By popular demand, here is the official Mystery Grove Film Recommendations list. Watch all of these in order if you want to truly understand the world we live in today.
More from Culture
The Eye of Horus. 1/*
I believe that @ripple_crippler and @looP_rM311_7211 are the same person. I know, nobody believes that. 2/*
Today I want to prove that Mr Pool smile faces mean XRP and price increase. In Ripple_Crippler, previous to Mr Pool existence, smile faces were frequent. They were very similar to the ones Mr Pool posts. The eyes also were usually a couple of "x", in fact, XRP logo. 3/*
The smile XRP-eyed face also appears related to the Moon. XRP going to the Moon. 4/*
And smile XRP-eyed faces also appear related to Egypt. In particular, to the Eye of Horus. https://t.co/i4rRzuQ0gZ 5/*
I believe that @ripple_crippler and @looP_rM311_7211 are the same person. I know, nobody believes that. 2/*
Today I want to prove that Mr Pool smile faces mean XRP and price increase. In Ripple_Crippler, previous to Mr Pool existence, smile faces were frequent. They were very similar to the ones Mr Pool posts. The eyes also were usually a couple of "x", in fact, XRP logo. 3/*
The smile XRP-eyed face also appears related to the Moon. XRP going to the Moon. 4/*
And smile XRP-eyed faces also appear related to Egypt. In particular, to the Eye of Horus. https://t.co/i4rRzuQ0gZ 5/*
The emerging picture of John Sullivan aka Jayden X, the Cap riot agitator, and the documentarian Jade Sacker who filmed the whole thing really is the perfect microcosm of how Globalist American Empire stages its narrative.
Here’s the summary overview:
First Sullivan: agent provocateur who is no more antifa/BLM than he is Proud Boy, with suspicious family ties to the security state (allegedly), who helps instigate and document the Jan 6 events leading to IC officials immediately demanding the removal of the incumbent regime...
The guy’s social media profile is all over the map. From Civil Liberties gun guy to Antifa activist. And who planned the Utah BLM event that ended in the bizarre car shooting. His feed since Jan has all led to the Cap Hill events, including the first of the Parlor call outs.
Okay so maybe the guy is just a confused burn-it-all-down nihilist. Possible, but then we might do a big think about how an unhinged political schizo gets hooked up with a filmmaker with a long-history of doing activist/journalism on behalf of Woke Imperialism...
If John Sullivan aka Jaydenx is the “Fake,” Jade Sacker, his accomplice, is the “Gay.” Here’s a few snapshots from her portfolio (https://t.co/YEO1CCsQn8)
The plight of Rohingya Muslims. The Kurds in Northern Syria. Trans Women in Cambodia. etc. Boiler plate globohomo
Here’s the summary overview:
First Sullivan: agent provocateur who is no more antifa/BLM than he is Proud Boy, with suspicious family ties to the security state (allegedly), who helps instigate and document the Jan 6 events leading to IC officials immediately demanding the removal of the incumbent regime...
The guy’s social media profile is all over the map. From Civil Liberties gun guy to Antifa activist. And who planned the Utah BLM event that ended in the bizarre car shooting. His feed since Jan has all led to the Cap Hill events, including the first of the Parlor call outs.
Okay so maybe the guy is just a confused burn-it-all-down nihilist. Possible, but then we might do a big think about how an unhinged political schizo gets hooked up with a filmmaker with a long-history of doing activist/journalism on behalf of Woke Imperialism...
If John Sullivan aka Jaydenx is the “Fake,” Jade Sacker, his accomplice, is the “Gay.” Here’s a few snapshots from her portfolio (https://t.co/YEO1CCsQn8)
The plight of Rohingya Muslims. The Kurds in Northern Syria. Trans Women in Cambodia. etc. Boiler plate globohomo
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
This is ridiculous. Students were asked for their views on this example and several others. The study findings and conclusions were about student responses not the substance of each case. Could\u2019ve used hypotheticals. The responses not the cases were the basis of the conclusions.
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) February 17, 2021
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
The UK govt\u2019s paper on free speech in Unis (with implications for Wales) is getting a lot of attention.
— Richard Wyn Jones (@RWynJones) February 16, 2021
Worth noting then that an important part of the evidence-base on which it rests relates to (demonstrably false) claims about my own institution
1/https://t.co/buoGE7ocG7
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
