody tells you what you have to do — only what you don’t have to do.” 14. He still prioritized fitness deep into his 70s and liked driving fast, piloting his planes, and competing in off-road motorcycle races. 15. When he was asked if he was going to retire he said: “I’m having more fun than ever.” 16. He refused to sell Red Bull or take it public and worked on it until he died. --- I'm reposting one of my favorite founder stories. If you listened to this first time, I recommend listening again. If you missed this before, you're about to hear one of the wildest founder stories of all time.

The story gets stranger... Apparently I was never able to use the 🇪🇺 EU's GPUs in the first place Because I wasn't on their pre-approved organization list of "Horizon 2020" So how can you join the Horizon 2020 list as an organization? Well, you can't. It was made in 2014 and closed in 2020! ????

I said it many times before but I always think there's billions and maybe trillions in PR spend to make Elon Musk and in turn his companies Tesla look bad in the media The reason is he disrupts so many industries at once, with so many people's incomes potentially being disrupted in turn, that they try defend by making him look bad Electric vehicles, in turn entire petroleum industry, aerospace, now telecom, if you see Elon enter your industry you'd be silly not to try stop him. But you can't stop him by merit cause his products usually superior to yours. So companies resort to buying up $$$ money in PR, it seems obvious Same with DOGE there's a lot of risk of people losing money from welfare fraud etc While he's not perfect and nobody is, the obvious manipulation of the narrative seems so obviously funded by interest groups and other billionaires So ye take everything you read with a grain of salt, esp about Elon

If you are a $TSLA investor, or just a fan of Tesla and Elon, please listen to this. Elon Musk: “I'm the same person I was a year ago, nothing has changed. I didn't suddenly become a different human. But if you read the legacy mainstream media their propaganda stream is that I'm a completely different human. Two years ago, I'm a hero of the left. So how can I go from hero to villain at age 53, suddenly.”

"Doctors won’t make you healthy. Nutritionists won’t make you slim. Teachers won’t make you smart. Gurus won’t make you calm. Mentors won’t make you rich. Trainers won’t make you fit. Ultimately, you have to take responsibility. Save yourself." @naval

Dit is beneden alle peil @NOS. @elonmusk bracht geen Hitlergroet en dat weten jullie zelf ook. Schande! Tijd dat iemand jullie gaat modereren of aanpakken wegens het verspreiden van desinformatie.

Wauw! Neem even de tijd om deze video van 10 minuten volledig te bekijken en deel hem met zoveel mogelijk mensen. Hoe meer mensen zich bewust worden van de echte situatie in Oekraïne en Europa, hoe beter. Zolang de mainstream media hun werk niet doen en Westerse politici dwaze uitspraken blijven doen om ons angst aan te jagen, blijf ik dergelijke content delen. “Poetin is een dictator, Trump is een gevaarlijke crimineel.” Als je je nooit verdiept hebt in de achterliggende geopolitieke context, lijkt dat misschien de waarheid. Maar wie verder kijkt dan de propaganda, ziet een heel ander verhaal. In deze video spreekt Jeffrey Sachs, een van de meest gerenommeerde experts op het gebied van internationale politiek en iemand die al meer dan 30 jaar betrokken is bij geopolitieke ontwikkelingen. Hij geeft een heldere en onderbouwde analyse over het NAVO-conflict en de gevolgen ervan. Besteed 10 minuten aan deze uiteenzetting en ontdek hoe de situatie écht in elkaar zit. Recent noemde Trump de Oekraïense president Zelensky een dictator die zijn land de afgrond heeft ingestort. Politici en journalisten sprongen er meteen op en noemden het een absurde uitspraak. Maar heb even geduld. De komende tijd zal je zien hoe steeds meer politici afstand nemen van Zelensky. Vergeet echter niet dat diezelfde politici de afgelopen drie jaar blind achter hem aanliepen en miljarden van ons belastinggeld naar Oekraïne stuurden. De harde waarheid? Zelensky is niet meer dan een acteur die door de Amerikanen op die positie is gezet. Nu is er eindelijk een Amerikaanse president die dit bedrog wil stoppen. Al is de leugen nog zo snel, de waarheid achterhaalt ze wel.

Listening to Elon Musk tonight explain the engineering challenges that xAI faced when scaling up their massive GPU cluster in Memphis is him at his best. Breaking down the problems, coming up with creative solutions, using resources & products from his other companies to help solve issues, etc. Super interesting.

I promised to come back to @X after I investigated the facts concerning @EPotterMD's video post about @UHC and its health insurance subsidiary, UnitedHealthcare. To review, I made an @X post in response to Dr. Potter's videos and X posts about an overzealous representative of United Healthcare ("UNH") that had apparently interrupted her while in the operating room, and denied coverage for her patient's treatment. In response to her January 7th video about the experience, Clare Locke, defamation counsel to UNH, sent a six-page demand letter to Dr. Potter, which begins: "We are writing to demand you correct your knowingly false, misleading, and defamatory social media posts regarding UnitedHealthcare." In the second paragraph of the letter, UNH demands that: "You must promptly correct the record by removing your videos, posting a public apology to UnitedHealthcare, and condemning the threats of violence aimed at our client result from your posts." The six-page demand letter can be found here: …man-public.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2025.01.13+-+T… Before I get into the details, I want to emphasize that regardless of the facts of this situation that there is no justification whatsoever for violence and/or threats of violence against company officers or their legal or other representatives. This is particularly poignant in this case as we all know that the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was murdered in cold blood on the streets of New York, a horrendous tragedy for all involved, and for society at large. I understand the emotions of those who have felt harmed or been harmed by a failure of their insurer to pay for healthcare that was needed. I get it, but violence is not the solution to solving this problem. Getting back to my post about United Healthcare, I said that if I still shorted stocks, I would short UNH because based on Dr. Potter's experience I believed that UNH's "profitability is massively overstated due to its denial of medically necessary procedures." I also encouraged the @SECGov to do a thorough investigation of the company. UNH responded to my post by releasing a public statement that said: "Health insurance has long been subject to significant regulatory oversight and earnings caps. Any claims that health insurers, which typically have low- to mid-single digit margins, can somehow over-earn are grossly uninformed about the structure and strong regulatory oversight of the sector." UNH also stated that it had contacted the SEC because of its concerns with my post. Contemporaneously, a partner at Clare Locke contacted our firm, and said that Dr. Potter's claims were false, and that I should therefore take down my post. I took down the post, not wanting to have an inaccurate post on X. We have used the Clare Locke firm and respect their work, so I took their request seriously. My CLO was also contacted by the general counsel of UNH who told her that the underlying facts in Dr. Potter's posts and videos were false, and that UNH employees were under considerable stress due to the murder of their CEO -- which is understandable to say the least, and for which I greatly empathize. The UNH GC also asked to speak with me directly. When my CLO reported the call to me, I said that before I would agree to speak with the UNH GC, I would like him to provide a detailed explanation of what Dr. Potter had said that was wrong in her videos. Our CLO then contacted the UNH general counsel who said that he would send this information to her, and he took her email address. After days went by and we did not receive anything from UNH, our CLO again reached out to the UNH GC. He explained that he understood that we now had a copy of the Clare Locke demand letter, and that the letter provided all of the information we needed in order to understand what Dr. Potter had gotten wrong. Since my post, I have had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Potter and her counsel numerous times. Dr. Potter and her lawyer have sent me supporting documentation of the statements she made in her video, which I have reviewed carefully and about which I have had the opportunity to ask any questions that I have had. I have also reviewed the defamation claims that UNH made in the letter from Clare Locke. Based on all of the above, I believe that Dr. Potter told the truth in her initial video and in her statements and advocacy since that date. I also believe that UNH's threatening defamation letter to Dr. Potter and its public statements about my post and SEC complaint are simply brazen attempts to silence UNH's critics. Bear in mind that I have extensive experience with companies that attempt to silence and bully their critics. Herbalife and MBIA, in particular, were expert in shutting down criticism and regulatory interest through their aggressive approach to public relations and the media, by threatening and bringing litigation, by asking regulators to investigate market participants who questioned their accounting and business methods, by using their political influence, and by other more unseemly methods. I believe that you can learn a lot about a company by how it responds to its critics. UNH's response here parallels how Herbalife attacked its critics through its public statements, threatened litigation, SEC complaint, and other activities. Let's first examine all of Dr. Potter's statements in her January 7th video that triggered UNH's response here: "It's 2025 and insurance keeps getting worse." This is a statement of opinion by Dr. Potter and free speech permits it. She continued: "I just did two bilateral DIEPs and two bilateral tissue expanders for patients and I've never had this happen before." I believe Dr. Potter is telling the truth, which explains why she was inspired to do a video in the first place, and which I explain further below. She continued: "But during the second DIEP I got a phone call um into the operating room, saying that United Healthcare wanted me to call them about one of the patients who was having surgery today, who's actually asleep having surgery. And um you know said I had to call right now." Dr. Potter is referring to a representative from UNH who called the hospital operating room front desk and asked to speak to Dr. Potter. When the nurse on duty explained that Dr. Potter was unavailable because she was in the OR, the UNH representative explained that he had to speak Dr. Potter right away. This caused the nurse on duty to escalate the message to the head nurse on duty who delivered a sticky note message into the operating room to Dr. Potter. The note said the first name of the UNH representative, included a phone number and the words 'United Healthcare Pt. JL for Dr. Potter.' While UNH denies that its representative insisted on speaking to Dr. Potter right away, the facts on the ground suggest otherwise: First, the UNH representative called the operating room front desk at the hospital, rather than Dr. Potter's office and/or staff or billing department. Second, the nurse on duty believed it was sufficiently urgent that she gave the message to the head nurse on duty. The head nurse in turn also thought it sufficiently urgent that she delivered the message into the operating room. All of the above actions are consistent with Dr. Potter's statements in her video. According to Dr. Potter, the head nurse said that in her 15 years of experience she never had an insurance company seek to speak with a surgeon in the operating room so she assumed it had to be urgent. Dr. Potter continues in the video: “…so I scrubbed out of my case and I called UnitedHealthcare, and the gentleman said he needed some information about her, wanted to know her diagnosis, and whether um whether uh her inpatient stay should be justified. And I was like do you understand that she’s asleep right now and she has breast cancer?” [Dr. Potter of course did not leave the patient alone during the two-minute call. There was another surgeon, nurse, etc. in the operating room.] I believe what Dr. Potter is saying is true. But before we go further, why did Dr. Potter 'scrub out of her case' and call UNH? The answer is that Dr. Potter is an advocate for her breast cancer patients, not just for their health, but also for their financial well being. As we all know, many families have been financially wiped out by their healthcare bills that are not covered by insurance. It's bad enough to have breast cancer and have a double mastectomy, but imagine then being wiped out financially after the surgery. [For context, challenges to insurance coverage for modern breast reconstruction have been increasing. In 2021, CMS (Medicare) announced a coding change that threatened access to modern breast reconstruction techniques. United Healthcare was the first to adopt the change in April 2022. Recognizing the danger to patients and the practice of breast reconstruction through insurance, Dr. Potter started a national effort to reverse the change. She used her own savings to fund this effort. The change was reversed by CMS in August of 2023. I have a lot of respect for activists generally and for Dr. Potter's work on behalf of patients.] Receiving a note to call an insurer mid surgery was a first for Dr. Potter, and she stepped out to call UNH because she was afraid for her patient that UNH was going to deny coverage. She had to believe the call was urgent, otherwise there is no credible reason for her to have scrubbed out and called back the UNH representative on her cell phone. When you read the transcript of Dr. Potter's video remarks or even better when you watch the video, you can hear the emotion and exasperation in her voice, which is of someone frustrated with big insurers and very concerned about her patients. I have also found Dr. Potter to be extremely credible in all of my communications with her. Dr. Potter continues: “And um the gentleman said actually I don’t that’s a different department that would know that information. And I was like well um she does need to stay overnight tonight and um you have all the information with you because I got approval for this surgery, and I need to go back and be with my patient now.” Again, here I believe Dr. Potter when I examine all of the facts and documents that were made available by both parties. UNH was apparently calling to create a record that it had discussed the case with Dr. Potter and to make the case that her patient should not have an inpatient overnight stay in the hospital. I am not an expert in the insurance law here, but this is my understanding. Dr. Potter required the patient to stay overnight because her patient had a lung infection on the morning of the surgery, i.e., histoplasmosis that required a strong anti-viral medication. [Dr. Potter's patient has permitted Dr. Potter to share her medical information.] When the infection was considered along with the surgery, Dr. Potter believed an inpatient overnight stay was required because of concerns she had with potential interactions between the antiviral and post-surgical medications, as well as the stress to the patient from the surgery. That was her judgment as the patient's surgeon, and that is why she placed an order for the overnight stay with UNH before she did the surgery. [If I get any of these details wrong, I am sure Dr. Potter will correct the record.] In the demand letter, UNH accuses Dr. Potter of making an error in ordering an inpatient stay. Dr. Potter disputes this vociferously and as simply gaslighting by UNH. Why was UNH trying to speak to Dr. Potter so urgently? The difference between a one-day, in-patient stay, and the patient being released the same day from surgery was a bill to the insurer of more than $100,000, in this patient's case $110,356, coverage that was denied by UNH. [As a side note, the amount of this inpatient overnight stay is absurd and speaks to the fundamental problems with the system. The $100k plus charge is typically if not always dramatically negotiated down by the insurer, but when the insurer does not pay, the individual can get stuck with the face amount of the bill and without the negotiating leverage of a large insurer. These absurd large invoice amounts remind me of what it is like buying a prescription when you don't have your insurance card and CVS tells you the $25 drug will cost $3,000. This system is broken and fundamentally corrupt, and hopefully @RobertKennedyJr and the @realDonaldTrump and @DOGE will do something about it.] Under Texas law (the surgery took place in Austin, Texas) according to the Clare Locke letter, an insurer apparently has one day to discuss the plan of treatment with the physician before issuing a denial. Therefore, apparently, if UNH didn't reach the doctor before the end of the day, it would not have had as credible an argument to deny coverage. UNH did deny coverage in writing later that same day of the surgery, before the patient even left the hospital. The above explains why I believe UNH's representative was urgently trying to reach Dr. Potter. Dr. Potter finishes the video by saying: “But um yeah, it’s out of control. Insurance is out of control. Uh I have no other words.” The above is a statement of opinion, and based on Dr. Potter's experience here it is entirely accurate. Now, let's examine UNH's statement in response to my initial post, which among other things, said that: “I would not be surprised to find that the company’s profitability is massively overstated due to its denial of medically necessary procedures and patient care.” UNH's statement: "Health insurance has long been subject to significant regulatory oversight and earnings caps. Any claims that health insurers, which typically have low- to mid-single digit margins, can somehow over-earn are grossly uninformed about the structure and strong regulatory oversight of the sector." The statement begins by saying that health insurance is subject to 'strong regulatory oversight' and 'earnings caps.' This statement is meant to give the reader the impression that I must be wrong because regulators are watching the insurers closely, and that earnings are somehow 'capped.' UNH states that I must be 'grossly uninformed' for how can UNH's earnings be overstated if health insurers have low- to mid-single digit margins? While the above statements from UNH are true, they are highly misleading. First, the fact that UNH is subject to strong regulatory oversight does not mean that the company is properly adjudicating claims. As we all know, regulators often fail to do their jobs. In fact, I have personal experience with regulators failing to do their jobs (See MBIA and Herbalife) because regulators can be intimidated by powerful companies and the big law firms that represent them. That is why regulators often shy from going after big targets, and it is only after the problem companies collapse that the regulators step in and punish the people responsible. I can't think of an example where a regulator found fraud at a large company before it collapsed. It is usually the short sellers who find fraud, and the regulators who come in afterwards to clean up the mess. MBIA collapsed six years after we brought our concerns to the company's insurance regulator and the SEC. Herbalife stock collapsed years after the FTC failed to shut the company down. The facts about MBIA and Herbalife were manifestly true when we shared them with the regulators, but still the regulators did not do their jobs. Second, the fact that insurers have low- to mid-single margins is not evidence that they are properly adjudicating claims. Rather, the fact that UNH has low profit margins gives it a huge incentive to minimize the claims that it pays. When a company has low margins, it by definition has high operating leverage. This means that small changes in revenues up or down have a huge impact on bottom line profits. Public company management teams are compensated based on meeting and exceeding profit targets which drive earnings-per-share growth and long-term stock price increases. If management can drive revenues up slightly in a low margin business, profits can explode upwards because of operating leverage. So the fact that an insurer has low margins does not in any way prove or support the fact that its earnings are not overstated, but it clearly creates an incentive to minimize claims paid by an insurer. When you step back and look at this situation, it gives you better perspective on what likely transpired. A surgeon posted a video about her frustration with a healthcare insurer. When she posted it, she did not know it would go viral. When it did go viral, the company responded by having its defamation counsel send a threatening letter accusing the doctor of making "knowingly false, misleading, and defamatory" social media posts, and demanded that she take down the posts, retract her claims, and post a public apology. [UNH did so in my view for two principal reasons: (1) because it wants to minimize negative press and the risk of regulatory inquiries into its business, and (2) it wants to minimize negative press to reduce the risk to its executives in light of recent events, an important and legitimate concern.] In response to a threatening letter from UNH's defamation counsel, the doctor, rather than taking down her posts, makes more posts, and then sits down for an upcoming interview on a major TV show. Why would she double down and expose herself to more legal and career risk unless what she said was true? When a market observer, in this case me, reposts the doctor's video and criticizes the company, the company responds by issuing misleading statements to the public, and contacts the SEC, our principal regulator, in an attempt to intimidate me even though I have publicly stated that we have no investment in UNH long, short or otherwise. When you look at the above facts and watch Dr. Potter's videos, I strongly believe that a jury of Dr. Potter's peers would conclude that she is telling the truth. What is her incentive to make "knowingly false, misleading and defamatory" statements about UNH? She has none. In fact, she has the opposite. She is a breast cancer surgeon with a small, not particularly profitable practice, going up against a publicly trading insurance holding company with a $482 billion market cap, the 16th most valuable U.S. company. She has no incentive to lie and double down and go on network television unless she is telling the truth. Dr. Potter put herself at significant personal and financial risk by going public about her experience with UNH because of her passion for protecting her patients and her frustration with our healthcare system and its insurers. There is no other credible explanation for her video and other social media posts. Now what about UNH? I suspect that the employees and other representatives of UNH that help manage its insurer's claim expenses are given large financial incentives to keep claims payments as low as possible. That would explain the tenacity with which the UNH representative operated when he called the operating room front desk, and the urgency with which he expressed a desire to speak to Dr. Potter. That, in my view, is the only credible explanation for why the front desk nurse gave the message to the head nurse who brought the message into the operating room, and explains what has transpired here. Occam's razor. And according to Dr. Potter, all of the nurses and other witnesses involved have offered to testify on her behalf. With respect to my thoughts on shorting UNH from my first post, I don't recommend shorting stocks, but I wouldn't recommend anyone invest in UNH, certainly at this valuation. Since my post, I have heard many other bad stories about the company's approach to paying claims so I don't think Dr. Potter's experience here is a one off. Based on all of the above, in my opinion, there is likely something systematically wrong with this company. Compare UNH with the other top 20 U.S. companies by market cap. When you do so and you consider each of these companies contributions to humanity, does it cause you to question a bit why UNH is so valuable compared to the others? Yet, another reason, I would argue, why one might question the company's reported profitability and valuation. And UNH's earnings don't appear to in any way be 'capped.' Certainly, the company's shareholders and analysts are not valuing the stock assuming 'capped earnings' for otherwise you could not justify a half of a trillion dollar market cap. With respect to Dr. Potter, I think she is a hero. I have offered to pay her legal expenses, but her lawyer was already handling her case pro bono, such was his confidence in her case and her character. If she needs funding to bring her own defamation case, she knows where to find me. UNH owes Dr. Potter a public apology for defaming her and accusing of her lying. And if I were on the UNH board, I would launch an immediate investigation of the company's approach to paying claims, the incentives it gives the employees and agents who work on its behalf, and the approach it takes in attacking the critics who challenge it. I am sure that Dr. Potter is not the first person to receive a threatening letter from UNH. I look forward to hearing from others on X about their experiences with the company good and bad. In summary, the whole thing smells very bad to me. And yes, the SEC should take a very close look at UNH.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore took on a challenge that few politicians dared to confront: cutting the size of the federal government. Facing a ballooning deficit and mounting inefficiencies, Clinton announced an ambitious plan to slash wasteful spending, shrink bureaucracy, and rein in government overreach. He signed an executive order eliminating 100,000 federal jobs, a 12% cut in administrative costs, and the consolidation or termination of hundreds of outdated programs. One of his biggest warnings? If wasteful spending wasn’t controlled, the federal deficit would soar to $650 billion per year by the early 2000s, with a growing share of tax dollars going toward interest payments on debt instead of public investment. Fast forward to today. In 2024, the federal deficit stands at $1.83 trillion—nearly triple Clinton’s worst-case scenario. Interest on the debt alone has reached $880 billion, consuming an ever-larger portion of the national budget. Clinton’s reforms worked during his presidency. The federal workforce shrank by 380,000 federal jobs—a 16% decrease. Programs were streamlined, waste was reduced, and deficits were brought under control. Yet, decades later—after the War on Terror, the 2008 financial crisis, and COVID-19—government spending has soared once again, bureaucracy has expanded, and the national debt has reached historic highs. Now, history is repeating itself. President Trump has appointed Elon Musk, widely regarded as the world's most successful CEO and technologist, to lead efforts to streamline the government and restore fiscal responsibility. For the sake of America, I hope the Democratic Party and the corporate media can set aside their irrational opposition and support DOGE, just as they once backed Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.

Pistorius laat met zijn woede over de uitspraken van Vance @JDVance exact zien dat Vance de vinger op de zere plek heeft gelegd. Ook ik voel mij als Nederlander niet vrij meer om gewoon mijzelf te zijn en mijn mening te geven. Ik ben gecensureerd, verketterd door de media, kreeg zelfs bezoek van de politie vanwege een post op twitter/X en een onderzoek door de Inspectie voor de Volksgezondheid. Ik ben bang geweest dat mijn BIG registratie afgenomen zou worden en dan zou ik mijn gezin niet meer kunnen onderhouden. Dát is het klimaat in Europa, ook in Nederland. En waarom? Heb ik mensen bedreigd? Nee, ik ben dezelfde gebleven, een moeder, een huisarts, aangesloten bij een kerk en soms schrijf ik blogs of ik geef mijn mening. Ik ben fel voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting en ook fel tegen dwang en drang in de geneeskunde. Ik ben tegen het onder dwang testen en vaccineren van mensen. Daarom ben ik me uit gaan spreken, en toen merkte ik hoe erg de censuur in Nederland is. Europa en de Europese Unie zijn eng en griezelig geworden. De Europese Commissie en de dominante main stream media willen bepalen wat waar is en wat 'desinformatie'. Ze hebben in hun heerszucht gewoon niet door hoe tiranniek ze zich zijn gedragen en hoe bedreigend ze zijn voor mensen zoals ik. Dan behoor ik misschien tot een kleine minderheid. Ik leg niemand mijn mening of wil op, ik wil alleen maar vrij zijn.

Elon on the Biden DOJ's lawfare against Space X. Give it a listen:

President Trump and Elon's brilliant method for setting up DOGE

> Dems relentlessly shit on Elon > Elon buys twitter, exposes censorship, restores actual free speech > media loses its mind, calls Elon a fascist > Biden admin launches investigations into Elon’s companies > Trump almost gets assassinated, Dems and media downplay it > Elon pushes election integrity, media accuses him of spreading “disinfo” > Trump wins, appoints Elon to oversee DOGE > media: “America is now a fascist technocracy” > Dems double down on censorship and lawfare, Trump and Elon double down on winning > Tesla stock soars, Trump’s approval rating highest ever > media panics, calls it a “constitutional crisis” > DOJ & SEC ramp up investigations, congress launches hearings on “Elon’s influence” > Elon & Trump respond with more innovation, bigger wins, and record-breaking approval ratings > cycle repeats, timeline advances

Marc Andreessen on Elon's method: “He's in the trenches.” “Elon has developed an operating method that is very unusual by modern standards. The top line thing is this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to fully, deeply understand what the company does, to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it, and to be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues and being the lead problem-solver in the organization. Basically, Elon shows up every week at each of his companies. He identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row, so each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems in that year. Most other large companies are still having the planning meeting for the pre-planning meeting for the board meeting, for the presentation, with the compliance review and the legal review. So it's this level of both an incredible intellectual capability coupled with an incredible force of personality, a moral authority, an execution capability, a focus on fundamentals that is just really amazing to watch.” Interview with Chris Williamson, December 14, 2024

To be clear, what the @DOGE team and @USTreasury have jointly agreed makes sense is the following: - Require that all outgoing government payments have a payment categorization code, which is necessary in order to pass financial audits. This is frequently left blank, making audits almost impossible. - All payments must also include a rationale for the payment in the comment field, which is currently left blank. Importantly, we are not yet applying ANY judgment to this rationale, but simply requiring that SOME attempt be made to explain the payment more than NOTHING! - The DO-NOT-PAY list of entities known to be fraudulent or people who are dead or are probable fronts for terrorist organizations or do not match Congressional appropriations must actually be implemented and not ignored. Also, it can currently take up to a year to get on this list, which is far too long. This list should be updated at least weekly, if not daily. The above super obvious and necessary changes are being implemented by existing, long-time career government employees, not anyone from @DOGE. It is ridiculous that these changes didn’t exist already! Yesterday, I was told that there are currently over $100B/year of entitlements payments to individuals with no SSN or even a temporary ID number. If accurate, this is extremely suspicious. When I asked if anyone at Treasury had a rough guess for what percentage of that number is unequivocal and obvious fraud, the consensus in the room was about half, so $50B/year or $1B/week!! This is utterly insane and must be addressed immediately.

John F. Kennedy, 1961 ‼️ Lees het transcript (onderaan) van de JFK-toespraak uit april 1961 in de context van #USAIDGATE … 64 jaar van ongeëvenaarde manipulatie. Wat Kennedy in 1961 waarschuwde, is vandaag relevanter dan ooit. Zijn woorden over geheimhouding, censuur en de groei van een verborgen machtsstructuur klinken als een profetie over wat we nu zien gebeuren. Een “monolithische en meedogenloze samenzwering” die opereert via infiltratie in plaats van invasie, via ondermijning in plaats van verkiezingen, via intimidatie in plaats van vrije keuze. Een systeem waarin fouten worden begraven in plaats van erkend, waarin kritiek wordt gesmoord in plaats van verwelkomd. Wat hebben we geleerd? USAID, een instrument dat ooit werd voorgesteld als een nobele kracht voor ontwikkeling, blijkt keer op keer een pion in geopolitieke spelletjes en regimeveranderingen. De tactieken die Kennedy beschreef – manipulatie, propaganda en heimelijke operaties – zijn niet verdwenen, maar geëvolueerd. De boodschap van Kennedy blijft staan: 🔹 Zonder debat en kritiek sterft een republiek. 🔹 Censuur en geheimhouding ondermijnen vrijheid. 🔹 De waarheid mag nooit worden onderdrukt onder het mom van nationale veiligheid. Nu, 64 jaar later, is de vraag: Wie waakt over de wachters? - Vertaling toespraak JFK, 27 April 1961 - Dames en heren, het woord geheimhouding op zich is al weerzinwekkend in een vrije en open samenleving. Wij zijn als volk van nature en historisch gezien gekant tegen geheime genootschappen, geheime eden en geheime procedures. We hebben lang geleden besloten dat de gevaren van buitensporige en ongegronde verhulling van relevante feiten veel zwaarder wegen dan de gevaren die als rechtvaardiging worden aangevoerd. Zelfs vandaag de dag heeft het weinig waarde om de dreiging van een gesloten samenleving te bestrijden door haar willekeurige beperkingen na te bootsen. Zelfs vandaag de dag heeft het weinig waarde om het voortbestaan van onze natie te waarborgen als onze tradities daarbij niet overleven. Er is een zeer ernstig gevaar dat een aangekondigde noodzaak voor verhoogde veiligheid zal worden aangegrepen door degenen die gretig zijn om de betekenis ervan uit te breiden tot de uiterste grenzen van officiële censuur en geheimhouding. Dat ben ik niet van plan toe te staan, voor zover het binnen mijn macht ligt. En geen enkele functionaris van mijn regering, ongeacht of zijn rang hoog of laag is, burgerlijk of militair, mag mijn woorden van vanavond interpreteren als een excuus om het nieuws te censureren, om afwijkende meningen te onderdrukken, om onze fouten te verbergen, of om de pers en het publiek de feiten te onthouden die zij recht hebben te weten. Want wij worden wereldwijd geconfronteerd met een monolithische en meedogenloze samenzwering die zich voornamelijk bedient van heimelijke methoden om haar invloedssfeer uit te breiden. Door infiltratie in plaats van invasie, door ondermijning in plaats van verkiezingen, door intimidatie in plaats van vrije keuze, door guerrilla’s in de nacht in plaats van legers overdag. Het is een systeem dat enorme menselijke en materiële middelen heeft gemobiliseerd voor de opbouw van een hecht verbonden, uiterst efficiënte machine die militaire, diplomatieke, inlichtingen-, economische, wetenschappelijke en politieke operaties combineert. De voorbereidingen ervan worden verborgen, niet gepubliceerd. De fouten worden begraven, niet in de krantenkoppen gebracht. De andersdenkenden worden het zwijgen opgelegd, niet geprezen. Geen enkele uitgave wordt ter discussie gesteld, geen enkel gerucht wordt gedrukt, geen enkel geheim wordt onthuld. Geen enkele president zou bang moeten zijn voor publieke controle op zijn beleid. Want uit die controle komt begrip voort, en uit dat begrip ontstaat steun of oppositie – en beide zijn noodzakelijk. Ik vraag niet dat uw kranten deze regering steunen, maar ik vraag om uw hulp in de enorme taak om het Amerikaanse volk te informeren en te waarschuwen. Want ik heb volledig vertrouwen in de reactie en toewijding van onze burgers, mits zij volledig geïnformeerd zijn. Ik zou niet alleen geen controverse onder uw lezers kunnen onderdrukken, ik verwelkom die juist. Deze regering is van plan open te zijn over haar fouten. Want zoals een wijs man ooit zei: “Een fout wordt pas een vergissing als je weigert die te corrigeren.” Wij zijn van plan volledige verantwoordelijkheid te nemen voor onze fouten, en we verwachten dat u ze aanwijst wanneer wij ze maken. Zonder debat, zonder kritiek, kan geen enkele regering en geen enkel land slagen, en kan geen enkele republiek overleven. Daarom bepaalde de Atheense wetgever Solon dat het een misdaad was voor een burger om controverse te ontwijken. En daarom werd onze pers beschermd door het Eerste Amendement – het enige bedrijf in Amerika dat expliciet door de Grondwet wordt beschermd. Niet primair om te vermaken of te entertainen, niet om het triviale en sentimentele te benadrukken, niet om simpelweg het publiek te geven wat het wil, maar om te informeren, om wakker te schudden, om te reflecteren, om onze gevaren en onze kansen te benoemen, om onze crises en onze keuzes aan te duiden, om publieke opinie te leiden, te vormen, te onderwijzen en soms zelfs boos te maken. Dit betekent een grotere berichtgeving en analyse van internationaal nieuws. Want dat is niet langer ver weg en buitenlands, maar dichtbij en lokaal. Het betekent een grotere aandacht voor een beter begrip van het nieuws, evenals een verbeterde overdracht ervan. En het betekent tenslotte dat de overheid op alle niveaus aan haar verplichting moet voldoen om u de grootst mogelijke hoeveelheid informatie te verschaffen, binnen de smalste grenzen van nationale veiligheid. En zo wenden wij ons tot de drukpers, de vastlegger van de daden van de mens, de bewaker van zijn geweten, de boodschapper van zijn nieuws, voor kracht en ondersteuning – ervan overtuigd dat, met uw hulp, de mens zal zijn wat hij geboren is om te zijn: vrij en onafhankelijk. #JFK #Vrijheid #Geheimhouding #MediaCensuur #MachtEnManipulatie #USAIDGATE

Don't imagine Trump as a 4D chess player. That's the wrong metaphor. Imagine him instead as a fencer. He has a sword, which is a very simple tool, with a very simple purpose: pointy end goes in the other guy. Then remember this Bruce Lee quote: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." That's Trump. He uses very, very simple negotiating techniques. And he's very, very good at them. This particular move was a two-stage combo. Two very simple moves. 1. Habitually talk like you have an IQ of 95. Everything is either very bad, or tremendous. Every sentence structure is simple and straightforward. No philosophy, no reducing things to first principles, no complex analysis. Talk like a midwit so people think you are a midwit. 2. Door in the face technique. A compliance method so simple and well-known it has a wikipedia page. The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the respondent's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation. Except Trump is so good at wielding this simple weapon that he doesn't need to make a second request. He just says a crazy thing, and everyone who's not paying attention believes he wants a crazy thing because they think he's a retard. Then they fall all over themselves trying to suggest a reasonable alternative, which ends up being pretty much the actual thing Trump wanted all along. It's that simple, he does it again and again, and it works again and again, because the people who hate him desperately want to think he's dumb. They succumb to the temptation of flattering their own egos instead of keeping their eyes on the prize. That makes them easy to manipulate.