Heavy on the spoilers and devoid of all brevity, but if I do not get this off my chest I will lose my mind. I’ve been on a Shatter Me high all week. The first three books have altered my brain chemistry. I have said the words “Aaron Warner, the man you are” so many times I am beginning to question my sanity. I cracked open Restore Me last night, fully prepared to trust-fall into the arms of my #1 Fictional Boyfriend of all time.
So, um, what the fuck was that?
Look, I can forgive messy plotlines and overwriting, I can ignore ill-planned and lazily-executed rebel coups. I can even appreciate the absurd surplus of metaphors and similes crammed in between strings of dialogue, if for no reason other than comedic value.
What I can’t get behind is Book 4 Aaron Warner.
Seriously, who is this guy? Because I’ve gone through the five stages of grief, turned around and reread the entire book in frank disbelief, and the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that I’ve somehow picked up an imposter, written in very bad faith. When Adam Kent did a 180 in Ignite Me and went from “gentle, pathetic childhood crush who can suffer through Juliette’s touch in some small capacity” to “bitter, controlling ex-boyfriend driven mad with jealousy,” we all understood this to be much-needed fan service. Juliette was, after all, being an idiot; she needed a little push, to realize that Aaron Warner was the undisputed crown jewel. Most of us came to this conclusion two and a half books ahead of her, but better late than never. I walked away from Ignite Me feeling content. The power couple has been established. Anderson is dead. Juliette’s rise to Supreme Commander was satisfying, if a bit hasty. I went into Restore Me confident that, with Aaron at her side, Juliette could achieve anything.
The transition was…jarring, to say the least.

“The Reestablishment does not allow time for people to grieve.” - Book 3 Aaron.

(Alas, this is Book 4, and *insert obligatory Bob Dylan joke*)
The Times, They Are a’ Changin’
Anyway, what I’m getting at here is that Aaron is grieving, he is mourning, he is SAD. This is totally understandable, both to me as a reader and to Juliette as a character. It appears to be the guiding factor behind his new penchant for stonewalling and emotional blackmail. Before diving into THAT can of worms, I’d like to add a couple of bullets to my list of “Miscellaneous What-and-Why-the-Fucks:”

• Why does Juliette have zero advisors? Where is her council? Her attendants? Her scribe? Her translator? Her GUARDS?
• What, exactly, is Kenji’s job? She refers to him as her “second-in-command,” and while I adore his character, I can’t help but feel that lending snarky input does very little in the way of running a tight ship. Why is she entirely on her own?

Moving on.
A TIMELINE OF SHITTY EVENTS, IN WHICH I HANG UP MY ‘ADAM KENT’S #1 HATER’ JACKET AND SHRUG ON MY ‘AARON WARNER SUCKS’ VEST:

• Juliette is trying to make peace between two unruly schoolboys who refuse to get along at the playground. Sorry, Juliette is trying to make peace between two grown men, both of whom appear, in some capacity, involved in the running of North America. This is going “Not Very Well,” if Aaron’s botched haircut is any indication. Fortunately, he comes to terms with his Slim Shady Era, and while he’s clearly going through some things, I could roll with the punches and learn to love the buzz cut, if only he didn’t IMMEDIATELY TURN INTO THE JOKER AFTER THIS.
• Aaron knows better than anyone else about the role and responsibilities of a Supreme Commander. Still yet, he appears completely uninvolved in Juliette’s day-to-day regimen. He makes zero effort to inform her about details that might save her from needless embarrassment. Her fuck-ups seem imminent. Perhaps this is why he has no inclination to avoid them, nor lessen their impact on her pride or public image. Slim Shady is a lone wolf. He has completely forgotten that whole “I’ve told you from the start, we would make an excellent team” spiel. North America is a One-Woman (De?)establishment. Kenji appears to play the role of court jester, though he lends emotional support when necessary–and always with more empathy and forethought than Regent Warner, who, I might remind you, has the power of READING ENERGIES (“hers, especially”).
• Enter Delalieu, to inform Juliette her quarters are overflowing with unanswered mail, and worry that this may reflect poorly upon her as a new leader, to which she’s like “I have quarters?” This revelation comes on the heels of Castle’s memo that “all of her correspondence is being monitored.” I suspect somehow this is Castle’s fault, which brings me to my follow-up point.
• In Book 4, Castle becomes less of an incompetent hippie and more of a prick to Juliette. He terrorizes her with cryptic warnings, but refuses to divulge any information he may have about Warner’s past, which–given her new status–seems like it ought to be grounds for some sort of official noncompliance. He also had her reach out to the other supreme commanders “as an experiment.” It was at this point I decided I wasn’t a fan of how everyone kept undermining or making a mockery of Juliette at every turn. I couldn’t help but notice how Castle’s comments to Aaron about her went entirely unchecked. I am reminded, if you will, of that scene in Shatter Me, when Aaron staged a big spectacle in which a soldier was killed, to ensure his men knew not to fuck with Juliette. He seems to have forgotten this virtue, in Book 4.
• Despite being warned that Ibriham’s children are en route, Aaron lets a conversation with Kent take precedence over informing Juliette what to expect, how to dress, what to say, etc. Castle also informs him once Haider arrives. Juliette chooses to meet Haider without waiting for Aaron, but he should have been there regardless. He can FEEL her energy, he doesn’t need her to say it out loud to realize she’s insecure and needs him to be there, and she wouldn’t BE insecure about so much shit if he would step in and stop allowing everyone to make her the butt of every joke!!! Where’s that supportive boyfriend act you roped us all in with, buddy? Also, literally neither she nor Kenji know jack shit about politics, why would he let them walk into a meeting with the children of foreign leaders entirely blind?
• Speaking of the meeting with Haider, Aaron has a closet full of clothes organized by color and shade; yet he didn’t think to help Juliette pick out a new wardrobe for her designation as Supreme Commander? He literally chose her entire last wardrobe, and look, I get it, they’re busy with war things and his evil dad is dead and that’s sad and all, but don’t introduce us to a standard you can’t maintain! She goes to meet this snotty rich boy in BLUE JEANS AND A PINK SWEATER. Kenji “cringes” at her. This was so humiliating I literally felt my face getting hot when I read it.
• Again, Castle specifically *told* Aaron when Haider arrived, but when he and Juliette discuss it later, he turns it around on her to justify why he didn’t show up to support her!

“You didn’t tell me he’d arrived earlier. I wish I could’ve been there to assist somehow.”
Like, are you fucking kidding me? Again, he can FEEL her energy; he is well aware that she spent that meeting getting humiliated, and still decides to make his absence a product of her incompetence. Like, his entire pep talk after this left me filled with visceral rage.

• Allow me to share this absolutely infuriating passage in Aaron’s POV:

“She [Nazeera] has the same long legs and lean frame as her brother, and she carries herself with great pride, like someone who was born into position and privilege. She wears a gray tunic cut from fine, heavy fabric; skintight leather pants; heavy boots; and a set of glittering gold knuckles on both hands.
And I’m not the only one staring.
Juliette, who’s been watching quietly this whole time, is looking up, amazed. I can practically see her thought process as she suddenly stiffens, glances down at her own outfit, and crosses her arms over her chest as if to hide her pink sweater from view. She’s tugging at her sleeves as though she might tear them off.
It’s so adorable I almost kiss her right then.”

Are you fucking SERIOUS? So she is here, dying of embarrassment, already feeling inferior because she’s comically underdressed and only speaks one language, and his response is to GAWK AT A HOT GIRL IN FRONT OF HER AND INFANTILIZE HER IN HIS INNER MONOLOGUE. “I’m not the only one staring” ???? Be so for real right now, like I am lost for words!

• Aaron is “fairly certain” and generally insistent that Castle’s suspicions will prove false. Like, why would Castle just be pulling random hunches like this out of his ass? When I read it, I was like, “Hmm, kinda sounds like Aaron is just rationalizing why he isn’t going to tell Juliette any of this.” Spoiler alert: I was right.
• Aaron sits in silence and watches Juliette flounder helplessly while trying to explain to Haider how she only sort of knows what the “Continental Symposium” is.* OH YEAH, DID I MENTION IT IS ALSO TWO DAYS AWAY? Like, Aaron clearly knows this is a big deal, it appears to be a tradition of sorts. Why is he once again letting his girlfriend be humiliated and condescended by their guests? He also *CRINGES,* he CRINGES at her for not knowing about it. Like, at this point I am beginning to greatly resent this man.
• He also doesn’t defend Juliette when Haider calls her “some idiot psychotic girl” TO HIS FACE. RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER. Actually, SHE steps in and defends HIM. I wish she hadn’t. After this, in his inner monologue, Aaron is like, “I wonder if she knows I would do anything for her.” FUCKING DO SOMETHING WARNER, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
• Juliette peeks in on Aaron in his office, finds him listening to old vinyl, discovers he likes Bob Dylan. ME TOO, BUDDY, I’ve seen him live. Might I suggest a little less “Like a Rolling Stone” and a little more “Just Like a Woman,” “Tangled Up in Blue,” “Lay Lady Lay,” ‘COZ I AM BEGINNING TO HATE YOUR ASS FOR THE WAY YOU ARE TREATING JULIETTE!
• Again, Aaron is fully aware of Castle’s warnings that people are coming for Juliette. WHY is she walking unarmed and unguarded on the beach at night? That’s right, because he ran off with Haider to count gold coins or suck each other off or something, leaving her to be sad and alone and not on the lookout for danger. Once again, he fails to come through and keep her safe, and she gets hit with some kind of bullet or dart or something.
• AGAIN, why is Castle allowed to stand here and disrespect Juliette right to Warner’s face, invalidate her and tell him how HE should have been the one who became Supreme Commander? Like, she already has zero support around her whatsoever and this rat is allowed to talk shit about all the things she does and doesn’t know, what she gets told, and potentially also her MAIL. Why hasn’t Warner killed this fucker yet? Warner, ARE YOU STILL IN THERE?
• Remember when Aaron was clever? Yeah, me too. He seems to have abandoned that trait in Book 4. Things like “taking basic precaution” no longer hold any precedence. He and Juliette have, however, found the time to fuck twice, despite having no time or opportunity for all the critical conversations they’re not having that could have redeemed Aaron Warner in my heart and mind. P R I O R I T I E S.
• *slams the back of his head against the wall in frustration* I actually had an ex who did this once when I caught him cheating. It is not something intelligent people do, in my experience. I am beginning to hate Aaron the way I hated Adam. Side note, I still hate Adam. Glad he kind of disappears after the first couple of chapters.
• Great, Juliette is now hallucinating from poison bullets. Good thing Aaron is there to…look really scared and terrify her even more. Moral support? Don’t know him! Just…staring fearfully, jumping in to prevent her from going outside. Maybe a pat on the head or something would help…no? Okay then.
• At this point he decides it’s time to fess up. He couldn’t have chosen a worse time, by the way. Juliette asks if it’s okay if she washes the blood and sand off first (she was just attacked on the beach, remember?). She is clearly still sick and “hallucinating” (seeing the bright white lights outside of her window, the way people do right before they die). Maybe he could…I don’t know…HELP HER? Run her bathwater? Help her clean up? Yeah no, he just nods. She can do all that by herself, just like everything around here. Juliette, girl, if you don’t kick this deadbeat to the curb I’m gonna SCREAM. P.S.: WHO IS THIS MAN? THIS IS NOT THE AARON WARNER I KNOW. Remember how he remembered to bring gloves and a coat for her before he dropped her off at Omega Point? They weren’t even dating yet. How hard did he slam his head into the wall? Maybe he should keep going. Maybe he would like a little help? I’m not busy at all rn.
• See the thing is, now Aaron has to do a big fess up about Juliette’s life. He’s obviously lied and withheld some vital information, but more importantly he spent a couple of years torturing a sister she doesn’t know about yet. And while I realize he didn’t have any CHOICE in this particular matter, I also loathe him at this point for a ton of other shit he’s done leading up to this, so it’s really hard to feel sorry for him when–REALLY THEY FIND TIME TO FUCK AGAIN AT THIS POINT? SOMETHING IS FUCKING WRONG WITH THESE TWO. I can’t help but notice she’s “crawled on top of him” both times now. Guess she’s doing all the work in the sack, as well. Remember that “flip over on your stomach” line from Ignite Me? That guy is dead now. This dude blows and I hate him. Separate LOL at “onto to the floor.” That’s really in there. You can check.
• So the only time these two can communicate is during coitus. Cool. Maybe instead of reminding each other of their mutual love, they could reinforce their bond with something like…confessional hour? Maybe Aaron could use his energy to feel her energy and figure out something safe to say, that isn’t super fucked up and wrong. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t.
• CONFESSION TIME! She starts crying when he gets to the “Reestablishment is coming for you, they’re coming to take you back” part. This is pretty reasonable, but he doesn’t pause to reassure her about it before he’s like, “Oh yeah and about your SISTER–” At this point she actually asks him to stop, probably so she can digest some of this horrifying information, but he says, and I quote, “No.” I really feel like he could have paused for a few minutes to let her process, maybe find some solid ground to stand on(since the man whose lap she is sitting in is a spineless moron and awful boyfriend, and thus not at all likely to be of any assistance).
• Juliette panics. Again, this is not entirely unjustified. Aaron speaks seven languages, none of which are “reassurance,” or “comfort,” and so when she actually gets up and runs away he just…accepts it. I want a refund. I want the first three books to apologize for love-bombing me. I made this man my #1 book boyfriend of all time. THIS Aaron Warner…this man is a fraud and I hate him. She should honestly just hook up with Kenji. At least he still calls her princess. Has Aaron called her love even once in this book? It’s possible I missed it, over the sound of his ceaseless letdowns from Chapter One onward.
• Aaron has a panic attack. Luckily his nemesis Kenji is there to comfort him. Why is no one worried about Juliette? While we are all crying over Warner’s psychosomatic breakdown, she is hysterical, hallucinating poison, has a voice in her head, and is being hunted by some kind of evil bureaucrats and possibly her own parents.
• Allow me to share yet another passage that made blink in disbelief:

He [Kenji] shakes his head. “You just can’t, man. You can’t be with someone and keep that many secrets from them.”
“It’s never stopped me before.”

At this point, Mafi, I already hate him. You did not need to include this passage, at all.

• **PARAPHRASING** Kenji’s like, “Hey man, you’re kind of being shitty to your girlfriend by not telling her about things like all your exes.” Aaron is like, “Well, I wouldn’t have ever done anything to hurt her (barring all those things I did to hurt her), but since I already lost her, who cares? Water under the bridge!” To which Kenji reminds him that ‘water under the bridge’ means Juliette can go out and fuck someone else, and Aaron doesn’t like the idea of that, so he decides he probably wants to fix things, after all.
• Aaron: “You couldn’t have called, Lieutenant? Isn’t that what our phones are for?”

Nothing significant here, although it is news to me that they have phones. When did they get phones?
Anyway, turns out Delalieu tried to call him, but Warner disconnected his phone. Can we like, demote this guy or something? This guy SUCKS.

• Juliette chooses the moron’s escape route (blind sprint into the open night), and gets snatched up by Jazeera (who can fly). This is the first time Jazeera has shared said secret with anyone, which she confides when they land in a tree. It’s a really great time for these two to kiss, and it’s only fair. After all, Warner never had any friends, so this childhood friend of Warner’s technically doesn’t count. Juliette lets Aaron block her blessings once again, but Jazeera is nonetheless more emotional support than Kenji and Aaron put together. You know, I usually read fantasy to ESCAPE the disappointing reality of Men. This book is reminding me they manage to infiltrate even sacred spaces like fiction. Jazeera is sucking on a hard candy, and I’M turned on, but Juliette is sad, so I’ll be quiet.
• Jazeera tells Juliette that Warner isn’t a bad person. Unfortunately, I must disagree. She’s still hot so I’m still listening.
• Lena Mishken? Yeah, no, never heard of her, but once again thank the gods for Jazeera, who spills the tea. It is…entirely embarrassing that since-revoked #1 fictional boyfriend Aaron Warner would let this information have to come to his girlfriend through a near stranger’s gossip, but turns out Lena is Aaron’s EX-GIRLFRIEND. I wonder how he could forget to mention a thing like that. Maybe Good Guy Aaron Warner didn’t anticipate she would still be part of the global, troubled teen Brady Bunch they’ve all been part of since they were kids, who are all apparently coming to visit. I’m not sure why he didn’t anticipate this, and I’m also not sure why all these people are showing up for this “Continental Symposium.” Symposiums typically involve presentations of some sort, that is the extent of my knowledge. I am sure if that was the case here, Warner would conveniently forget to remind his girlfriend about it. I am truly convinced at this point he gets off on humiliating her, so he’ll really enjoy making her walk on stage unprepared for something like this. I personally preferred when he was firmly ddlg/cgl coded in books 1-3. Uhhh, I would have appreciated a tw for this kind of content rebranding, but no matter.
• Did I mention Lena and Aaron were together for TWO YEARS?
• Did I mention Lena and Aaron only broke up EIGHT MONTHS AGO?
• Did I mention the Reestablishment is planning to destroy Sector 45?
• Also Lena is Russian. That seemed arbitrary, unless we are just supposed to know she’s extra hot or something. I don’t think Juliette needed any more tearing down, actually, but duly noted!
• Lena shows up outside of Warner’s room. Let me include this tiny snippet from his POV:

“Open the door, asshole.”
“You never did hold back with the flattery.”

Okay, this second line is what I would consider ‘flirting’ and I don’t like that. Good thing I decided I cannot stand this man like, twenty chapters ago, so at least this isn’t anything unexpected by now. This character is utterly irredeemable to me, and I wish I could act like I didn’t cry about it, but I can’t. I am devastated by the character assassination that took place in this book.

• Next up, Lena is attacking him because he broke up with her through a letter to his mom. Nothing surprises me at this point. Also, there is this:

She’s still thrashing against me, landing several kicks at my shins when I finally manage to gentle her arms and pull her close.

Suddenly, she stills.
My lips are at her ear when I say her name once, very gently.

This is an...awfully intimate way to subdue your ex-girlfriend. This would end any relationship in its tracks, for me. Also Kenji is here watching this all happen. He will not say a word to Juliette about it, if my guess is correct.
Why…did the author do this? I am literally sick to my stomach. This is worse than never getting a fourth book. I am really so hurt.

• Juliette has gone 2009 Britney and shaved her head. I really cannot take anymore humiliation of this protagonist who spent two and a half books learning how to make eye contact with other human beings and is now being torn down and betrayed by every single person she has ever cared about.
• For some reason Kenji and Warner walk in at this point. She is obviously wrecked and in her underwear, with a half shaven head. It’s nice to confirm that Kenji has sided with Warner in the breakup. This is the most debasing experience for me. Like I was really here for the found family and learning how to trust in love tropes. I wish I had never opened this one, to be quite honest.
• Warner talks to Juliette like she is a small, crippled animal (she is, essentially, and I would call this at least 75% his fault, but moving on). She is pathetic and drunk and we’ve all been there and I do not want to listen to her idolize her piece of shit boyfriend she broke up with but will get back with in the morning. She begs him to stay and hold her and he obviously can’t do that and still play the victim so he goes to the living room. I am honestly sick to my stomach.
• Warner has some “woe-is-me” inner monologue that I skim because I hate him with a burning passion at this point.
• Juliette wakes up and is, predictably humiliated. Now she has to go in front of all these terrible rich snobby assholes after manic shaving her head bald the night before. The author attempts to turn it into a big empowering moment, but this simply is not realistic as the author has just spent the entirety of the book tearing down and crippling every shred of confidence this girl gained over the course of the first three books.
• Lena is transphobic. That is an odd detail. Moving on.
• Warner tells Juliette he likes her hair. She asks him why he didn’t mention Lena. He tells her it “wasn’t a real relationship.” He tells her it was “purely physical.” The only explanation at this point is that the author did not want to write another book, but then she continued o write books after this so…I have no idea why she destroyed this man’s character so meticulously. I am honestly at a loss for words.
• Juliette is reasonably upset about this, and Warner launches into explanations and excuses for why he doesn’t think before he speaks or consider her feelings the way he did when he was trying to steal her away from Adam. Like, at this point it is safe to say Adam Kent was telling the truth, despite the fact that he also sucks very hard.
• He’s like “blah blah before you I never wanted to get close to anyone.” Well you clearly had no problem getting CLOSE to her, but you also refuse to be emotionally vulnerable with Juliette, so all of this is useless rabble and he is just a narcissist trying to win back a girl who will probably forgive him at the end of the day, to her own undoing. He says some lies and then ends with, “Give me another chance. Please. I swear on my life I won’t disappoint you.” Yes, yes, this is what they always say. If you keep refusing he’ll promise to go to therapy, too, Juliette, this is a universal experience and not the one any of us wanted when we cracked open this book. He kisses her after that and it’s special because it’s in front of all these people he’s been humiliating her in front of for like however many days it’s been now.
• After their kiss, Juliette runs away for…I don’t know. Theater?
• Castle shows up and pretends to be a father figure to Aaron, for some reason. I don’t like him so I don’t care to elaborate.
• Juliette stands at a podium and gives a speech about what she wants to make better in the world and nobody wants that so a bunch of people in the crowd advance on her and she gets shot in the forehead but she’s invincible somehow. Once the first bullet doesn’t do anything they all start shooting. It’s okay because she screams and kills 554 people, which may or may not have been real, I’m not really following at this point. She runs through all her old friends, most of whom she’s just killed, and then a couple greet her and tell her they’re her parents and they’ve come to take her home.
• Warner’s POV is blank. He’s probably still alive. Who cares? He’s ruined either way.
• Juliette wakes up in a child’s bedroom. Spoiler alert: it’s hers. She starts snooping and finds a letter from Warner’s dad about how they’ve found a suitable family for her (she is obviously the “her”). She finds photos of her and her sister before school, then photos of her, her sister, and Nazeera. Oh yeah, then she finds a photo of her and Aaron together as kids. Her real name is Ella.

This is all good and fine, the plot twist was even cool. But there is literally no salvaging what was done to Aaron Warner’s character or his relationship with Juliette in this book. Like, what was the point? I literally have cried way too many times about this and I thought reading it a second time would convince me I am being dramatic or embellishing the level of betrayal I feel but no, like, I am certain this was devastating.

DISCLAIMER: I did not transcribe this myself, though I could. I had a machine do it, and then the machine threw up afterwards -- but I did go through and add some bullety points while Jamie shot off her mouth. It's a total word salad, but one has only to skim through and see the number of ways she yawns and yawps and contradicts herself ... and does not take a breath, so there is very little punctuation. Again it's a run-on slog and the AI program chose to only use periods to end 70-some sentences because of all the run-on "like ... you know ... and ... but" instances as she ran with it -- with NO BOUNDARIES WHATSOVER. I did take out the kids' names, and I did search-and-replace all instances of "to" with "tuh" because that IS how they talk!
ENJOY -- and I use that word lightly:
AND SO IT BEGINS WITH Doug wishing Happy Mother's Day … and immediately Jamie corrects him, "Well, not really Mother's Day …" since they are recording after Mother's Day. Got get those Doug corrections in toot sweet, lest he thinks he has a mind of his own.
They note they tend to be "a little late on things," but they are "trying to get better about that." Doug says they had a fantastic Mother's Day, and he asked her if she had a good time. She said she had a great time. Doug wrote Happy Mother's Day on some cards and the kids drew on them. He gave her an eyelash waxing and noted probably a bad idea. She said it wasn't that she wasn't thrilled as she did mention that pregnancy makes her eyebrows bushy, but she was scared, maybe just mentioned she'd need to tweeze, but oh, well, yes, she likes his gift.
Jamie noted that it was "just the four of us" and of course, the babies in her belly, and that was fine with her – until her son's birthday of course, when she noted that their entire families suck!
So onto her son's birthdays and THESE GEMS AND THOUGHTS: I think it's just pregnancy hormones, but honestly, like, I just, I just can't, like, I don't know why, like, I guess, like, you know, ever since I was little, I've always really, really wanted family, like, so badly, like, I wanted just, like, deep connections with people who truly love me, and I truly love them, and we just really, truly support each other, and just, I don't know, I think, like, just pregnancy hormones made me think about it, but, like, yesterday for Son's birthday, and just family members who just completely forgot, and they just don't care, and I'm like, is it me? Is it him?
Like, and I don't want my son tuh grow, like, he doesn't know, and he'll never know, because I'll make sure, I mean, I spent every second, that boy had no second tuh think yesterday, like, I picked him up from school, and I took him tuh the library, because that's where he wanted tuh go, and then we, like, you know, we really love surprises in this family, if that's not clear by now, and so Daughter and I surprised him with a splash pad, like, we went tuh the splash pad for the first time, and we never do things like that on a school night, and so, and then he got tuh go pick out a cake that he wanted, and then Doug had dinner already at home, and then also we had decorations in his bedroom, which I was, like, hoping tuh have for the morning, but then Doug was, like, at, like, midnight, when we're, like, thinking about starting tuh blow up the balloons, Doug is like, Jamie, let's just surprise him tomorrow after school.

(Notice she takes no breath … and also they were super-last minute when it came tuh getting ready for his birthday, versus, what we have all mentioned, that isn't so when it's a gender reveal or a party or pickleball or something FOR HER.)
HERE, DOUG ASKS … "WHY, ARE WE GONNA DO THIS NOW?" AND THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH THE LAST EFFORT HE MADE tuh STOP HER BECAUSE SHE WENT ON WITH: Yeah, because it was so late, but I was like, I just have, like, this vision that I just wanted for him, because, you know, I'm just trying tuh give them the childhood that, like, I would have wanted, that any little kid would want, and really all that involves is truly just two loving parents who are there, and, like, that's really all that really involves, but if I can go a little extra, you know, and surprise him, and I, then I want to, you know, and so, you know.
DOUG NOTES THAT HE DOESN'T THINK THEY KNOW ANY DIFFERENT, AND HE CONTINUES WITH: I don't think they really know any different, you know, and I know, I know it's, it's tough, and I think, especially with, like, little kids, you know, they, they won't necessarily feel the impact and that want, you know, and, and I know that you do, and it, it hurts me that, you know, you would, you would want people tuh care enough to, tuh reach out, and I think, you know, for, for me, I, that's, I don't really set my expectations or, or give those expectations tuh son and daughter.
JAMIE BLASTS BACK, SUPER-DEFENSIVELY: Oh, I do not either, though. I do not at all. I don't say a thing tuh them about anything, because, you know, sometimes people miss their – you know, and that happens sometimes, but when it's, like, over, and over, and over again, and, like, it's just so obvious, and, and people ask us why we moved tuh Florida, and don't we want tuh be near family, and, you know, tuh be very honest, this is why.
Like, we, you know, I, we would fly up there tuh try tuh prove, like, hey, listen, we're not just trying tuh leave, though. Like, we, we, I want that family connection so badly with your family, with my family, and it's just, you know, unfortunately, it's, people are in different stages of life. I try tuh make excuses, like, for them, and, you know, for us, and it's probably not personal, but the point of the matter is, is that whether it's not personal, and people are busy, and whatever the case may be, we don't have that family connection.
We just don't, and I'm, I try tuh nurture it, and, um, you know, and we do with some family members, and then just others, you know, you just, it's just. Well, you can't help but be disappointed. Yeah, and, like, I guess my heart hurts, because I want our son, and our daughter, and our children tuh have just so many people who love them, and want tuh be around them, and who will encourage them, and support them, and.
DOUG NOTES THAT HE THINKS FAMILY KNOW ALL OF THIS AND THAT THEY, THE KIDS KNOW HOW MUCH LOVE THEY HAVE FOR THEM, AND ALL THE EFFORTS THEY PUT FORTH, AND HERE HE SAYS, "Especially you," AND THAT ALL OF THIS IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.
JAMIE'S REBUTTAL: Yeah, I know, but Doug, what I'm trying tuh say is that, like, what I would want for them is them tuh have many people who love them, and, like, you know, like, I always wanted, you know, it's not even a secret, like, way back, I'm married at first, like, the one thing I wanted was tuh marry into a family, like, a big loving family that would welcome me as their own, and, and I'm really thankful for your family, and, yeah, but, like, I just feel like, like, I want that for our kids. Like, I wanted them tuh have people who loved them, who wanted tuh come around them.
Like, my, my siblings and I really didn't have many aunts or uncles or grandparents who, I mean, you know, it's kind of, it's so long, because, like, there are some people who were there, but it was, like, toxic, and aye, aye, aye, it's just, you know, it's just, at the end of the day, I'm pregnant, and it's just hormones, and I know our kids feel nothing but loved, but it's just really evident, like, on a birthday or holidays, like, people who, who actually, like, family who actually truly cares for us, and, like, all I've ever wanted was just our, like, I, I don't know why I care about these people caring about me, when, like, they don't care, and it's okay, and that's, that's, it's okay.
Like, it, I'm trying so hard tuh just be, like, accept it, girl. Like, you know, you can't force family tuh love you.
JAMIE TRIES TO DIFFUSE THE TIMEBOMB SITUATION THAT IS HIS WIFE, CLEARLY GOING OFF ON EVERYBODY BY SAYING HE KNOWS THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT THIS FOR THEM BUT THAT THEY, THE KIDS, DON'T EVEN NOW ABOUT ALL OF THIS RIGHT NOW.
JAMIE'S REBUTTAL: Well, I know they don't, and so, at the end of the day, I was, like, sitting in bed crying earlier, and I was, like, what is wrong with me, because I know my son had a great birthday yesterday. Like, I made sure of it.
DOUG NOTES SHE "KILLED IT, YESTERDAY."
JAMIE BLASTS ON: At the end of the day, I think, like, it's a personal thing, because it's, like, they don't care about me, and therefore, they don't care about my son, and that hurts, you know? Like, it's just hurtful, and not, because I care about them, and I love them, and I've tried so hard tuh be part of them, and, and try to, like, I've tried changing my ways. I've tried tuh adapt tuh be more like them.
I've tried all these different things. At the end of the day, nothing I do, like, I may as well just be myself, and, and, because if I have tried tuh be like them, they don't like me. If I try tuh be myself, they don't like me.
Like, no matter what, like, I don't feel like, I feel like they're, I'm just kind of judged by them in the way that I live my life, and anyways, it's fine, but.
DOUG COUNTERS IT WITH THE FACT THAT JAMIE GOES "ABOVE AND BEYOND FOR EVERYBODY," AND THAT IT'S TOUGH THAT SHE "WANTS OR EXPECTS THAT IN RETURN," BUT NOTES THAT THIS IS ALSO MAYBE WHERE THE "BOUNDARIES" LIE … cool, they now have a title for the podcast!
JAMIE CONTINUES tuh BLAST: Well, no, of course, and this is exactly why I'm also crying happy tears, because for so long, I just really tried tuh nurture, like, a true, like, true family, and deep connection, and like, try tuh be, like, really close, and, and it's like, well, if you're the only person nurturing that, you're bound tuh get hurt. It's bound, it's not going tuh happen ever, because it has tuh be a two-way street, and so, unfortunately, like, I started putting up boundaries, and I knew it was going tuh hurt, and like, here it is. It's, it's hurting, you know, like, and then inevitably, they'll be like, you know, you moved tuh Florida, but even when we didn't live in Florida, let's be honest, like, we didn't see family very often, unless, like, it was, it just, unless it was us going places, and then even when we moved here, I would fly up there.
I flew up, we were flying up there, like, once a month. It was so expensive. It was so taxing, but I just wanted to, tuh kind of prove, hey, listen, like, but, you know, I'm so glad we moved here, because at the end of the day, you know, even if we never even find our own people, like, our focus is on our core family, like, we had zero distractions for Son yesterday, like, his birthday was the hundred, like, and it's just, that feels good, because normally, we wouldn't have that. Yeah, normally, I would be cleaning the house, trying tuh prep for people tuh come over, who I would have called 10 times, make sure they remember that he's coming, and it's like, or that his birthday is coming, and it's like, it's just, you know, this is such a vulnerable, I don't even know if I want tuh share any of this, because it's just so personal, but.
DOUG NOTES THAT ALL REFLECTS MORE ABOUT OTHERS AND NOT AN ATTACK ON JAMIE.
AND YET JAMIE CONTINUES TO DEFLECT AND ATTACK: No, I don't think it is either, but it's just very evident where people, like, if people care about us and our family, I don't think they actually, that's the thing, is they don't, like, and so, they're not thinking about it one way or the other, it doesn't even matter tuh them, and that's what hurts, because I wish that they cared about us the way that we cared about them, but they don't, and so, that's why I'm trying tuh have the boundaries tuh be like, find people who will care about you then, or just focus on your own family, and if people wonder why I want so many kids, well, there you go. People constantly say, why don't you love the two you have?
Oh, of course I do, and I'll tell you what, I want tuh have 10 more, because I want tuh raise them in a way where we love each other, we're always there for each other, we don't forget. It's just silly little milestones, it's not about presents, it's not about anything other than just love, and remembrance, and just, like, celebrating each other, and I am going tuh raise my kids tuh just really love each other, and tuh know that their parents love them, but God forbid, one of us are taken, and then, then it's like, I think about things like that, and I'm like, who do they have if they don't have us? Like, seriously, and that scares the crap out of me, because there are very few people who even remember, like, and tuh me, it's just a birthday, I know, it doesn't really matter, but like, that's of significance tuh that child, and people just don't care, like, they just, our fam, so many of our family members just don't care. Well, we make, we make it, and then I'm like, am I making a mountain out of a molehill, but like, and am I?
DOUG ALSO THINKS ABOUT THEM "DEPARTING EARLY" AND WHAT HAPPENS tuh THEM.
JAMIE BUSTS BACK IN, AND STARTS tuh TALK ABOUT "ESTATE PLANNING," WHICH SORT OF MADE ME SIDEYE BECAUSE SHE GOES ON tuh TALK ABOUT THE KIDS AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEM, AS IF THEY WERE PART OF THE "ESTATE," BUT I GUESS SINCE THEY ARE THE MONEYMAKERS SHE THINKS OF IT MORE IN THAT WAY THAN GUARDIANSHIP PAPERWORK … AND SO SHE CONTINUES: Well, when you think about estate planning, and then who you're leaving your kids to, and I'm like, who can I leave my kids to, who are really going tuh love them, and the people right now didn't even call tuh wish him happy birthday, they didn't even call tuh wish him a happy birthday, they didn't send a gift, and it's not even about the gift, but it's about the thought, who do we have in our life, Doug? I don't think it's, you know, I ask if I think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but then I, like, I almost, like, talk, like, convince myself that, no, I'm not, like, I'm really trying tuh make sure that our kids are taken, like, loved and taken care of, and sure, we've got it out, down pat, but what happens, like, then what?
And like, I'm not gonna go down that rabbit hole, and I'm sure this is all pregnancy hormones, and I'm just exhausted and tired, so, but I just think about these things, and then, and then people wonder why I am so thankful for our followers, for those of you listening tuh the podcast, and those of you who follow us on Instagram and YouTube, and who are just excited for us, because a lot of our own family members aren't, like, it's just wild, and so, yeah, and so thank you for those of you listening, and for those of you who comment, and just, you know, just are excited to, like, like, tuh be part of our family, like, because we have forever been looking for that, and, like, our family's just not that interested, and we could try, and try, and try.
DOUG: Out of sight, out of mind.
JAMIE BINGOS!!!!! THAT THOUGHT AND CONTINUES: Yeah, it's, and it's fine, but I'll tell you what, I genuinely do appreciate every single five-star review, every single, like, nudge that you just, every single moment that you take out of your life just tuh be like, hey, what's up with Jamie, you know, and that's why I try tuh do giveaways, and I try to, you know, like, read your five-star reviews, and I try tuh show you that I genuinely care about you, too, because I really think that it is a two-way street with everything in life, like, so whether it's, you know, family, it's friends, it's working, it's, we're colleagues, like, if someone is showing you a lot of, you know, any support, or encouragement, or care, like, then that's the person that you should then go show love, support, and encouragement, and care to, whether they're family or not, and unfortunately, if family doesn't seem tuh show you that, well, then you do have tuh set up boundaries, and it hurts, like, h-e-l-l, because then you'll start to, when you stop reaching out as much, well, then you'll start seeing that your relationship becomes even more distant, but you can't constantly break your back tuh try tuh make relationships.
DOUG NOTES THAT THEY EITHER STEP UP OR DON'T, AND THAT’S WHERE IT LANDS.
JAMIE CONTINUES: Yeah, but from what, from my experience, from what we've experienced, you know, no one really steps up, and it's pretty evident when you start, when you realize you have tuh make a boundary with a person, like, just know in your heart that it's gonna hurt, like, you know, and I'm sure that we're, I'm not the only person going through this, and that's, I think, why it's important tuh share, is that, you know, because it's hard tuh share these things.
It's embarrassing. It's, I feel, it's almost, like, belittling. It's like, like, you know, it's like you're, you're sharing that you're rejected, essentially.
Who wants tuh share that? Like, who wants tuh admit that? But the truth is, is that we all have been there, and so I think that the biggest way tuh heal, and what I've learned is, of course, tuh find, to, like, lean in on the people who don't, like, desert you, betray you, talk behind your back.
I mean, that's the thing, is people who also, who are there, but they're really, like, kind of a snake in disguise, and, like, it's, like, like, they, it seems like they're there for you, but then behind, but you're walking on eggshells around them, because you know that they're saying things behind your back, and that's not, that's not healthy either, and so what I've really tried tuh do is really just focus on people that have really just been loving and nurturing, and the more people are loving and nurturing tuh me, whether they're family or not, the more I will lead, like, reach into them, and...
DOUG BUSTS IN TO TAKE A "QUICK PAUSE" FOR AN AD, IRONICALLY ABOUT INVESTING AND GOOD FINANCIAL HYGEINE.
JAMIE GETS RIGHT BACK TO IT: Of course, holidays and birthdays are tough because like you want like my mom like I mean forget it but like I love her and she's doing the best she can but like you know it's like I don't know I guess it's because I'm pregnant and then like when you become a mom and you just think about this relationship and it's like I just have always wanted that relationship with my mom and of course I know real like logically it's not gonna happen but anyways it's um it's just hard but anyways what I was trying tuh say tuh you though listening is like if you're going through this type of situation like just know that you're doing the right thing by kind of putting the boundaries up and then kind of you know you got tuh focus on gratitude more than anything else and so I consistently try tuh remind myself tuh be thankful that I am alive I'm able tuh be there for my kids my son has no idea who remembered and who forgot his birthday but of course he knows who he talked tuh but like you know I, I know that he had the most spectacular day yesterday and I made darn well sure of it and it literally cost me like zero dollars tuh it's not like it has tuh be expensive it wasn't extravagant we went tuh the library which is free and then we went tuh a free splash pad that's in our city and slash playground yeah, yeah and he had a great time so it's like people it's because the other thing people say well if you can afford tuh give them that it's like it doesn't you can find ways tuh live tuh like really bless your family and your kids without having tuh spend boatloads of money um but the biggest message and takeaway of this all and I guess of like I we never planned on sharing any of this we were planning on sharing about mother's day and
DOUG DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT tuh SAY, BUT SHE NEEDS tuh KNOW HOW PROUD HE IS OF HER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH …
SHE THANKS HIM QUICKLY AND THEN GETS ON WITH HIS always getting by my side and like when I'm thankful for you when I started you know going tuh therapy and, and I mean forever ago I'm telling you forever ago when we were first married and I first started going tuh a therapist outside of married at first sight she told me she looked me in the eyes and she said Jamie like they might be family but they're not your people and you gotta go find your people and I didn't want tuh believe her I didn't want I literally just said you know thanks but no thanks essentially and I'm gonna try my best tuh turn this family into mine because I want this connection and I want this and I wish I could have saved myself all those years by just listening tuh her and you know finding my own people who, who do love and support me for who I am who I don't have tuh like I can just don't have tuh walk on eggshells I don't have tuh try tuh be anybody else I can just be myself and they'll see like the good in that and they'll like it you know and, and not everyone's for everyone and that's okay and I just try tuh remind myself that but anyways um yeah you've always stood by my side so thank you I see you I'll always be by your side I just like sometimes doubt like if like you know like, like, like what have I done like am I a bad person like did I like what have I done this has nothing
DOUG NOTES THAT THEY'D FIND PEOPLE "DOWN HERE" IN FLORIDA, AND THAT THEY BOTH KNEW IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, THAT REALLY MEANINGFUL BONDS TAKE TIME, BUT THEY ARE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO BUILD A COMMUNITY AND MAKE STRONG FRIENDS THEY CONSIDER TO BE FAMILY, AMAZING PEOPLE, AND THERE ARE KIDS TOO, AND THEY CAN WATCH EVERYONE GROW UP TOGETHER … AND HE THINKS, "That's kind of the point of, of moving tuh Florida find community find our people and also find out you know who would be there with us and for us and …"
JAMIE BLASTS BACK: It has nothing tuh do with you or who you are well the truth is, is obviously it does because these people don't enjoy being around me so then therefore they don't enjoy remembering our kids and or me whatever I guess I think I'm just really hormonal and emotional but I guess I just feel incredibly rejected and like I've done something wrong but I also know at the same exact breath that this has been happening for years and years and years where I've really
DOUG NOTES JAMIE HAS "TRIED SO HARD" AND THAT IT'S NOTHING THAT SHE DID.
JAMIE BLATHERS BACK THAT IT'S NOT REALLY THAT THEY'VE DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BUT … we just don't jive and I guess you know we have different we're different people and we can't force it yeah and so there's very little control that we have over it other than us being us yeah and so but you know but I guess this is like the healing part that everyone talks about with boundaries that's so painful like it's so painful because when you want something so bad and like I think it's like wired in me because it's family and like I really want tuh support family and love family and be there for them and but then it's like but it's just not there in return and you could just spend your whole life searching for it and or you could kind of put up a boundary and, and stop allowing that tuh continue tuh hurt you and find people who are genuinely happy tuh be around you and so needless tuh say for those of you listening if - if you're in this boat with someone whether it's parents siblings aunts uncles cousins I don't know or even long-time friends who you think are quote-unquote friends but you know things change or who knows I mean it's so darn hurtful but I really believe at the end of the day that I mean I was I spent years and years and years trying my darnedest and now I'm like if I, If I could give like an inkling of that effort tuh someone who gives an inkling of the effort back tuh me like the just the joy and happiness that could come from that or just like the stability and also like I did try changing myself tuh kind of be more like them tuh have more in common with them and it just I can tell you right now if you're trying tuh do that that's not gonna work either like it's hard unfortunately you just gotta be yourself in this world you gotta love with your whole heart and, and be selfless you know you can't expect people tuh just care about you if you don't care about them of course you gotta show up for people you gotta really like put yourself out there for them but if you consistently do that and you're not getting any of it in return you gotta change your path and it's the hardest thing in the world tuh do but you know tuh be very, very honest like going tuh bed with Doug last night after Son's birthday and like just everything that went down and whatnot I was just like and this is why we live in Florida this is why we moved here because this this served our core family more so than trying tuh fit a round peg into a square everyone else's schedule and everybody else's lives it's just you know and it's and I'm incredibly thankful tuh your sister and tuh your mom and your dad of course because they did reach out and that's just really, really kind like they called and they just show that they really care and that really means the whole wide world tuh me and like regardless of what they think of me like they love our kids and that's really all that
DOUG NOTES WHAT MATTERS IS-AND MAYBE THEY NEED TO BELIEVE IN SOME KIND OF "HIGHER PURPOSE," BUT HE DOESN'T CONSIDER IT ALL "WASTED TIME OR ENERGY," AND THAT IT MAYBE HAPPENED THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AND FOR JAMIE TO GIVE …
AND SHE CUTS HIM OFF TO SAY THAT THIS MESSAGE CAN help others. I've really kind of like avoided being this vulnerable lately because I feel like there are some people who just really don't like me and it's been brought tuh my attention and just no matter what I do they really don't like me and I guess like everybody has quote-unquote haters but it hurts my heart a little bit and I don't know but, but the truth is, is like just like I said before what I learned in this the certain boundaries that I've talked about before is that you really can't change who you are in the hopes that people will start tuh approve of you because they're never like the people who just choose that they don't like you and they just choose tuh find your faults will always like they will always see your faults and they will always yeah there's no convincing them otherwise and that's and if you're listening tuh this like this is the truth for all of us is that when you're looking for the good in life you're gonna find the good and you can focus on that and try tuh get like more of that and garner more of that but if you're focused on the negative whether it's in life or with your spouse or with a friend or at the workplace you're gonna find that and so if so sometimes if you've you know if you see that you're consistently feeling like you have quote-unquote bad luck or that this person's being wrong tuh you or they're not caring about you will try tuh think about the good that they do and, and, and so truly like for me with these whole boundary things like I've tried just I tried tuh kind of I've already tried that with some of these family members that just don't seem tuh care and um and, and so that's and then that's when the hurt comes is you know when you realize oh yeah you're actually all right and you are onto something and for whatever reason their life isn't aligning with yours and it's and that's okay but it doesn't mean it's not gonna hurt a little bit for the person who like wants it tuh be there but that's when you go out and find someone who wants tuh align their life with you or maybe their life already aligns and they just and you can serve each other you can love each other you can be there for each other and whether it's blood related or not like that will serve you better in life and so that's kind of where I think Doug and I are right now um but also for, for you listening if, if you're just finding yourself in this situation too just try tuh make sure you're not just trying tuh find the fault in someone because you don't want tuh get caught in that rabbit hole and there are people out there who just want tuh find the negative and then there are people out there who cut that down like don't allow that tuh happen tuh yourself because you will be miserable your whole life hating on someone else and just constantly finding their faults and constantly complaining about them is never going tuh bring you true happiness it really isn't and so think about you know yourself and like what you can do differently and try tuh bring the positive and so yeah I haven't been as vulnerable lately because it's been hard tuh be very honest tuh just share like my heart and then people are just going tuh attack me for it you know I'm sure but um but my goal in sharing this if we end up sharing this is that it helps the one person out there or I'm sure several really who are in the same exact boat who are you know trying tuh keep a friend that they've had forever but that friend's just not there or trying tuh maintain a relationship with one of your parents or your siblings or it shouldn't be hard it shouldn't be and you shouldn't have tuh change who you are and if you do then that's really just not the right person for you and, and you can talk tuh them about it of course and then if they're just combative, at the end of the day, I just say the best advice is find a therapist, and this book called Boundaries, and it's a little religious, and also a little kind of like, whoa, but I'm telling you, Chapter One, just give it – if you don’t' like it after that, don't even try, but like Chapter One, I was like, wow, I can see so much of myself in this, and I can see how could change, and I've got tuh promise you that it's been hurt along the way, but I have – we have, and our family has more positive days now than stressful, trying tuh like pull people in who don't really want tuh be there, trying tuh help them remember because they're gonna forget, like it's just – like yesterday was like the least stressful day ever, and we didn't have one person coming tuh our – or even Mother's Day, it was just us four, and you know, before I had kids, and I think – I saw someone else write this, but like before I had kids, I looked at the world as like everyone I encountered, and how can I be helpful tuh them, and that – like, but now it's like my world is my husband and my children. My world is within my four walls, and how do I love them and support them the best that I possible can, tuh help them become good – eventually like good husbands, a good wife, good mothers, good fathers, and good, good family members, and so …
DOUG IS SO PROUD OF HER AND THINKS SHE SHOULD ALSO BE PROUD OF HERSELF BECAUSE OF "HOW MUCH YOU HAVE GROWN FROM PEOPLE STARTING TO COMMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND YOU TRYING TO BRING THEM BACK OVER TO YOUR SIDE TO RECOGNIZING THE TOXICITY OF IT, AND SETTING BOUNDARIES." HE HAS TO TELL HER THAT IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, SHE HAS "SPREAD MORE POSITIVITY, IN MY MIND, THAN ANYBODY, FOCUSING ON BEING THANKFUL AND GRATEFUL," AND A MESSAGE SHE IS PASSING ONTO THE KIDS WHO ARE REALLY STARTING tuh THINK ABOUT IT AND FOCUS ON IT, AND IT'S "DRIVEN BY YOU."
MORE RASPY WHINY TEARY VOICE: Oh, Gosh, Doug's that's the nicest comment that I could have ever received because I really want that for them … yeah, because I – because we could all fall into that where you see the negative and you just kind of focus on that, and I'm trying so hard not to, and tuh just – you know, pray more, and even meditate, and that has nothing tuh do with prayer, but like just rewire my brain tuh like the positive things and finding the positive and helping others, also because – honestly, and I want tuh raise my kid where they are not seeing the negative, they're seeing the positive in situations because life, regardless of who loves you, how much money you have, what home you live in, what car you drive, life is so much better when you're able tuh see the positive and you're able to, like lean into that more, and you're able tuh then attract people who are like that, and the Negative Nellies are just going tuh always be there talking their smack about you, and that's fine, but like, if you can find the positive, you can focus on that, and you're going tuh have such a happier life, and the Negative Nellies, unfortunately, like I still pray for them, I still hope for them, because it's sad – like they're not living a happy life. You can't be a hater tuh all these people and be happy. It's sad.
DOUG THINKS THEY ARE "living proof of it, because once we started tuh focus on happy, once we started focusing on being thankful and grateful, the people that we attracted are the people that we would want tuh be with … didn't happen overnight, but as soon as we started tuh rethink that, and really try tuh be positive and do positive things, and our prayers and with the kids and being thankful and finding good, and gratitude, you know, we attracted people into our lives that, you know, are going tuh be there – I mean, I feel these are now lifelong friends, and you know, all of that was attracted, and there has got tuh be something tuh that."
THE END, THEY MUST GO PICK UP THEIR DAUGHTER BUT ONLY AFTER THE FIVE-STAR REVIEW AND THEN "SEE YOU NEXT WEEK!"
DELUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSIONAL – THE BOTH OF THEM! And according to the AI program Jamie talks more than 90 percent of the time, and Dud, hardly ever.

Hi Reddit,
I'm a 35-year-old female, and I’ve had a close and supportive friendship with my best friend, "L" (female, 33), for nine years. Recently, our friendship has become strained due to her boyfriend, now fiancé, who disapproves of me.
I've been married for 11 years, which is not conventional. My husband and I are very supportive of each other and have different interests, so we don’t hang out often except for certain activities. His job also makes our days off different. We’ve had some rough times, but we’re working through them, and no matter what we are always looking out for each other and never stop each other from doing what we love.
Because of my chill, open lifestyle, and bubbly personality, L's fiancé views me as a negative influence on her. even thou i know her way before he did.
Her boyfriend has made derogatory comments about me, which she only mentioned after I pushed her to tell me what was wrong. L and I usually spend much time together because we work together and sometimes go to the gym or grab food after work. On weekends, we do other activities like beach or horse riding, and I had no issue with him joining us. However, after a few times when he joined us at the beach, where I met friends for football and paddle boarding, he started criticizing me and my driving skills and the routes I take. Soon after, he stopped coming with us, and L started acting weird. Eventually, I discovered he had called me a “hoe in an open relationship.” and claimed I did not respect my husband or myself because I was too friendly and attract men, which he thought would ruin his relationship with L.
This situation led to a heated discussion and a temporary break in our friendship. I needed to reconnect with myself, especially because she was always fighting with him whenever she was with me, making me feel like a burden. After a months, I felt okay and resumed communication with her, explaining why I needed a break. However, we significantly reduced our activities together (her choice i guess).
L tried to mend the situation by encouraging my husband and me to socialize with them, hoping to show our positive qualities as a couple. My husband refused after learning about her fiancé’s disrespectful behavior. Honestly, I wasn’t ready to socialize with a hater, either. Her fiancé’s controlling behavior goes beyond his opinions of me. He discourages L’s interests, like singing, and displays other red flags that she seems to overlook (which me & others has motioned) to which she fired back that we are not supportive.
Despite L’s efforts to defend our friendship against her fiancé’s attempts to drive a wedge between us, he wanted her to choose between him and me. She claimed she tried to keep everything that mattered, but I was wrong. After our break, we were good for the next six months, even though we didn’t hang out as much (4 times). Whenever we did, she would fight with him and leave early or without saying goodbye, just leaving a message.
My birthday was approaching, and every year as a tradition, L and I have dinner together to celebrate before having a party with other friends. Two weeks before my birthday, I asked her to attend dinner on Friday or Saturday which my husband was to plan for us, she agreed. Two days later, she asked to confirm if it was happening and where. I said I would let her know once my husband confirmed the plans (this is very normal as i inform her always 1 day before). She kept asking the same question daily, which was unusual for her. Finally, she admitted that her fiancé wanted to leave the city for a few days and needed to know if our plans were confirmed. I canceled so she could go with him, but they didn’t go at the end. and that didn't feel great for me.
A week before my birthday, I asked her and other friends to keep their Sundays open for a pool brunch my husband was planning for us. Everyone, including L, confirmed, and she even added, "Count me in +1," assuming I’d be okay with her bringing her fiancé. I was mad but decided to let it go for her. A few days before the event, she messaged me saying she might be unable to come because she had a minor surgery and couldn’t swim. I was shocked she hadn’t mentioned the surgery before and asked why she didn’t tell me. She replied that she didn’t have to tell me everything and that I didn’t need to come. I was mad and asked if it was because of him. She yelled, accusing me of not understanding how much I hurt her by taking a break and moving on, while she didn’t.
She blamed me and our friends for not being supportive, even though we had helped her in the past. For example, she lived with my husband and me for almost a year rent-free when she was jobless only for 2 months. Her fiancé had issues with most of our group despite our welcoming attitude. She kept making excuses and gaslighting us for not being there for her since she got serious with this guy. I listened and asked how I could make things right. She dared to say "I needed to apologize for taking a break to care for myself and moving on while she didn’t". I calmly refused to apologize for taking care of my mental health, knowing how much I had worked on myself. If she wasn’t okay with that, it was her issue.
She tried to be nice the next day, realizing she messed up, but I was a bit cold with her as I didn’t expect her to say those things, especially knowing how much I cared for her and what I had done for her. The day before my birthday, our friend supposed to pick her up before picking me up. When I came down, she wasn’t there. I asked my friend if she was coming, and he said no. I messaged her, asking if she was coming or not. She said yes, but later, as her fiancé wasn’t ready. We went ahead, and three hours later (the brunch is for 4 hours), they finally showed up. Her fiancé didn’t say a proper hello and started complaining about wanting to sit at a table instead of the poolside beds we had booked. Despite arriving three hours late, she had the nerve to ask me to move to accommodate him. I refused and suggested they sit at the table if they preferred.
I saw them arguing a few times, and she kept coming back and forth between the beds and the table. When dessert was served, I decided to join them at the table to be the bigger person. Her fiancé picked up his phone and didn’t speak to anyone. When he decided to leave, he gestured for her to follow him and walked away without saying goodbye.
That was the last straw for me. She seemed okay with his behavior as if it is normal, and there was no way we could convince her that he was mistreating her. I messaged her, saying I didn’t blame him but blamed her for ruining my day and trying to force us to adjust our boundaries for him. She didn’t acknowledge my message. And the next day, she sent me a message to remove my brother’s car from her parking (the car had been parked there for two years without issue). I removed the car and stopped all communication with her and blocked her everywhere. we work with each other, so we are keeping professional.
FYI: This guy has told her in a message that I saw accidentally. Quote his exact message: "you don’t deserve to be a mother if you associates with this people (AKA - any of us), as we have no values and brings only shame and “cockroaches” to her perfect relationship.
I am disappointed and feel sorry for wasting so much time and effort on someone I never knew, apparently.
I want to make sure that i will not look back. hence am asking advice if you think i wronged her in any way?

I don't even know where to start with this. But please mind I am aware I did/was doing something risky and I am aware I fuqked up. So please, no haters. As time goes on this potential scam gets more complicated and I am so confused.
Anyways, I went into a FB group for Morgan Wallen tickets. I have been dying to go, and I figured I will take a look. I found this guy, who claimed he is a "ticket reseller agent" and that he has 4 tickets for every MW concert. I messaged him, he provided me with the ticket rate and info, and I asked him for proof.
His proof of tickets to me looked EXTREMELY legit. I messaged the moderator of the FB group and he said they were safe. I zelled him, and my payment was under review, and it eventually failed today.
I decided to proceed with Apple Pay since I was flagged on zelle since it was a new account on my end. I knew it was risky, I sent the money from APPLE CASH and it went through. THE STATUS stated that my transaction was complete. This is important to remember.
Time went on, and he was "figuring things out" on his end and that it was processing. A couple hours later the payment was canceled. I received no email regarding this, and I called Apple and they told me that this transaction went through and the recipient has it. They also told me that IF it was processing on his end, it would state that it is processing on my end. It was never processed on my end.
So, I told my concert ticket seller that on my end you have received my money and there is nothing I can do. I contacted the moderator about this and he said he will look into it and he said that "this is bad". I asked if there was anything I could do and he said he could have him arrested (??).
Then suddenly, the ticket sellescammer transferred the tickets to me. He did this out of "good faith" he said. But the email says I do not have access to add the tickets onto my ticketmaster. It says quote "Your ticket isn’t available to be accepted into your Ticketmaster account. Ticket to your event are on hold and not yet released. Because of this policy you won't be able to access your ticket directly into your Ticketmaster account. You should be able to accept your ticket transfer via button above as soon as they are released"
It gets worse. I received a text from "apple" that i will get refunded for my apple pay. I called apple again, and they told me there is no dispute under my transaction and they would never text me information like this.
I apologize for the wrong post. But this is so complicated.

Hey Everyone,
Just wanted to share my experience with others & hopefully share some stories, hopefully.
A while ago I decided to start investigating new career paths, as I am sick of financial services. Id been doing it for nearly a decade and it makes me feel like a bloodsucker. No matter how I try to be a good representative of the industries by helping anyone in any way I can, insurers are the worst.
So, I've taken a sabbatical and look at some career jobs which would let me give back and help the community
I saw an ad and booked a ticket to attend for a general info night to discuss careers with Vic Police. Shortly after, I was told my ticket had been cancelled due to and I quote the following:
"Upon receiving your booking, we have undertaken a review of your applicant profile/background. Whilst we appreciate you are interested in joining Victoria Police, due to the outcome of your security check you will not be permitted to attend the event.
Based on the above circumstances, we have cancelled your ticket to attend the Information Session."
To elaborate I got in trouble when I was a teen, (17 & 18) and one DUI driving offence, well over a decade ago. (I'm now 37 years old.) I got no convictions for the 17 and 18 year old offences.
Has anyone else experienced this? Seems pretty rough of them to make a decision like this, when I've been trying to be the best person I can be and I'm a completely different person now. Turned my life around and created a new life for myself on the straight and narrow.
Just curious to see if anyone experienced the same thing? Luckily I don't particularly want to be a policeman, it was more due to the fact it matched my career test.
FYI: For any haters, I did my community service, took full responsibility for my actions and have been doing everything I can to be better than the day I was before.

For the sake of transparency, I am not the architect of the following discoveries, and am just helping to forward their message and clean it up. Copywrite of the following work belongs to no one and everyone is not only welcome to share these findings as if they were their own, but openly encouraged to do so.
Introduction
If you think you know anything about MAGA. Trust me, you know nothing. Not even his most devout followers or haters will have considered the following. And for the sake of our democracy and way of life, I hope people read this.
This work may very well help to shift the narrative on Trump in a meaningful and foundational way, but I don't want this work exacerbate any feelings of ill will to MAGA members, for they have been prey to possibly one of the largest con jobs our world has ever seen, especially without the help of this counternarrative.
Snippet From My Thesis On MAGA
As I work on tidying up the master file with the helpful dms I got, allow me to post just the most contentious part of it below, now that it’s able to stand on its own.
MAGA didn’t begin in 2015. I argue it began in 2001 on 9/11, while also harnessing and funneling decades of anti-government resentment till many Americans would openly call for a “wrecking ball” figure to help “drain the swamp.”

A Key Fueling Factor To American Outrage- Inflation
Many elements contributed to growing American anger that would later contribute to MAGA, this is a snippet from the larger work.
Rising Cost of Living
o In 1950, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 24.1. By 2000, it had risen to 168 (a 597% increase), and by 2023, it had reached 304.7, a 1163% increase from 1950.
o Housing prices saw a drastic rise overtime, with the median home price increasing from $7,354 in 1950 to $388,700 in 2023, a staggering 5185% increase.
o While rising rent costs can contribute to overall inflation and cost of living, even the left has largely failed to address how exponentially increasing real estate prices impact the cost of living. This omission has made many other conspiracy theories seem more plausible in its wake.
o If we don’t find real solutions for real estate that also aren’t extreme, then society will feel more and more pressure to accept “unreasonable solutions” like Trump, even though he’s the last person on earth who could solve it, considering his business acumen and history.
MAGA Dynamics and Blind Devotion
In 2016, it wasn't just the left calling the MAGA movement a cult. Trump famously said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." Even the left failed to grasp the gravity of this statement. As someone who nearly died in a deadly cult and based on my research, I don't know of a single cult where the founder could openly commit murder without losing members. Trump didn't just believe he'd created one of the largest cults ever; he believed he'd created the most fanatical. Let's hope his followers prove him wrong by showing a willingness to criticize him, regardless of their vote.

The MAGA Question
Instead of challenging MAGA supporters on fallacious beliefs, ask them this question to see if they’re at least able to see a world where Trump isn’t a biblical King: "If Trump admitted he was behind 9/11 and used resulting insurance money and donations from hostile governments to create false “grass root” campaigns. And did it all in a way to make it seem like others committed his own atrocities. And that he intended to destroy America in every way if he got elected, would you still vote for him?"

Yet even then, getting through to a MAGA supporter inevitably refers to 9/11 “research” out there when they realize individual positions are usually fallacious. This quagmire me decide to investigate this tragedy, to see if there was a more plausible counter theory. Honestly, the more I looked the more surprised I became. Here are my findings that are but a snippet of my full thesis on MAGA.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories and MAGA
Conspiracy Theories and Credibility:
o First off, conspiracy theories should involve some effort to verify narratives, rather than just repeating claims across multiple sources that mistake themselves as evidence; like a bunch of people who repeat “bob farted” across multiple websites may see that as evidence, when in fact, it was Sean. Sorry Sean.

Early Origins of MAGA:
o Although some believe MAGA began in 2015, its roots lie as early as the 1980s with Rush Limbaugh and later became "serious" on 9/11.
o 9/11 conspiracy theories claim controlled demolitions were used, but the lack of any cellphone recordings of explosions weakens this theory.

Suspicious Factors:
o The official narrative involving chaotic jet fuel leading to a straight fall seemed questionable.
o The collapse of a third building (WTC 7), which wasn’t directly hit, fueled suspicions.
o Airline stocks were heavily shorted before the attacks, raising concerns about insider trading. Harvey Pitt, Republican SEC Chairman at the time, investigated this and claimed there was nothing amiss, but was criticized for later crimes and forced to resign.
o It’s also suspicious that in Trumps 2000 book “The America We Deserve” that he stated, “I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the [1993] bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers. No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen*.”*
§ Yet democrats would largely miss this point entirely and obsess over his false claim that he called for Bin Laden to be killed, when he had not. Somehow conspiracy theorists would find this ‘cool’ rather than suspicious.
CNN Fact Check Donald Trump Osama Bin Laden Book Claim

Reports and Simplified Narratives:
o FEMA's 2002 report and NIST's 2005 report provided technical explanations of the tower collapses.
o However, the Port Authority Chairman stuck to the oversimplified narrative that "jet fuel melted steel beams," even though he knew this was a half-truth, as detailed in the next section, fueling anti-government conspiracies. The question is why.

Potential Impact:
o 9/11 conspiracy theories sowed distrust in the government, which may have been one of the attackers' objectives. Anyone that heavily profited from this tragedy, and helped further those objects, should be questioned.
o The ‘Loose Change’ “documentary” pointed out suspicious parts of the story, but failed to give any clear claims as to who was purportedly behind it. It also failed to note the Twin Towers titanic design flaw that could result in a straight fall. Even the 2015 version of this film fails to mention nearly all of the known facts in this report.
o The Director of that film later states:
“I DON’T THINK WE’D HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP IF IT WEREN’T FOR 9/11”
“9/11 created a culture of fear, of xenophobia, this sense of entitlement and everything we’ve seen. Warrantless wire-tapping, Guantanamo Bay, everything that’s happened led us to this point, we wouldn’t be here without 9/11. They want to kick out all the Mexicans and Muslims because of this culture of fear and bigotry and xenophobia that directly led to the election of fucking Donald Trump. [laughing] That’s our world now! We had Reagan before, and Governor Schwarzenegger. But President Donald Trump? It’s just weird. Everything is just weird.”
Theoutline Reflecting On Loose Change
o While the director was in the right to ask questions, he failed to ask the most obvious ones.
o However, his lead “researcher,” Jason Bermas, would turn out to be a full blown MAGA wingnut.
Patriot Jason Bermas
o Anyone that would benefit politically and financially from 9/11 should be fully investigated.
Further Reading:
Harvey Pitt - Wikipedia
Politifact How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation
It will never be possible to defeat MAGA followers “logically” with people who believed his parties rhetoric “that 9/11 was an inside job.”

I say… what if those Republican leaders were self reporting?
What if Trump followers have been rallying behind the very man responsible for its orchestration?

The Twin Towers and Larry Silverstein
Architectural Pitfalls of the Twin Towers:
· The Twin Towers had unique architectural flaws due to the excessive heavy load on their exoskeletons to allow for more floor and leasing space, which greatly contributed to their straight collapse after the 9/11 attacks. This was the first and last skyscraper made in this way.
· For anyone who said that “any other building would have fallen sideways,” you were right, though perhaps not entirely how you may have imagined. A "Coke Can" analogy shows how a similar weakened structure can result in a straight fall, contrary to conspiracy theories claiming controlled demolitions. This isn't something I'm asking you to take for granted, or to read from media sources you don’t trust. This is something you can verify on your own, in person, in real time, in reality.
· However Trump, despite being close friends with Silverstein as we’ll cover later, claimed "It wasn’t architectural defects, you know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building” per the attached PolitiFact article.
· Supporting Article:
Engineering Experts Explain the Collapse of the Twin Towers
Politifact Donald Trumps 911 Speculation

Larry Silverstein, The Leasor Of The Twin Towers:
· Nearly went bankrupt after losing his main tenant Drexel Burnham in 1980 after he built tower 7 with him in mind.
· I don't know how many of us understand the level of desperation a situation like this can cause in someone and how many potential crimes it can easily push them towards.
· He is known for then saying, “…looking up at the twin towers and thinking, my building is huge, but it is made diminutive by the twin towers. So I said to myself, wouldn't it be incredible someday to own those?" That's not the statement of a sane person who nearly went bankrupt, and if anything, hints towards jealousy.
· He managed to secure Salomon Brothers two years later, which later paid $300 million in securities fraud penalties casting suspicion over the entities who saved Silverstein, in addition to their overall plans for the future.
· How he would become able to outbid everyone else in 2001, for the right to lease the twin towers, would become a mystery we will untangle later.
Further Reading
Manhattan Institute – Silverstein On Ground Zero
Justice Department: Salomon Brothers Securities Fraud

Trump and Real Estate Connections
Historical Context and Redevelopment Plans:
· A redevelopment plan commenced in the 1990s by Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, spurred a commercial revival in downtown Manhattan, making the World Trade Center prime property. Pataki would go on to criticize trump, while the other would prove to be one of this wildest, if not craziest, supporters to truly fanatical degrees.
Further Reading:
Manhattan Institute: Rebuilding Ground Zero
· Tom Leppert was the CEO of Turner construction which right wing conspiracy theorists claimed helped ensure the towers would fall straight down. He also became part of Trumps transition team. While there’s no evidence of explosives being used, tampering with the exoskeleton and weaking the relatively thin central column ahead of time are theoretically plausible.
Huffpost Donald Trump Transition Team
Wikipedia Tom Leppert

The bidding for the World Trade Center lease involved only a few major real estate firms as allowed by the Port Authority Chairman. Below are the allowed bidders and their estimated worth at the time included:

· Donald J. Trump’s Organization:
o Worth around $1.5 billion in 1996 after multiple bankruptcies. Confirmed only by Forbes magazine in 2005.
· Tishman Speyer:
o Valued at approximately $1.8 billion in 2000, would soon face ‘tenant issues’ with many scrupulous legal claims against them.
· Gale & Wentworth:
o Worth a few million.
· Mortimer Zuckerman’s Boston Properties:
o Mortimer Zuckerman alone was worth around $2 billion.
· The Rouse Company:
o Mainly a shopping mall operator.
· Brookfield Properties:
o A Canadian firm valued at over $20 billion in 2000.
· Vornado Realty Trust:
o Worth an estimated $2-3 billion. Had the highest bid, but was unexpectedly outed by the Port Authority Chairman, paving the way for Silverstein’s win. CEO of Vornado Trust, Steven Roth would later do many deals with Trump in 2005 and beyond.
· Larry Silverstein:
o As mentioned, was nearly bankrupt in the 1980s, and was mysteriously awarded the right to lease the World Trade Center contract at $3.2 billion, twice the original asking price of 1.2 Billion. It would still be owned by the Port authority of NY and NJ, he would just own the rights to lease it.
o Port Authority Chairman, Lewis Eisenberg, made this unexplained decision, who also later became Trumps lead fundraiser in 2015.
o After putting down only $125 million, as per the contract, Silverstein would be getting back $100 million just 6 weeks after his bid and with an uncommon terrorist insurance addition. His exaggerated bid and insurance contract would also greatly inflate the amount of money he could get from an insurance claim. If the winning bid was 1.5 billion, the insurance payout would also have been much less.
o In real estate, its quite rare for a prudent investor to bid twice the asking price, as demonstrated by the other companies that backed out, of which I find no connections to Trump.
o If anyone had known about 9/11 ahead of time, like Trump claims he did, it would become drastically easier to outbid all competitors, knowing that for pennies on the dollar, you would be getting much more back.

Further Reading:
NY Times Article on World Trade Center Deal
Wikipedia on Lewis Eisenberg
Patch On Lew Eisenberg Leading Trump Fundraising
NY Times Article Silverstein Gets Most Of His Money Back

Giuliani’s Gangster Acts
Arguably, if the above points are what they objectively appear to be, that would be a bad thing. You’d think that would be enough. However, Guliani would say “hold my beer’ to those sentiments.

1. Outdated Equipment for First Responders:
· Due to Giuliani’s inadequate leadership, first responders used old equipment that failed to warn them to evacuate the towers. Which contributed to their deaths while they searched for survivors.
NY Times Article: Giuliani’s Preparedness on 9/11
2. Obstructed Recovery Efforts:
· Giuliani delayed proper search and rescue operations for days, possibly costing lives of citizens and first responders who didn’t know they needed to leave.
· 20 Years later he would claim that some of Bidens actions were so reckless that… “It would be as if I got down to ground zero and said take out the firefighters, all you civilians see if you can get yourselves out.” Self report?
NBC News Report: Giuliani’s Role in Recovery
NY1: Giuliani Reflects on 9/11 Anniversary
3. Twin Towers Fund and Privatization:
· Giuliani privatized the Twin Towers relief funds, making them unauditable.
NY Times Article on Privatization
NY Post Article: Giuliani and Twin Towers Fund
4. Survivors Threaten To SUE Guliani For Relief Funds
· Even after privatizing the twin towers fund, Giuliani would make it incredibly difficult for the victims to receive their fair share. Requiring many of them to spend unnecessary money on advisors and consultants.
· Even with their legal pressure, he only agreed to “give the remaining 100 million to victims,” out of 170 million, if he could first put the money into the bank account of a charity in which he controlled.
· From the attached article: “But Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said that he remained adamantly opposed to any transfer of funds to Mr. Giuliani's charity.
He also objected to Mr. Giuliani's continued control over even the $15 million in his private charity. Mr. Giuliani, he charged, gives every indication of using the Twin Towers Fund to maintain a staff of loyal supporters and to advance his political aspirations.
'The concern that politics will infiltrate the fund becomes even more apparent when one reviews the list of the mayor's former political appointees who are assuming senior staff positions or serving on the fund's board of directors,'' he wrote in a letter on Monday to Eliot L. Spitzer, the state attorney general.”
NY Times Article On Guliani Pressed To Disperse Twin Tower Funds
· However, there is no evidence of Giuliani making good on this promise.
· There are honestly no words for this. All associates of Guliani should be investigated.
5. Attempted Election Cancellation in 2001:
· Giuliani tried to cancel the 2001 election to stay mayor longer. He even considered removing term limits with Governor Pataki’s support. Similar to how Trump has “joked” about increasing his own term limits.
Business Insider: Giuliani and Pataki’s Attempt to Cancel Elections
Esquire Trump Joke Third Term
6. Motive
· In 2000, Guliani unfortunately got prostate cancer. We have to be willing to ask if this was a motive for his corrupt acts.
SurvivorNet: Giuliani’s Cancer


Silverstein’s Unscrupulous Greed
1. Initial Settlement Demands and Profit Claims:
· Despite only having been out for $25 million, Silverstein initially sought nearly $8 BILLION in insurance settlements and argued for "loss of revenue from those buildings," which is quite an uncompassionate claim considering how many lost their lives. Talk about a prime example of the working and lower classes making sacrifices while rich elites complain they didn’t profit enough from the same tragedy.
2. Rebuilding Contributions and Insurance Payout:
· Despite the fact that he only owned the leasing rights to the twin towers, ‘Silverstein Properties’ received up to $4 billion from insurance payouts, instead of the Port Authority, which would be customary as the owner.
· While it's assumed that most of that money went to rebuilding, this isn't actually known or proven. It would be different if he had a separate insurance policy that was not connected to the rebuilding of the towers, with different monies going to the Port Authority to rebuild. This was not the case.
History.com: Rebuilding of Ground Zero
· He additionally refused to return the rights of Building 1 to the Port Authority until he secured additional funds from an $8 billion state fund. Talk about heartless.
Wikipedia: Larry Silverstein
· Various entities would contribute a total of $20 billion to rebuild all six damaged or destroyed towers, including four towers leased by Silverstein and two others he hadn't. This makes it unlikely that he had to go out of pocket with his 4 Billion.
3. Estimated Net Worth:
· While earlier records of Silverstein's net worth are unavailable, aside from his near bankruptcy in 1980, he is currently estimated to be worth around $1 billion.
Forbes Profile: Larry Silverstein

Silverstein’s Controversial Alignment with Trump
Larry Silverstein's connections and public persona have often been scrutinized. This scrutiny became particularly relevant in 2015 when he publicly displayed his support for Donald Trump:

• Long-standing Relationship: Silverstein revealed a 30-year-long acquaintance with Trump, emphasizing the depth of their connection. This means his relationship started in 1985, roughly two years after gaining a powerful criminal organization as a tenant in his tower 7, that saved him from bankruptcy, and 6 years before Trumps first, of many, bankruptcies. This also means they knew each other before 9/11.
• Supportive Yet Vague: He commended Trump for diligently pursuing what he believed to be right, echoing Trump's own ambiguous rhetoric. When pressed about the righteousness of Trump’s goals, Silverstein ambiguously responded, "well, it’s... you know... we’ll find out." This mirrors Trump’s evasive " Well, we're going to have to see what happens" stance, when questioned about committing to a peaceful transfer of power prior to January 6th—an event that ultimately unfolded with violence and chaos.
• Early Endorsement: By voicing his support when Trump announced his presidential campaign, Silverstein positioned himself as one of the early prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

Watch Silverstein Discuss Trump
CNN Trump On 2020 Election

The Man Who Boasted
When most people witness a tragedy, especially of this size, it takes time for their brains to comprehend what happened, it takes even more time to process it. Thus, anyone who was able to brag about their own assets hours after this tragedy on a radio show, is at least worthy of Investigation, especially if this very event helped reshape a misinformation landscape in which he would thrive as its King.
Politifact – How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation

· Insensitive Boasts About Building Height:
o Trump also boasted that with the fall of the Twin Towers, his building became the tallest in Manhattan—an inaccurate and insensitive claim given the context.
Independent 9 11 Trump Tallest Building
· Early Claims and Revisions:
o Shortly after 9/11, Donald Trump claimed he saw the second plane hit the towers from his Manhattan apartment. He also made an unfounded claim that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering, a statement that has been widely debunked. Despite varying explanations and suggesting that he saw it on an untraceable video that was “widely covered,” these claims helped fueled significant conspiracy theories. If anything, this was a self-report.
o Snopes: Trump Claims Muslims Cheered
o FactCheck.org: Trump’s Revised 9/11 Claim
· Visit to Ground Zero:
o A week after the attacks, Trump visited Ground Zero and stated that although he was present, he wouldn’t consider himself a first responder. This attempt at humility struck many as morbidly insensitive, considering the true heroism displayed by actual first responders.
ABC News: Trump Shares New Details About Morning of 9/11

Legacy of Suspicion:
These actions paint Trump as one of the more suspicious figures post-9/11, who may have used the tragedy for personal and political gain. His connections with figures like Larry Silverstein and Lewis Eisenberg, the Port Authority chairman, hint at deep financial interests potentially influenced by the 9/11 aftermath. Meanwhile, survivors and first responders faced challenges in securing support, highlighting the disparities between their experiences and the political maneuvers at play. Again morbidly juxtaposing the struggles of the poor and working class versus elite swamp members such as Trump and his ilk.

While being, arguably, one of the more suspicious Americans of potentially “being an insider," Trump would go on to cast doubt everywhere else with his new holier than thou rhetoric and hints and claims that “it was an inside job” for the next 15 years.

What if he was speaking from personal experience.

The Deepfake Dilemma
Now in a world where Trump's followers already discount reality, the emergence of AI-generated deepfakes threatens to further distort the truth. This technology could transform legal standards of evidence, making it easy to dismiss genuine evidence against the right as fabricated, while baseless accusations against the left might be accepted as the long-awaited proof.

The Potential Escalation of MAGA Actions
Given the willingness of MAGA supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6th, bolstered by Trump's incendiary rhetoric, the potential for escalation is alarming. The advent of fabricated images and videos could present unprecedented national security threats.

Trump's Incendiary Rhetoric on January 6th
Trump's speech on January 6th was a clear incitement, as he urged his followers to "fight like hell" to "stop the steal," despite admitting DURING THE SPEECH that there was no evidence of the massive electoral fraud he claimed. As well as his lawyers laughable court “arguments.”
“...while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing…”
Npr.Org Read Trumps Jan 6 Speech
LawAndCrime Come On Now

This speech, coupled with his undermining of constitutional processes, underscores the risks and intentional deceit of his rhetoric. Too bad Republicans senators and our Supreme Court have either claimed he was above the law, or continue to postpone his court dates till after elections. A wild position when treason is on the table. Did that dude commit treason that claims he wants to become a dictator? I dunno, lets let him potentially get elected and then find out!

Elon Musk's Political Shift
Elon was once very much a leftist, unfortunately in more and more far left “activists” continue to attack him endlessly for not agreeing with them on their own singular issues and perspectives. To them I say congratulations, you successfully pushed the most powerful man on earth into the far right. Great job. Great job.
Elon Musk's journey from a liberal supporter to a figure embraced by the far right highlights the volatile nature of political affiliations in today's polarized environment. His actions since acquiring Twitter—such as promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and making high-profile firings—suggest a departure from his initial free speech advocacy.
Especially when considering he fired Don Lemon from his platform for an interview he found offensive. Canceling opinions you find offensive isn’t free speech, it’s literally the opposite. I’m sure many people were offended by the examples below. What about them?
Far Right Support Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The Need for a Critical Approach
Supporters of Trump should critically evaluate why he did not pardon the January 6th insurrectionists during his term, despite using them as political leverage now. This pattern of using allies until they are no longer useful is evident throughout his political and personal dealings.
What better example could there possibly be as to what trump truly thinks of his supporters, how sacrificial he sees them as part of his endless narratives, then his refusal and failure to pardon January 6th insurrectionists while still in office?
Of course, anyone “just on the grass” or outside the building should only get a day in jail at most, however people that barged inside the capital should naturally get much more.
And while trump refused to pardon those people before, he now calls them “hostages” and is using them as political bait to a truly wild degree. It's very likely he will make good on this promise to further embolden the narrative that “Democrats are trying to take you down and only I can save you.”
His supporters need to seriously ask, “Why didn’t he pardon us before?”
Also, remember when he claimed he would pay legal fees for supporters that were violent at his rallies, but then seemed to falter and change his mind. Much like how Amber Heard donated her money, “by pledging it.”
List of allies he was quick to discard or dump. And let's face it, all of these people have done more for him than the average MAGA supporter. The only person he cares about is himself.
Trump claims that Mike Pence, the man he vetted more than anyone else, “has gone to the dark side.”
Trump seems to have supported the chants to “Hang Mike Pense,” at least in jest? We hope? There are also no links of him condemning them. Yet admittedly this one point doesn’t have hard evidence like a recording or video as far as I know, it certainly fits his brand.
Mike Flynn, a Trump appointee, later testifies against him.
Trump admits Flynn lied on his behalf, accidentally testifying against him, but does pardon him. As long as you’re colluding with Russia you’re ok it seems?

The Future Under Trump's Influence
Trump's rhetoric about overriding constitutional norms to address what he calls "massive fraud" hints at authoritarian aspirations. His praise for dictators and divisive language further aligns with dangerous historical precedents.
Important Articles:
“How a second trump term could end us democracy.” -commondreams
“Ask the expert: What a 2nd Trump term could mean for democracy and advancing policy.” - Msu Today
“Judgement Day” for political opponents.

To predict the future lets base it on known facts:
Apparently, he will help attack our constitution like he may have with the Twin Towers.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Stated he intended to be a Dictator on day one, but then promises it will be just for a day. Is that how that works? Or is it “Once you go Dictator you don’t go back?”
Praising dictators, referring to immigrants as vermin etc, akin to Hitlers rhetoric against “blood mixing.”
More fraudulent use of lawyers and courts that gets everyone else in trouble but him, with them arguing he's above the law. This further shows how much he will consistently use people for his own ends and then dump them when they're no longer of use.
Warning from republicans and notes on ass kissing. As well as being generally unfit for office.
If you want help from Trump you better kiss his ***
Trumps says he kept Omarosa just because she said nice things about him, while defaming her
DeSantis: "You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring, he’ll say you’re wonderful."
Thehill Trump Views People Who Kiss His A As Weak.
And if you dare to speak out against trump, you better kiss his ****
Politico Graham Breaks With Trump On Abortion
WashingtonPost Trump Graham Abortion
News Yahoo 30 More Republicans Denounce Donald Trump Unqualified President
Hot take, if he’s elected president America, and the world, is frankly fucked.

Predicting MAGA 2024 And Beyond
Naturally there are endless possibilities of what MAGA and dictators around the world decide to do this year and into the future. I believe that the one thing that insinuates when it's time for their next evil actions is dictated by their standings in the polls or when a fellow dictator needs a little more political pressure from war torn inflated oil prices etc.
Dictators Unite
While writing my thesis, I speculated that dictators globally were uniting, finding mutual benefits in their governance and deceitful tactics. This theory is increasingly recognized as these autocrats appear to be forming a coalition, undermining peaceful unity efforts through conspiracy theories to preserve their power.
Unherd How Autocrats Unite
The True Nature of MAGA
MAGA was never genuinely about speaking truth to power or restoring America's glory. It has been an elaborate scheme funded by immense wealth, perpetuating anti-American sentiments through fabricated grassroots movements by domestic and foreign actors. This movement has primarily enriched a select few power-hungry dictators and may have been responsible for some of our most horrific moments in history in the past and acts yet to come.
Trump and MAGA
While 'MAGA' predates Trump, he conveniently stepped into a role long in the making. Despite occasional deviations from the MAGA ideology, such as promoting vaccines to emphatic boos, Trump has largely embodied its principles. The real architects of MAGA, however, are likely disillusioned with his unpredictable attacks, which contradict their broader agenda of absolute power.
Nbc News Donald Trump Booed
Trump as a Martyr
Regardless of election outcomes, Trump is poised to claim interference. His rhetoric and the devout belief of his followers in his divine anointment could lead to his martyrdom, especially given his age and the vulnerabilities it brings. This martyrdom could solidify his legacy while serving the interests of MAGA strategists who find him increasingly burdensome even if he “wins.”
Factcheck Trumps Bogus Voter Fraud Claims
La Times Trump Democrats Effort Presidential Ballot

u/neodestiny and friends.
Introduction
If you think you know anything about MAGA. Trust me, you know nothing. Not even his most devout followers or haters will have considered the following. And for the sake of our democracy and way of life, I hope people read this.
This work may very well help to shift the narrative on Trump in a meaningful and foundational way, but I don't want this work exacerbate any feelings of ill will to MAGA members, for they have been prey to possibly one of the largest con jobs our world has ever seen, especially without the help of this counternarrative.
Snippet From My Thesis On MAGA
As I work on tidying up the master file with the helpful dms I got, allow me to post just the most contentious part of it below, now that it’s able to stand on its own.
MAGA didn’t begin in 2015. I argue it began in 2001 on 9/11, while also harnessing and funneling decades of anti-government resentment till many Americans would openly call for a “wrecking ball” figure to help “drain the swamp.”
This work may very well help to shift the narrative on Trump in a meaningful and foundational way, but I don't want this work exacerbate any feelings of ill will to MAGA members, for they have been prey to possibly one of the largest con jobs our world has ever seen, especially without the help of this counternarrative.
A Key Fueling Factor To American Outrage- Inflation
Many elements contributed to growing American anger that would later contribute to MAGA, this is a snippet from the larger work.
Rising Cost of Living
o In 1950, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 24.1. By 2000, it had risen to 168 (a 597% increase), and by 2023, it had reached 304.7, a 1163% increase from 1950.
o Housing prices saw a drastic rise overtime, with the median home price increasing from $7,354 in 1950 to $388,700 in 2023, a staggering 5185% increase.
o While rising rent costs can contribute to overall inflation and cost of living, even the left has largely failed to address how exponentially increasing real estate prices impact the cost of living. This omission has made many other conspiracy theories seem more plausible in its wake.
o If we don’t find real solutions for real estate that also aren’t extreme, then society will feel more and more pressure to accept “unreasonable solutions” like Trump, even though he’s the last person on earth who could solve it, considering his business acumen and history.
MAGA Dynamics and Blind Devotion
In 2016, it wasn't just the left calling the MAGA movement a cult. Trump famously said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." Even the left failed to grasp the gravity of this statement. As someone who nearly died in a deadly cult and based on my research, I don't know of a single cult where the founder could openly commit murder without losing members. Trump didn't just believe he'd created one of the largest cults ever; he believed he'd created the most fanatical. Let's hope his followers prove him wrong by showing a willingness to criticize him, regardless of their vote.

The MAGA Question
Instead of challenging MAGA supporters on fallacious beliefs, ask them this question to see if they’re at least able to see a world where Trump isn’t a biblical King: "If Trump admitted he was behind 9/11 and used resulting insurance money and donations from hostile governments to create false “grass root” campaigns. And did it all in a way to make it seem like others committed his own atrocities. And that he intended to destroy America in every way if he got elected, would you still vote for him?"

Yet even then, getting through to a MAGA supporter inevitably refers to 9/11 “research” out there when they realize individual positions are usually fallacious. This quagmire me decide to investigate this tragedy, to see if there was a more plausible counter theory. Honestly, the more I looked the more surprised I became. Here are my findings that are but a snippet of my full thesis on MAGA.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories and MAGA
Conspiracy Theories and Credibility:
o First off, conspiracy theories should involve some effort to verify narratives, rather than just repeating claims across multiple sources that mistake themselves as evidence; like a bunch of people who repeat “bob farted” across multiple websites may see that as evidence, when in fact, it was Sean. Sorry Sean.

Early Origins of MAGA:
o Although some believe MAGA began in 2015, its roots lie as early as the 1980s with Rush Limbaugh and later became "serious" on 9/11.
o 9/11 conspiracy theories claim controlled demolitions were used, but the lack of any cellphone recordings of explosions weakens this theory.

Suspicious Factors:
o The official narrative involving chaotic jet fuel leading to a straight fall seemed questionable.
o The collapse of a third building (WTC 7), which wasn’t directly hit, fueled suspicions.
o Airline stocks were heavily shorted before the attacks, raising concerns about insider trading. Harvey Pitt, Republican SEC Chairman at the time, investigated this and claimed there was nothing amiss, but was criticized for later crimes and forced to resign.
o It’s also suspicious that in Trumps 2000 book “The America We Deserve” that he stated, “I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the [1993] bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers. No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen*.”*
§ Yet democrats would largely miss this point entirely and obsess over his false claim that he called for Bin Laden to be killed, when he had not. Somehow conspiracy theorists would find this ‘cool’ rather than suspicious.
CNN Fact Check Donald Trump Osama Bin Laden Book Claim

Reports and Simplified Narratives:
o FEMA's 2002 report and NIST's 2005 report provided technical explanations of the tower collapses.
o However, the Port Authority Chairman stuck to the oversimplified narrative that "jet fuel melted steel beams," even though he knew this was a half-truth, as detailed in the next section, fueling anti-government conspiracies. The question is why.

Potential Impact:
o 9/11 conspiracy theories sowed distrust in the government, which may have been one of the attackers' objectives. Anyone that heavily profited from this tragedy, and helped further those objects, should be questioned.
o The ‘Loose Change’ “documentary” pointed out suspicious parts of the story, but failed to give any clear claims as to who was purportedly behind it. It also failed to note the Twin Towers titanic design flaw that could result in a straight fall. Even the 2015 version of this film fails to mention nearly all of the known facts in this report.
o The Director of that film later states:
“I DON’T THINK WE’D HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP IF IT WEREN’T FOR 9/11”
“9/11 created a culture of fear, of xenophobia, this sense of entitlement and everything we’ve seen. Warrantless wire-tapping, Guantanamo Bay, everything that’s happened led us to this point, we wouldn’t be here without 9/11. They want to kick out all the Mexicans and Muslims because of this culture of fear and bigotry and xenophobia that directly led to the election of fucking Donald Trump. [laughing] That’s our world now! We had Reagan before, and Governor Schwarzenegger. But President Donald Trump? It’s just weird. Everything is just weird.”
Theoutline Reflecting On Loose Change
o While the director was in the right to ask questions, he failed to ask the most obvious ones.
o However, his lead “researcher,” Jason Bermas, would turn out to be a full blown MAGA wingnut.
Patriot Jason Bermas
o Anyone that would benefit politically and financially from 9/11 should be fully investigated.
Further Reading:
Harvey Pitt - Wikipedia
Politifact How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation
It will never be possible to defeat MAGA followers “logically” with people who believed his parties rhetoric “that 9/11 was an inside job.”

I say… what if those Republican leaders were self reporting?
What if Trump followers have been rallying behind the very man responsible for its orchestration?

The Twin Towers and Larry Silverstein
Architectural Pitfalls of the Twin Towers:
· The Twin Towers had unique architectural flaws due to the excessive heavy load on their exoskeletons to allow for more floor and leasing space, which greatly contributed to their straight collapse after the 9/11 attacks. This was the first and last skyscraper made in this way.
· For anyone who said that “any other building would have fallen sideways,” you were right, though perhaps not entirely how you may have imagined. A "Coke Can" analogy shows how a similar weakened structure can result in a straight fall, contrary to conspiracy theories claiming controlled demolitions. This isn't something I'm asking you to take for granted, or to read from media sources you don’t trust. This is something you can verify on your own, in person, in real time, in reality.
· However Trump, despite being close friends with Silverstein as we’ll cover later, claimed "It wasn’t architectural defects, you know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building” per the attached PolitiFact article.
· Supporting Article:
Engineering Experts Explain the Collapse of the Twin Towers
Politifact Donald Trumps 911 Speculation

Larry Silverstein, The Leasor Of The Twin Towers:
· Nearly went bankrupt after losing his main tenant Drexel Burnham in 1980 after he built tower 7 with him in mind.
· I don't know how many of us understand the level of desperation a situation like this can cause in someone and how many potential crimes it can easily push them towards.
· He is known for then saying, “…looking up at the twin towers and thinking, my building is huge, but it is made diminutive by the twin towers. So I said to myself, wouldn't it be incredible someday to own those?" That's not the statement of a sane person who nearly went bankrupt, and if anything, hints towards jealousy.
· He managed to secure Salomon Brothers two years later, which later paid $300 million in securities fraud penalties casting suspicion over the entities who saved Silverstein, in addition to their overall plans for the future.
· How he would become able to outbid everyone else in 2001, for the right to lease the twin towers, would become a mystery we will untangle later.
Further Reading
Manhattan Institute – Silverstein On Ground Zero
Justice Department: Salomon Brothers Securities Fraud

Trump and Real Estate Connections
Historical Context and Redevelopment Plans:
· A redevelopment plan commenced in the 1990s by Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, spurred a commercial revival in downtown Manhattan, making the World Trade Center prime property. Pataki would go on to criticize trump, while the other would prove to be one of this wildest, if not craziest, supporters to truly fanatical degrees.
Further Reading:
Manhattan Institute: Rebuilding Ground Zero
· Tom Leppert was the CEO of Turner construction which right wing conspiracy theorists claimed helped ensure the towers would fall straight down. He also became part of Trumps transition team. While there’s no evidence of explosives being used, tampering with the exoskeleton and weaking the relatively thin central column ahead of time are theoretically plausible.
Huffpost Donald Trump Transition Team
Wikipedia Tom Leppert

The bidding for the World Trade Center lease involved only a few major real estate firms as allowed by the Port Authority Chairman. Below are the allowed bidders and their estimated worth at the time included:

· Donald J. Trump’s Organization:
o Worth around $1.5 billion in 1996 after multiple bankruptcies. Confirmed only by Forbes magazine in 2005.
· Tishman Speyer:
o Valued at approximately $1.8 billion in 2000, would soon face ‘tenant issues’ with many scrupulous legal claims against them.
· Gale & Wentworth:
o Worth a few million.
· Mortimer Zuckerman’s Boston Properties:
o Mortimer Zuckerman alone was worth around $2 billion.
· The Rouse Company:
o Mainly a shopping mall operator.
· Brookfield Properties:
o A Canadian firm valued at over $20 billion in 2000.
· Vornado Realty Trust:
o Worth an estimated $2-3 billion. Had the highest bid, but was unexpectedly outed by the Port Authority Chairman, paving the way for Silverstein’s win. CEO of Vornado Trust, Steven Roth would later do many deals with Trump in 2005 and beyond.
· Larry Silverstein:
o As mentioned, was nearly bankrupt in the 1980s, and was mysteriously awarded the right to lease the World Trade Center contract at $3.2 billion, twice the original asking price of 1.2 Billion. It would still be owned by the Port authority of NY and NJ, he would just own the rights to lease it.
o Port Authority Chairman, Lewis Eisenberg, made this unexplained decision, who also later became Trumps lead fundraiser in 2015.
o After putting down only $125 million, as per the contract, Silverstein would be getting back $100 million just 6 weeks after his bid and with an uncommon terrorist insurance addition. His exaggerated bid and insurance contract would also greatly inflate the amount of money he could get from an insurance claim. If the winning bid was 1.5 billion, the insurance payout would also have been much less.
o In real estate, its quite rare for a prudent investor to bid twice the asking price, as demonstrated by the other companies that backed out, of which I find no connections to Trump.
o If anyone had known about 9/11 ahead of time, like Trump claims he did, it would become drastically easier to outbid all competitors, knowing that for pennies on the dollar, you would be getting much more back.

Further Reading:
NY Times Article on World Trade Center Deal
Wikipedia on Lewis Eisenberg
Patch On Lew Eisenberg Leading Trump Fundraising
NY Times Article Silverstein Gets Most Of His Money Back

Giuliani’s Gangster Acts
Arguably, if the above points are what they objectively appear to be, that would be a bad thing. You’d think that would be enough. However, Guliani would say “hold my beer’ to those sentiments.

1. Outdated Equipment for First Responders:
· Due to Giuliani’s inadequate leadership, first responders used old equipment that failed to warn them to evacuate the towers. Which contributed to their deaths while they searched for survivors.
NY Times Article: Giuliani’s Preparedness on 9/11
2. Obstructed Recovery Efforts:
· Giuliani delayed proper search and rescue operations for days, possibly costing lives of citizens and first responders who didn’t know they needed to leave.
· 20 Years later he would claim that some of Bidens actions were so reckless that… “It would be as if I got down to ground zero and said take out the firefighters, all you civilians see if you can get yourselves out.” Self report?
NBC News Report: Giuliani’s Role in Recovery
NY1: Giuliani Reflects on 9/11 Anniversary
3. Twin Towers Fund and Privatization:
· Giuliani privatized the Twin Towers relief funds, making them unauditable.
NY Times Article on Privatization
NY Post Article: Giuliani and Twin Towers Fund
4. Survivors Threaten To SUE Guliani For Relief Funds
· Even after privatizing the twin towers fund, Giuliani would make it incredibly difficult for the victims to receive their fair share. Requiring many of them to spend unnecessary money on advisors and consultants.
· Even with their legal pressure, he only agreed to “give the remaining 100 million to victims,” out of 170 million, if he could first put the money into the bank account of a charity in which he controlled.
· From the attached article: “But Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said that he remained adamantly opposed to any transfer of funds to Mr. Giuliani's charity.
He also objected to Mr. Giuliani's continued control over even the $15 million in his private charity. Mr. Giuliani, he charged, gives every indication of using the Twin Towers Fund to maintain a staff of loyal supporters and to advance his political aspirations.
'The concern that politics will infiltrate the fund becomes even more apparent when one reviews the list of the mayor's former political appointees who are assuming senior staff positions or serving on the fund's board of directors,'' he wrote in a letter on Monday to Eliot L. Spitzer, the state attorney general.”
NY Times Article On Guliani Pressed To Disperse Twin Tower Funds
· However, there is no evidence of Giuliani making good on this promise.
· There are honestly no words for this. All associates of Guliani should be investigated.
5. Attempted Election Cancellation in 2001:
· Giuliani tried to cancel the 2001 election to stay mayor longer. He even considered removing term limits with Governor Pataki’s support. Similar to how Trump has “joked” about increasing his own term limits.
Business Insider: Giuliani and Pataki’s Attempt to Cancel Elections
Esquire Trump Joke Third Term
6. Motive
· In 2000, Guliani unfortunately got prostate cancer. We have to be willing to ask if this was a motive for his corrupt acts.
SurvivorNet: Giuliani’s Cancer


Silverstein’s Unscrupulous Greed
1. Initial Settlement Demands and Profit Claims:
· Despite only having been out for $25 million, Silverstein initially sought nearly $8 BILLION in insurance settlements and argued for "loss of revenue from those buildings," which is quite an uncompassionate claim considering how many lost their lives. Talk about a prime example of the working and lower classes making sacrifices while rich elites complain they didn’t profit enough from the same tragedy.
2. Rebuilding Contributions and Insurance Payout:
· Despite the fact that he only owned the leasing rights to the twin towers, ‘Silverstein Properties’ received up to $4 billion from insurance payouts, instead of the Port Authority, which would be customary as the owner.
· While it's assumed that most of that money went to rebuilding, this isn't actually known or proven. It would be different if he had a separate insurance policy that was not connected to the rebuilding of the towers, with different monies going to the Port Authority to rebuild. This was not the case.
History.com: Rebuilding of Ground Zero
· He additionally refused to return the rights of Building 1 to the Port Authority until he secured additional funds from an $8 billion state fund. Talk about heartless.
Wikipedia: Larry Silverstein
· Various entities would contribute a total of $20 billion to rebuild all six damaged or destroyed towers, including four towers leased by Silverstein and two others he hadn't. This makes it unlikely that he had to go out of pocket with his 4 Billion.
3. Estimated Net Worth:
· While earlier records of Silverstein's net worth are unavailable, aside from his near bankruptcy in 1980, he is currently estimated to be worth around $1 billion.
Forbes Profile: Larry Silverstein

Silverstein’s Controversial Alignment with Trump
Larry Silverstein's connections and public persona have often been scrutinized. This scrutiny became particularly relevant in 2015 when he publicly displayed his support for Donald Trump:

• Long-standing Relationship: Silverstein revealed a 30-year-long acquaintance with Trump, emphasizing the depth of their connection. This means his relationship started in 1985, roughly two years after gaining a powerful criminal organization as a tenant in his tower 7, that saved him from bankruptcy, and 6 years before Trumps first, of many, bankruptcies. This also means they knew each other before 9/11.
• Supportive Yet Vague: He commended Trump for diligently pursuing what he believed to be right, echoing Trump's own ambiguous rhetoric. When pressed about the righteousness of Trump’s goals, Silverstein ambiguously responded, "well, it’s... you know... we’ll find out." This mirrors Trump’s evasive " Well, we're going to have to see what happens" stance, when questioned about committing to a peaceful transfer of power prior to January 6th—an event that ultimately unfolded with violence and chaos.
• Early Endorsement: By voicing his support when Trump announced his presidential campaign, Silverstein positioned himself as one of the early prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

Watch Silverstein Discuss Trump
CNN Trump On 2020 Election

The Man Who Boasted
When most people witness a tragedy, especially of this size, it takes time for their brains to comprehend what happened, it takes even more time to process it. Thus, anyone who was able to brag about their own assets hours after this tragedy on a radio show, is at least worthy of Investigation, especially if this very event helped reshape a misinformation landscape in which he would thrive as its King.
Politifact – How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation

· Insensitive Boasts About Building Height:
o Trump also boasted that with the fall of the Twin Towers, his building became the tallest in Manhattan—an inaccurate and insensitive claim given the context.
Independent 9 11 Trump Tallest Building
· Early Claims and Revisions:
o Shortly after 9/11, Donald Trump claimed he saw the second plane hit the towers from his Manhattan apartment. He also made an unfounded claim that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering, a statement that has been widely debunked. Despite varying explanations and suggesting that he saw it on an untraceable video that was “widely covered,” these claims helped fueled significant conspiracy theories. If anything, this was a self-report.
o Snopes: Trump Claims Muslims Cheered
o FactCheck.org: Trump’s Revised 9/11 Claim
· Visit to Ground Zero:
o A week after the attacks, Trump visited Ground Zero and stated that although he was present, he wouldn’t consider himself a first responder. This attempt at humility struck many as morbidly insensitive, considering the true heroism displayed by actual first responders.
ABC News: Trump Shares New Details About Morning of 9/11

Legacy of Suspicion:
These actions paint Trump as one of the more suspicious figures post-9/11, who may have used the tragedy for personal and political gain. His connections with figures like Larry Silverstein and Lewis Eisenberg, the Port Authority chairman, hint at deep financial interests potentially influenced by the 9/11 aftermath. Meanwhile, survivors and first responders faced challenges in securing support, highlighting the disparities between their experiences and the political maneuvers at play. Again morbidly juxtaposing the struggles of the poor and working class versus elite swamp members such as Trump and his ilk.

While being, arguably, one of the more suspicious Americans of potentially “being an insider," Trump would go on to cast doubt everywhere else with his new holier than thou rhetoric and hints and claims that “it was an inside job” for the next 15 years.

What if he was speaking from personal experience.

The Deepfake Dilemma
Now in a world where Trump's followers already discount reality, the emergence of AI-generated deepfakes threatens to further distort the truth. This technology could transform legal standards of evidence, making it easy to dismiss genuine evidence against the right as fabricated, while baseless accusations against the left might be accepted as the long-awaited proof.

The Potential Escalation of MAGA Actions
Given the willingness of MAGA supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6th, bolstered by Trump's incendiary rhetoric, the potential for escalation is alarming. The advent of fabricated images and videos could present unprecedented national security threats.

Trump's Incendiary Rhetoric on January 6th
Trump's speech on January 6th was a clear incitement, as he urged his followers to "fight like hell" to "stop the steal," despite admitting DURING THE SPEECH that there was no evidence of the massive electoral fraud he claimed. As well as his lawyers laughable court “arguments.”
“...while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing…”
Npr.Org Read Trumps Jan 6 Speech
LawAndCrime Come On Now

This speech, coupled with his undermining of constitutional processes, underscores the risks and intentional deceit of his rhetoric. Too bad Republicans senators and our Supreme Court have either claimed he was above the law, or continue to postpone his court dates till after elections. A wild position when treason is on the table. Did that dude commit treason that claims he wants to become a dictator? I dunno, lets let him potentially get elected and then find out!

Elon Musk's Political Shift
Elon was once very much a leftist, unfortunately in more and more far left “activists” continue to attack him endlessly for not agreeing with them on their own singular issues and perspectives. To them I say congratulations, you successfully pushed the most powerful man on earth into the far right. Great job. Great job.
Elon Musk's journey from a liberal supporter to a figure embraced by the far right highlights the volatile nature of political affiliations in today's polarized environment. His actions since acquiring Twitter—such as promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and making high-profile firings—suggest a departure from his initial free speech advocacy.
Especially when considering he fired Don Lemon from his platform for an interview he found offensive. Canceling opinions you find offensive isn’t free speech, it’s literally the opposite. I’m sure many people were offended by the examples below. What about them?
Far Right Support Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The Need for a Critical Approach
Supporters of Trump should critically evaluate why he did not pardon the January 6th insurrectionists during his term, despite using them as political leverage now. This pattern of using allies until they are no longer useful is evident throughout his political and personal dealings.
What better example could there possibly be as to what trump truly thinks of his supporters, how sacrificial he sees them as part of his endless narratives, then his refusal and failure to pardon January 6th insurrectionists while still in office?
Of course, anyone “just on the grass” or outside the building should only get a day in jail at most, however people that barged inside the capital should naturally get much more.
And while trump refused to pardon those people before, he now calls them “hostages” and is using them as political bait to a truly wild degree. It's very likely he will make good on this promise to further embolden the narrative that “Democrats are trying to take you down and only I can save you.”
His supporters need to seriously ask, “Why didn’t he pardon us before?”
Also, remember when he claimed he would pay legal fees for supporters that were violent at his rallies, but then seemed to falter and change his mind. Much like how Amber Heard donated her money, “by pledging it.”
List of allies he was quick to discard or dump. And let's face it, all of these people have done more for him than the average MAGA supporter. The only person he cares about is himself.
Trump claims that Mike Pence, the man he vetted more than anyone else, “has gone to the dark side.”
Trump seems to have supported the chants to “Hang Mike Pense,” at least in jest? We hope? There are also no links of him condemning them. Yet admittedly this one point doesn’t have hard evidence like a recording or video as far as I know, it certainly fits his brand.
Mike Flynn, a Trump appointee, later testifies against him.
Trump admits Flynn lied on his behalf, accidentally testifying against him, but does pardon him. As long as you’re colluding with Russia you’re ok it seems?

The Future Under Trump's Influence
Trump's rhetoric about overriding constitutional norms to address what he calls "massive fraud" hints at authoritarian aspirations. His praise for dictators and divisive language further aligns with dangerous historical precedents.
Important Articles:
“How a second trump term could end us democracy.” -commondreams
“Ask the expert: What a 2nd Trump term could mean for democracy and advancing policy.” - Msu Today
“Judgement Day” for political opponents.

To predict the future lets base it on known facts:
Apparently, he will help attack our constitution like he may have with the Twin Towers.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Stated he intended to be a Dictator on day one, but then promises it will be just for a day. Is that how that works? Or is it “Once you go Dictator you don’t go back?”
Praising dictators, referring to immigrants as vermin etc, akin to Hitlers rhetoric against “blood mixing.”
More fraudulent use of lawyers and courts that gets everyone else in trouble but him, with them arguing he's above the law. This further shows how much he will consistently use people for his own ends and then dump them when they're no longer of use.
Warning from republicans and notes on ass kissing. As well as being generally unfit for office.
If you want help from Trump you better kiss his ***
Trumps says he kept Omarosa just because she said nice things about him, while defaming her
DeSantis: "You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring, he’ll say you’re wonderful."
Thehill Trump Views People Who Kiss His A As Weak.
And if you dare to speak out against trump, you better kiss his ****
Politico Graham Breaks With Trump On Abortion
WashingtonPost Trump Graham Abortion
News Yahoo 30 More Republicans Denounce Donald Trump Unqualified President
Hot take, if he’s elected president America, and the world, is frankly fucked.

Predicting MAGA 2024 And Beyond
Naturally there are endless possibilities of what MAGA and dictators around the world decide to do this year and into the future. I believe that the one thing that insinuates when it's time for their next evil actions is dictated by their standings in the polls or when a fellow dictator needs a little more political pressure from war torn inflated oil prices etc.
Dictators Unite
While writing my thesis, I speculated that dictators globally were uniting, finding mutual benefits in their governance and deceitful tactics. This theory is increasingly recognized as these autocrats appear to be forming a coalition, undermining peaceful unity efforts through conspiracy theories to preserve their power.
Unherd How Autocrats Unite
The True Nature of MAGA
MAGA was never genuinely about speaking truth to power or restoring America's glory. It has been an elaborate scheme funded by immense wealth, perpetuating anti-American sentiments through fabricated grassroots movements by domestic and foreign actors. This movement has primarily enriched a select few power-hungry dictators and may have been responsible for some of our most horrific moments in history in the past and acts yet to come.
Trump and MAGA
While 'MAGA' predates Trump, he conveniently stepped into a role long in the making. Despite occasional deviations from the MAGA ideology, such as promoting vaccines to emphatic boos, Trump has largely embodied its principles. The real architects of MAGA, however, are likely disillusioned with his unpredictable attacks, which contradict their broader agenda of absolute power.
Nbc News Donald Trump Booed
Trump as a Martyr
Regardless of election outcomes, Trump is poised to claim interference. His rhetoric and the devout belief of his followers in his divine anointment could lead to his martyrdom, especially given his age and the vulnerabilities it brings. This martyrdom could solidify his legacy while serving the interests of MAGA strategists who find him increasingly burdensome even if he “wins.”
Factcheck Trumps Bogus Voter Fraud Claims
La Times Trump Democrats Effort Presidential Ballot

u/neodestiny and friends.
For the sake of transparency, I am not the architect of the following discoveries, and am just helping to forward their message and clean it up. Copywrite of the following work belongs to no one and everyone is not only welcome to share these findings as if they were their own, but openly encouraged to do so.
Introduction
If you think you know anything about MAGA. Trust me, you know nothing. Not even his most devout followers or haters will have considered the following. And for the sake of our democracy and way of life, I hope people read this.
This work may very well help to shift the narrative on Trump in a meaningful and foundational way, but I don't want this work exacerbate any feelings of ill will to MAGA members, for they have been prey to possibly one of the largest con jobs our world has ever seen, especially without the help of this counternarrative.
Snippet From My Thesis On MAGA
As I work on tidying up the master file with the helpful dms I got, allow me to post just the most contentious part of it below, now that it’s able to stand on its own.
MAGA didn’t begin in 2015. I argue it began in 2001 on 9/11, while also harnessing and funneling decades of anti-government resentment till many Americans would openly call for a “wrecking ball” figure to help “drain the swamp.”

A Key Fueling Factor To American Outrage- Inflation
Many elements contributed to growing American anger that would later contribute to MAGA, this is a snippet from the larger work.
Rising Cost of Living
o In 1950, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 24.1. By 2000, it had risen to 168 (a 597% increase), and by 2023, it had reached 304.7, a 1163% increase from 1950.
o Housing prices saw a drastic rise overtime, with the median home price increasing from $7,354 in 1950 to $388,700 in 2023, a staggering 5185% increase.
o While rising rent costs can contribute to overall inflation and cost of living, even the left has largely failed to address how exponentially increasing real estate prices impact the cost of living. This omission has made many other conspiracy theories seem more plausible in its wake.
o If we don’t find real solutions for real estate that also aren’t extreme, then society will feel more and more pressure to accept “unreasonable solutions” like Trump, even though he’s the last person on earth who could solve it, considering his business acumen and history.
MAGA Dynamics and Blind Devotion
In 2016, it wasn't just the left calling the MAGA movement a cult. Trump famously said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." Even the left failed to grasp the gravity of this statement. As someone who nearly died in a deadly cult and based on my research, I don't know of a single cult where the founder could openly commit murder without losing members. Trump didn't just believe he'd created one of the largest cults ever; he believed he'd created the most fanatical. Let's hope his followers prove him wrong by showing a willingness to criticize him, regardless of their vote.

The MAGA Question
Instead of challenging MAGA supporters on fallacious beliefs, ask them this question to see if they’re at least able to see a world where Trump isn’t a biblical King: "If Trump admitted he was behind 9/11 and used resulting insurance money and donations from hostile governments to create false “grass root” campaigns. And did it all in a way to make it seem like others committed his own atrocities. And that he intended to destroy America in every way if he got elected, would you still vote for him?"

Yet even then, getting through to a MAGA supporter inevitably refers to 9/11 “research” out there when they realize individual positions are usually fallacious. This quagmire me decide to investigate this tragedy, to see if there was a more plausible counter theory. Honestly, the more I looked the more surprised I became. Here are my findings that are but a snippet of my full thesis on MAGA.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories and MAGA
Conspiracy Theories and Credibility:
o First off, conspiracy theories should involve some effort to verify narratives, rather than just repeating claims across multiple sources that mistake themselves as evidence; like a bunch of people who repeat “bob farted” across multiple websites may see that as evidence, when in fact, it was Sean. Sorry Sean.

Early Origins of MAGA:
o Although some believe MAGA began in 2015, its roots lie as early as the 1980s with Rush Limbaugh and later became "serious" on 9/11.
o 9/11 conspiracy theories claim controlled demolitions were used, but the lack of any cellphone recordings of explosions weakens this theory.

Suspicious Factors:
o The official narrative involving chaotic jet fuel leading to a straight fall seemed questionable.
o The collapse of a third building (WTC 7), which wasn’t directly hit, fueled suspicions.
o Airline stocks were heavily shorted before the attacks, raising concerns about insider trading. Harvey Pitt, Republican SEC Chairman at the time, investigated this and claimed there was nothing amiss, but was criticized for later crimes and forced to resign.
o It’s also suspicious that in Trumps 2000 book “The America We Deserve” that he stated, “I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the [1993] bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers. No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen*.”*
§ Yet democrats would largely miss this point entirely and obsess over his false claim that he called for Bin Laden to be killed, when he had not. Somehow conspiracy theorists would find this ‘cool’ rather than suspicious.
CNN Fact Check Donald Trump Osama Bin Laden Book Claim

Reports and Simplified Narratives:
o FEMA's 2002 report and NIST's 2005 report provided technical explanations of the tower collapses.
o However, the Port Authority Chairman stuck to the oversimplified narrative that "jet fuel melted steel beams," even though he knew this was a half-truth, as detailed in the next section, fueling anti-government conspiracies. The question is why.

Potential Impact:
o 9/11 conspiracy theories sowed distrust in the government, which may have been one of the attackers' objectives. Anyone that heavily profited from this tragedy, and helped further those objects, should be questioned.
o The ‘Loose Change’ “documentary” pointed out suspicious parts of the story, but failed to give any clear claims as to who was purportedly behind it. It also failed to note the Twin Towers titanic design flaw that could result in a straight fall. Even the 2015 version of this film fails to mention nearly all of the known facts in this report.
o The Director of that film later states:
“I DON’T THINK WE’D HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP IF IT WEREN’T FOR 9/11”
“9/11 created a culture of fear, of xenophobia, this sense of entitlement and everything we’ve seen. Warrantless wire-tapping, Guantanamo Bay, everything that’s happened led us to this point, we wouldn’t be here without 9/11. They want to kick out all the Mexicans and Muslims because of this culture of fear and bigotry and xenophobia that directly led to the election of fucking Donald Trump. [laughing] That’s our world now! We had Reagan before, and Governor Schwarzenegger. But President Donald Trump? It’s just weird. Everything is just weird.”
Theoutline Reflecting On Loose Change
o While the director was in the right to ask questions, he failed to ask the most obvious ones.
o However, his lead “researcher,” Jason Bermas, would turn out to be a full blown MAGA wingnut.
Patriot Jason Bermas
o Anyone that would benefit politically and financially from 9/11 should be fully investigated.
Further Reading:
Harvey Pitt - Wikipedia
Politifact How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation
It will never be possible to defeat MAGA followers “logically” with people who believed his parties rhetoric “that 9/11 was an inside job.”

I say… what if those Republican leaders were self reporting?
What if Trump followers have been rallying behind the very man responsible for its orchestration?

The Twin Towers and Larry Silverstein
Architectural Pitfalls of the Twin Towers:
· The Twin Towers had unique architectural flaws due to the excessive heavy load on their exoskeletons to allow for more floor and leasing space, which greatly contributed to their straight collapse after the 9/11 attacks. This was the first and last skyscraper made in this way.
· For anyone who said that “any other building would have fallen sideways,” you were right, though perhaps not entirely how you may have imagined. A "Coke Can" analogy shows how a similar weakened structure can result in a straight fall, contrary to conspiracy theories claiming controlled demolitions. This isn't something I'm asking you to take for granted, or to read from media sources you don’t trust. This is something you can verify on your own, in person, in real time, in reality.
· However Trump, despite being close friends with Silverstein as we’ll cover later, claimed "It wasn’t architectural defects, you know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building” per the attached PolitiFact article.
· Supporting Article:
Engineering Experts Explain the Collapse of the Twin Towers
Politifact Donald Trumps 911 Speculation

Larry Silverstein, The Leasor Of The Twin Towers:
· Nearly went bankrupt after losing his main tenant Drexel Burnham in 1980 after he built tower 7 with him in mind.
· I don't know how many of us understand the level of desperation a situation like this can cause in someone and how many potential crimes it can easily push them towards.
· He is known for then saying, “…looking up at the twin towers and thinking, my building is huge, but it is made diminutive by the twin towers. So I said to myself, wouldn't it be incredible someday to own those?" That's not the statement of a sane person who nearly went bankrupt, and if anything, hints towards jealousy.
· He managed to secure Salomon Brothers two years later, which later paid $300 million in securities fraud penalties casting suspicion over the entities who saved Silverstein, in addition to their overall plans for the future.
· How he would become able to outbid everyone else in 2001, for the right to lease the twin towers, would become a mystery we will untangle later.
Further Reading
Manhattan Institute – Silverstein On Ground Zero
Justice Department: Salomon Brothers Securities Fraud

Trump and Real Estate Connections
Historical Context and Redevelopment Plans:
· A redevelopment plan commenced in the 1990s by Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, spurred a commercial revival in downtown Manhattan, making the World Trade Center prime property. Pataki would go on to criticize trump, while the other would prove to be one of this wildest, if not craziest, supporters to truly fanatical degrees.
Further Reading:
Manhattan Institute: Rebuilding Ground Zero
· Tom Leppert was the CEO of Turner construction which right wing conspiracy theorists claimed helped ensure the towers would fall straight down. He also became part of Trumps transition team. While there’s no evidence of explosives being used, tampering with the exoskeleton and weaking the relatively thin central column ahead of time are theoretically plausible.
Huffpost Donald Trump Transition Team
Wikipedia Tom Leppert

The bidding for the World Trade Center lease involved only a few major real estate firms as allowed by the Port Authority Chairman. Below are the allowed bidders and their estimated worth at the time included:

· Donald J. Trump’s Organization:
o Worth around $1.5 billion in 1996 after multiple bankruptcies. Confirmed only by Forbes magazine in 2005.
· Tishman Speyer:
o Valued at approximately $1.8 billion in 2000, would soon face ‘tenant issues’ with many scrupulous legal claims against them.
· Gale & Wentworth:
o Worth a few million.
· Mortimer Zuckerman’s Boston Properties:
o Mortimer Zuckerman alone was worth around $2 billion.
· The Rouse Company:
o Mainly a shopping mall operator.
· Brookfield Properties:
o A Canadian firm valued at over $20 billion in 2000.
· Vornado Realty Trust:
o Worth an estimated $2-3 billion. Had the highest bid, but was unexpectedly outed by the Port Authority Chairman, paving the way for Silverstein’s win. CEO of Vornado Trust, Steven Roth would later do many deals with Trump in 2005 and beyond.
· Larry Silverstein:
o As mentioned, was nearly bankrupt in the 1980s, and was mysteriously awarded the right to lease the World Trade Center contract at $3.2 billion, twice the original asking price of 1.2 Billion. It would still be owned by the Port authority of NY and NJ, he would just own the rights to lease it.
o Port Authority Chairman, Lewis Eisenberg, made this unexplained decision, who also later became Trumps lead fundraiser in 2015.
o After putting down only $125 million, as per the contract, Silverstein would be getting back $100 million just 6 weeks after his bid and with an uncommon terrorist insurance addition. His exaggerated bid and insurance contract would also greatly inflate the amount of money he could get from an insurance claim. If the winning bid was 1.5 billion, the insurance payout would also have been much less.
o In real estate, its quite rare for a prudent investor to bid twice the asking price, as demonstrated by the other companies that backed out, of which I find no connections to Trump.
o If anyone had known about 9/11 ahead of time, like Trump claims he did, it would become drastically easier to outbid all competitors, knowing that for pennies on the dollar, you would be getting much more back.

Further Reading:
NY Times Article on World Trade Center Deal
Wikipedia on Lewis Eisenberg
Patch On Lew Eisenberg Leading Trump Fundraising
NY Times Article Silverstein Gets Most Of His Money Back

Giuliani’s Gangster Acts
Arguably, if the above points are what they objectively appear to be, that would be a bad thing. You’d think that would be enough. However, Guliani would say “hold my beer’ to those sentiments.

1. Outdated Equipment for First Responders:
· Due to Giuliani’s inadequate leadership, first responders used old equipment that failed to warn them to evacuate the towers. Which contributed to their deaths while they searched for survivors.
NY Times Article: Giuliani’s Preparedness on 9/11
2. Obstructed Recovery Efforts:
· Giuliani delayed proper search and rescue operations for days, possibly costing lives of citizens and first responders who didn’t know they needed to leave.
· 20 Years later he would claim that some of Bidens actions were so reckless that… “It would be as if I got down to ground zero and said take out the firefighters, all you civilians see if you can get yourselves out.” Self report?
NBC News Report: Giuliani’s Role in Recovery
NY1: Giuliani Reflects on 9/11 Anniversary
3. Twin Towers Fund and Privatization:
· Giuliani privatized the Twin Towers relief funds, making them unauditable.
NY Times Article on Privatization
NY Post Article: Giuliani and Twin Towers Fund
4. Survivors Threaten To SUE Guliani For Relief Funds
· Even after privatizing the twin towers fund, Giuliani would make it incredibly difficult for the victims to receive their fair share. Requiring many of them to spend unnecessary money on advisors and consultants.
· Even with their legal pressure, he only agreed to “give the remaining 100 million to victims,” out of 170 million, if he could first put the money into the bank account of a charity in which he controlled.
· From the attached article: “But Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said that he remained adamantly opposed to any transfer of funds to Mr. Giuliani's charity.
He also objected to Mr. Giuliani's continued control over even the $15 million in his private charity. Mr. Giuliani, he charged, gives every indication of using the Twin Towers Fund to maintain a staff of loyal supporters and to advance his political aspirations.
'The concern that politics will infiltrate the fund becomes even more apparent when one reviews the list of the mayor's former political appointees who are assuming senior staff positions or serving on the fund's board of directors,'' he wrote in a letter on Monday to Eliot L. Spitzer, the state attorney general.”
NY Times Article On Guliani Pressed To Disperse Twin Tower Funds
· However, there is no evidence of Giuliani making good on this promise.
· There are honestly no words for this. All associates of Guliani should be investigated.
5. Attempted Election Cancellation in 2001:
· Giuliani tried to cancel the 2001 election to stay mayor longer. He even considered removing term limits with Governor Pataki’s support. Similar to how Trump has “joked” about increasing his own term limits.
Business Insider: Giuliani and Pataki’s Attempt to Cancel Elections
Esquire Trump Joke Third Term
6. Motive
· In 2000, Guliani unfortunately got prostate cancer. We have to be willing to ask if this was a motive for his corrupt acts.
SurvivorNet: Giuliani’s Cancer


Silverstein’s Unscrupulous Greed
1. Initial Settlement Demands and Profit Claims:
· Despite only having been out for $25 million, Silverstein initially sought nearly $8 BILLION in insurance settlements and argued for "loss of revenue from those buildings," which is quite an uncompassionate claim considering how many lost their lives. Talk about a prime example of the working and lower classes making sacrifices while rich elites complain they didn’t profit enough from the same tragedy.
2. Rebuilding Contributions and Insurance Payout:
· Despite the fact that he only owned the leasing rights to the twin towers, ‘Silverstein Properties’ received up to $4 billion from insurance payouts, instead of the Port Authority, which would be customary as the owner.
· While it's assumed that most of that money went to rebuilding, this isn't actually known or proven. It would be different if he had a separate insurance policy that was not connected to the rebuilding of the towers, with different monies going to the Port Authority to rebuild. This was not the case.
History.com: Rebuilding of Ground Zero
· He additionally refused to return the rights of Building 1 to the Port Authority until he secured additional funds from an $8 billion state fund. Talk about heartless.
Wikipedia: Larry Silverstein
· Various entities would contribute a total of $20 billion to rebuild all six damaged or destroyed towers, including four towers leased by Silverstein and two others he hadn't. This makes it unlikely that he had to go out of pocket with his 4 Billion.
3. Estimated Net Worth:
· While earlier records of Silverstein's net worth are unavailable, aside from his near bankruptcy in 1980, he is currently estimated to be worth around $1 billion.
Forbes Profile: Larry Silverstein

Silverstein’s Controversial Alignment with Trump
Larry Silverstein's connections and public persona have often been scrutinized. This scrutiny became particularly relevant in 2015 when he publicly displayed his support for Donald Trump:

• Long-standing Relationship: Silverstein revealed a 30-year-long acquaintance with Trump, emphasizing the depth of their connection. This means his relationship started in 1985, roughly two years after gaining a powerful criminal organization as a tenant in his tower 7, that saved him from bankruptcy, and 6 years before Trumps first, of many, bankruptcies. This also means they knew each other before 9/11.
• Supportive Yet Vague: He commended Trump for diligently pursuing what he believed to be right, echoing Trump's own ambiguous rhetoric. When pressed about the righteousness of Trump’s goals, Silverstein ambiguously responded, "well, it’s... you know... we’ll find out." This mirrors Trump’s evasive " Well, we're going to have to see what happens" stance, when questioned about committing to a peaceful transfer of power prior to January 6th—an event that ultimately unfolded with violence and chaos.
• Early Endorsement: By voicing his support when Trump announced his presidential campaign, Silverstein positioned himself as one of the early prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

Watch Silverstein Discuss Trump
CNN Trump On 2020 Election

The Man Who Boasted
When most people witness a tragedy, especially of this size, it takes time for their brains to comprehend what happened, it takes even more time to process it. Thus, anyone who was able to brag about their own assets hours after this tragedy on a radio show, is at least worthy of Investigation, especially if this very event helped reshape a misinformation landscape in which he would thrive as its King.
Politifact – How 911 Attacks Helped Shape Modern Misinformation

· Insensitive Boasts About Building Height:
o Trump also boasted that with the fall of the Twin Towers, his building became the tallest in Manhattan—an inaccurate and insensitive claim given the context.
Independent 9 11 Trump Tallest Building
· Early Claims and Revisions:
o Shortly after 9/11, Donald Trump claimed he saw the second plane hit the towers from his Manhattan apartment. He also made an unfounded claim that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering, a statement that has been widely debunked. Despite varying explanations and suggesting that he saw it on an untraceable video that was “widely covered,” these claims helped fueled significant conspiracy theories. If anything, this was a self-report.
o Snopes: Trump Claims Muslims Cheered
o FactCheck.org: Trump’s Revised 9/11 Claim
· Visit to Ground Zero:
o A week after the attacks, Trump visited Ground Zero and stated that although he was present, he wouldn’t consider himself a first responder. This attempt at humility struck many as morbidly insensitive, considering the true heroism displayed by actual first responders.
ABC News: Trump Shares New Details About Morning of 9/11

Legacy of Suspicion:
These actions paint Trump as one of the more suspicious figures post-9/11, who may have used the tragedy for personal and political gain. His connections with figures like Larry Silverstein and Lewis Eisenberg, the Port Authority chairman, hint at deep financial interests potentially influenced by the 9/11 aftermath. Meanwhile, survivors and first responders faced challenges in securing support, highlighting the disparities between their experiences and the political maneuvers at play. Again morbidly juxtaposing the struggles of the poor and working class versus elite swamp members such as Trump and his ilk.

While being, arguably, one of the more suspicious Americans of potentially “being an insider," Trump would go on to cast doubt everywhere else with his new holier than thou rhetoric and hints and claims that “it was an inside job” for the next 15 years.

What if he was speaking from personal experience.

The Deepfake Dilemma
Now in a world where Trump's followers already discount reality, the emergence of AI-generated deepfakes threatens to further distort the truth. This technology could transform legal standards of evidence, making it easy to dismiss genuine evidence against the right as fabricated, while baseless accusations against the left might be accepted as the long-awaited proof.

The Potential Escalation of MAGA Actions
Given the willingness of MAGA supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6th, bolstered by Trump's incendiary rhetoric, the potential for escalation is alarming. The advent of fabricated images and videos could present unprecedented national security threats.

Trump's Incendiary Rhetoric on January 6th
Trump's speech on January 6th was a clear incitement, as he urged his followers to "fight like hell" to "stop the steal," despite admitting DURING THE SPEECH that there was no evidence of the massive electoral fraud he claimed. As well as his lawyers laughable court “arguments.”
“...while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing…”
Npr.Org Read Trumps Jan 6 Speech
LawAndCrime Come On Now

This speech, coupled with his undermining of constitutional processes, underscores the risks and intentional deceit of his rhetoric. Too bad Republicans senators and our Supreme Court have either claimed he was above the law, or continue to postpone his court dates till after elections. A wild position when treason is on the table. Did that dude commit treason that claims he wants to become a dictator? I dunno, lets let him potentially get elected and then find out!

Elon Musk's Political Shift
Elon was once very much a leftist, unfortunately in more and more far left “activists” continue to attack him endlessly for not agreeing with them on their own singular issues and perspectives. To them I say congratulations, you successfully pushed the most powerful man on earth into the far right. Great job. Great job.
Elon Musk's journey from a liberal supporter to a figure embraced by the far right highlights the volatile nature of political affiliations in today's polarized environment. His actions since acquiring Twitter—such as promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and making high-profile firings—suggest a departure from his initial free speech advocacy.
Especially when considering he fired Don Lemon from his platform for an interview he found offensive. Canceling opinions you find offensive isn’t free speech, it’s literally the opposite. I’m sure many people were offended by the examples below. What about them?
Far Right Support Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The Need for a Critical Approach
Supporters of Trump should critically evaluate why he did not pardon the January 6th insurrectionists during his term, despite using them as political leverage now. This pattern of using allies until they are no longer useful is evident throughout his political and personal dealings.
What better example could there possibly be as to what trump truly thinks of his supporters, how sacrificial he sees them as part of his endless narratives, then his refusal and failure to pardon January 6th insurrectionists while still in office?
Of course, anyone “just on the grass” or outside the building should only get a day in jail at most, however people that barged inside the capital should naturally get much more.
And while trump refused to pardon those people before, he now calls them “hostages” and is using them as political bait to a truly wild degree. It's very likely he will make good on this promise to further embolden the narrative that “Democrats are trying to take you down and only I can save you.”
His supporters need to seriously ask, “Why didn’t he pardon us before?”
Also, remember when he claimed he would pay legal fees for supporters that were violent at his rallies, but then seemed to falter and change his mind. Much like how Amber Heard donated her money, “by pledging it.”
List of allies he was quick to discard or dump. And let's face it, all of these people have done more for him than the average MAGA supporter. The only person he cares about is himself.
Trump claims that Mike Pence, the man he vetted more than anyone else, “has gone to the dark side.”
Trump seems to have supported the chants to “Hang Mike Pense,” at least in jest? We hope? There are also no links of him condemning them. Yet admittedly this one point doesn’t have hard evidence like a recording or video as far as I know, it certainly fits his brand.
Mike Flynn, a Trump appointee, later testifies against him.
Trump admits Flynn lied on his behalf, accidentally testifying against him, but does pardon him. As long as you’re colluding with Russia you’re ok it seems?

The Future Under Trump's Influence
Trump's rhetoric about overriding constitutional norms to address what he calls "massive fraud" hints at authoritarian aspirations. His praise for dictators and divisive language further aligns with dangerous historical precedents.
Important Articles:
“How a second trump term could end us democracy.” -commondreams
“Ask the expert: What a 2nd Trump term could mean for democracy and advancing policy.” - Msu Today
“Judgement Day” for political opponents.

To predict the future lets base it on known facts:
Apparently, he will help attack our constitution like he may have with the Twin Towers.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Stated he intended to be a Dictator on day one, but then promises it will be just for a day. Is that how that works? Or is it “Once you go Dictator you don’t go back?”
Praising dictators, referring to immigrants as vermin etc, akin to Hitlers rhetoric against “blood mixing.”
More fraudulent use of lawyers and courts that gets everyone else in trouble but him, with them arguing he's above the law. This further shows how much he will consistently use people for his own ends and then dump them when they're no longer of use.
Warning from republicans and notes on ass kissing. As well as being generally unfit for office.
If you want help from Trump you better kiss his ***
Trumps says he kept Omarosa just because she said nice things about him, while defaming her
DeSantis: "You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring, he’ll say you’re wonderful."
Thehill Trump Views People Who Kiss His A As Weak.
And if you dare to speak out against trump, you better kiss his ****
Politico Graham Breaks With Trump On Abortion
WashingtonPost Trump Graham Abortion
News Yahoo 30 More Republicans Denounce Donald Trump Unqualified President
Hot take, if he’s elected president America, and the world, is frankly fucked.

Predicting MAGA 2024 And Beyond
Naturally there are endless possibilities of what MAGA and dictators around the world decide to do this year and into the future. I believe that the one thing that insinuates when it's time for their next evil actions is dictated by their standings in the polls or when a fellow dictator needs a little more political pressure from war torn inflated oil prices etc.
Dictators Unite
While writing my thesis, I speculated that dictators globally were uniting, finding mutual benefits in their governance and deceitful tactics. This theory is increasingly recognized as these autocrats appear to be forming a coalition, undermining peaceful unity efforts through conspiracy theories to preserve their power.
Unherd How Autocrats Unite
The True Nature of MAGA
MAGA was never genuinely about speaking truth to power or restoring America's glory. It has been an elaborate scheme funded by immense wealth, perpetuating anti-American sentiments through fabricated grassroots movements by domestic and foreign actors. This movement has primarily enriched a select few power-hungry dictators and may have been responsible for some of our most horrific moments in history in the past and acts yet to come.
Trump and MAGA
While 'MAGA' predates Trump, he conveniently stepped into a role long in the making. Despite occasional deviations from the MAGA ideology, such as promoting vaccines to emphatic boos, Trump has largely embodied its principles. The real architects of MAGA, however, are likely disillusioned with his unpredictable attacks, which contradict their broader agenda of absolute power.
Nbc News Donald Trump Booed
Trump as a Martyr
Regardless of election outcomes, Trump is poised to claim interference. His rhetoric and the devout belief of his followers in his divine anointment could lead to his martyrdom, especially given his age and the vulnerabilities it brings. This martyrdom could solidify his legacy while serving the interests of MAGA strategists who find him increasingly burdensome even if he “wins.”
Factcheck Trumps Bogus Voter Fraud Claims
La Times Trump Democrats Effort Presidential Ballot

Where’s the YouTube video that’s was promised for Friday??? This is all going past the ridiculous stage, there YouTube videos are always recycled footage that we’ve all seen before from tik tok or ig stories it’s nothing new and exciting, there life consists of getting nails done, opening PR, talking about moving, Renee’s bf, paid brand trips (that they complain about travelling too), there next uk travels and how they excited to make content when they couldn’t even do it the first time. They are 25 year old girls, look at other influencers at 25 or even younger, who have there shit together, regularly posting and making content, whilst running a business even. These girls say they have an editor so why is it so damn hard to sit down or go out in the city you live in because there’s actually so much to do, I have lived on Sunshine Coast my wholes life and have been to the city and outer suburbs hundreds of times and still find new things to do, so why do they struggle so much. They stay up late and sleep in, then say that need to change their habits, yet don’t. The girls are constantly gaslighting and deluding eachother into thinking what they are doing is completely fine and whoever “hates/ criticises them” are just haters and they are horrible people. They always say fucking quotes in there videos or post it to ig stories, what’s the point when you aren’t even going to go by it. They don’t deserve a platform nor all this free PR they get. They think by post every couple of days it’s okay and then following it up with “we are so grateful for this opportunity to do this as job”🤣🤣🤣 no you girls are lazy!!!

🪞 “It's much easier to get in that it is to get out,” Emilie Autumn used to say. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4.1 - Part 4.2
She was not wrong. Welcome back to the Asylum write-up!
In this installment, we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty of the enmity between EA and her fans.
It's time for war. It's time for blood. It's time... for tea. 🎵

THE PRESENT DAY: “ASK ME ANYTHING (WELL, NOT QUITE)”

​

"Ask me anything" titles are catchy, and that’s why I’m using one. But, obviously, don’t ask me anything, by which I mean that, if you think I wouldn’t answer it, you’re probably right. Ask me something really good. I’d love to answer you. I’d love to have comments on these posts, in fact, so that I could answer questions there regularly and ask you things as well, but insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, or so Einstein is supposed to have said, and attempting to create yet another interactive online venue after every previous attempt has ended in heartbreak—forums, facebook groups, social media accounts—it would indeed be insanity to think that this time would be any different. So there are no comments. This too is heartbreaking in the sense that, and you may not realize this, but I desperately want to connect more completely with you—to be able to intelligently converse and share and exchange. We can do that in person, of course, because the wrong people never show up in person. Isn’t that funny… So, perhaps we’ll have to arrange that;). I’ll start you off with an example question I’d want to know if I were you (I can almost guarantee that you do not want to know this). Q. Hey EA, how do you keep your wireless bodypack transmitter secure when you are leaping about in skimpy costumes and doing frequent costume changes? Also, dye your roots. A. Fantastic question, EA, and I just dyed my roots thank you very much. ... (Deleted blog post followed by a year of radio silence, 2022 📝)

Sooo. For the past five-ish years, the vibe in the Asylum has been that of a protracted Christmas dinner where everyone is tensely moving their food around in their plate, bracing themselves for whatever will trigger the screaming match. Wondering what it's going to be this time. Weary old-timers make small talk about the food because no other topic feels safe. Every glance, every forced smile, is fraught with eons-old grudges and unspoken regrets; every nervous pleasantry sounds like a thinly-veiled accusation. Aunt Emilie always insists on hosting, but not-so-secretly hates having people over. Sooner or later, she finds a way to get all of these assholes out of her house. Most of the adult children are daydreaming about going no-contact.
Everyone ready for some dysfunctional family history?
CW for discussion of bullying, online harassment, mental illness stigma.

YE OLDEN DAYS: CUCKOOS OF A FEATHER NEST TOGETHER

In the beginning, it was beautiful.
EA had the excellent instinct to start banking on her online presence📝 long before MySpace was even a thing. She had a website, several online stores, an active LiveJournal and a ProBoards forum right from the turn of the millennium.
In 2004, she attached an official forum to her website; the earliest archive shows 74 registered users. By the time Opheliac came out in 2006, that number had grown tenfold. And it was, by most accounts, a pretty dope place to be! (I should specify that this write-up focuses on the anglophone side of the fandom: there were also thriving fan-run communities in at least German, French, and Spanish. Because EA doesn't speak any of those languages, the lucky bastards were mostly left alone.)
Forum users enjoyed interacting with some of EA's closest IRL friends and associates – and with the mistress of the house herself (user flair: PsychoFiddler), when she occasionally responded to comments under her own posts. But that wasn't even the main appeal for many. For a long time, on top of all EA-related topics, the official forum had very active “Off-Topic” subforums, with lively and friendly conversation on a variety of subjects. (There was even a “Filthy Libertines (18+)” sub for a while, which was closed due to preemptive concerns about minors.) Swear words (not slurs) were allowed and encouraged, and moderation was overall pretty loose beyond basic enforcement of civility. There was a lot of mutual support, creativity, and solid banter going around.

It wasn't just about Emilie on the forums. People could chat about almost anything with near free reign, making connections and lifelong friends. ... This community mattered SO MUCH to people. They felt included, accepted, and understood within the walls of the Asylum. People invested their time and creative energy into keeping the forums a vibrant, active community, and made sure that carried over into the real world. ... I've never seen anything like it in a fan space. I doubt I ever will again. (@Asylum_Oracle - “Fandom History” Instagram highlight 🔍📝, which contains most of the sources for this segment.)

And it did, indeed, carry over into the real world. There were numerous meet-ups – a few organized by EA, many more spontaneous. People who didn't know any other EA fans in real life, or were just excited to add new Plague Rats to their friend group, would regularly connect with other forum users from their area to meet up and hang out before EA shows. “Who else is dressing up??”
In 2008, for instance, EA held an afternoon meet-up at Lincoln Park in Chicago. 📺 The event was free to attend; it featured live acoustic music and a reading from EA's upcoming book, the intriguingly-titled Asylum for Wayward Victorian Girls.
On the appointed day, EA rolled up in a fabulously tousled red wig, bedazzled white corset and steampunk-altered wedding dress. She had brought friends alongs. Sporting blue hair and a pink bustle and corset was her Chicago bestie, the main forum admin. Rocking a guitar and a top hat was EA's sound engineer, the soft-spoken wizard behind the Victoriandustrial sound, who was also a forum mod. The photographer from the original Opheliac cover art was there as well; he was formally introduced by EA and got his own round of applause.

People who would never normally be involved in an artist's fanbase were in EA's world. And not only were they known – they were respected and incredibly active with the fanbase. These people who managed an online message board were willing to engage in real-world meet-ups (with no security??) because of how tight-knit the community they had built was. People turned out to this event. People traveled to go to this event. It was a short reading of a book that hadn't been released yet, and wouldn't be for some time. Why? Because not only was it a chance to meet Emilie and listen to parts of the new book, but it was also a chance to hang out with their friends from the Asylum. ... The fandom really was a family for a lot of people. (@Asylum_Oracle)

“SERIOUSLY, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE.”

It all started with The End.
The End Records, that is! Quick refresher: in 2009, after three years or so with Trisol, EA split from the label over allegations that the owner was embezzling money from ticket sales. A few months later, she signed with The End Records. Understandably, EA still wanted to sell the album that had made her famous, and to which she had smartly retained the rights – which meant a brand new, “Deluxe” release of Opheliac. (Remember, from part 3? The one you could pre-order as a bundle with the book? Some projects are just cursed, I guess.)
At that point, Opheliac had been released three times already, as recently as the year before, with only slight variations in format and tracklist. (Yes, that is a theme in this story.) The End Records version would feature new cover art and a handful of new tracks, but overall, it was... you know... the same album.
(The following paragraphs are largely sourced from this excellent recap 🔍📝, which also provides potato screenshots for all quotes.)
One fateful day of August 2009, a user started a thread entitled “Opheliac US edition deluxe re-release??” in the “EA News” subforum. In the thread, some people were kind of balking at the re-do, pondering whether to buy the “new” Opheliac or sit this one out. Some expressed that after three years, they were jonesing for a new album. Others shared what B-sides or dream covers they would have liked to see included on the bonus disc. Just... fans being fans, in a fan discussion space.
And then EA jumped out from behind the curtains.

Fan: Okay. Before I start, I just want you to know that I think it's very good that EA is getting more popularity, and that she can release lots of albums, but - are 5 editions of the same album really needed? You may say now “ah, it's not the same, it has 2 bonus tracks” or whatever, but I mean: it's not new material. Now don't get me wrong. I'm happy for it, maybe I'll even buy it, but I'm just wondering if she shouldn't keep herself busy with other (maybe more important) stuff? * hides * EA: Nobody's forcing you to buy it. Thanks.

Record scratch.

Fan 1: is this Opheliac release version number 4? lol If she's recording NEW tracks, then surely they deserve to be sold by themselves, otherwise people are going to have to buy an album that they may have already bought twice (like me!). But... alas, I am a fool and adore everything this woman does... im buying it lol Fan 2: exactly – if it was just reissuing the last version of Opheliac to tap into new markets that would be fine (...) but if they start adding extra bits of material to albums people already have then the true muffins are going to feel obliged to buy new copies (...) EA: How exactly are you obliged to buy anything? Nobody is forcing you to spend a fucking penny, my dears. I suppose it would make more sense to you to simply not have my records available any more as the old label I just escaped from will no longer be distributing them? Forgive me for adding extra tracks. No obligation necessary.

...Okay, so I'm pretty sure that we can see both sides of the argument here. Fans are annoyed at the idea of spending money on barely-anything-new, because they love EA and buy every single CD she releases. EA is exasperated by fans acting like she's twisting their arm and somehow resenting the inclusion of new material, when she was just ensuring that her album would remain available for purchase and trying to keep things interesting.
But maybe we can also agree that those replies should have been screamed into a pillow rather than typed out on a keyboard.
EA was getting increasingly (and, I'll just say it: disproportionately) sarcastic and defensive in her replies. Enter poor FantineDormouse.
FantineDormouse meant well, I think. Maybe she thought, she's spiraling. Maybe she thought, friends don't let friends go down that road. Granted, FantineDormouse probably should have known better than to phrase it the way she did. Or to assume that EA perceived her as a friend.
Either way, at some point, FantineDormouse jumped in and posted the comment that finally made EA lose it. THE comment which, overnight, ended the honeymoon period of the Asylum, triggering a doomsday domino effect from which the fandom would never truly recover. Are you comfortably seated?

FantineDormouse: Uhm, Emilie, love, I don't mean to sound rude or anything... but maybe you should have a cup of tea and relax a little.

...
* sound of archduke getting shot *

EA: Excuse me? You can throw this onslaught of absolute cruel bullshit at me and those I work with in my own space that I own, and I can't say anything back? How fucking patronizing. Relax? Are you fucking kidding me? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? FD: I'm not trying to piss you off even more, Emilie. And trust me, I have to deal with it myself, and as much as I would really love to punch the cunts I have to deal with in the face, I don't. You're pissed off, I get it. You're bipolar, which makes it 10x worse, I get that. I'm just not the person to stand around and do nothing when a fight where I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of regret is going on.

Famous last words. Literally! Immediately after EA delivered her irate closing statement – which includes one of my all-time favorite EA zingers, bolded...

EA: I cannot believe this... You just don't stop, do you? So just because I've shared the personal information with you all that I happen to be bipolar, I can't get pissed off at all of you being perfectly awful in the very space that I pay fuckloads a month to have up (has it ever occurred to you all that I pay dearly for this space you play around in?) Why not just tell me that I must be upset because it's my time of the month? Seriously, get the fuck out of my house. You are unbelievable, and your level of patronization is almost criminal. Don't make me write another book. With muffins like you, who needs enemies? Nothing I say or feel is legitimate, not ever ever ever because I'm bipolar... discredited before I begin... unbelievable...

...FantineDormouse got permabanned.
Jaws dropped. After days of infighting between white knights, detractors, and crossfire negotiators, several mod resignations, and general mayhem surrounding the ban, EA made a post entitled “In Which: I Invite You to Make a Fucking Choice.” 📝 For brevity's sake (cue laugh track), I can't reproduce it in all of its righteous splendor, but it's quite a read. It runs the gamut from fair and articulate points about how mental illness shouldn't be used to discredit someone's legitimate anger... to histrionic commands that “deserters to the cause” should “turn in their weapons” if they can't handle her way of doing things.

To those of you who appear not to understand why said posts, most especially those of the banned party, were offensive to me, I give you the option to either educate yourselves on your own time and in your own space (because please never forget that this is my space that I share with all of you at my own expense, and in which I generally give you all the freedom I would wish for myself), or to resign your posts in the Asylum Army – this is not the place for you, and I humbly suggest that you turn your attention and support towards other artists of a more placid, non-controversial, and less opinionated nature; there are more than enough of them out there, and I’m sure they all have forums of their own.

Some fans did leave. Most stuck around, whiplashed. Soon, the storm quieted down, and business as usual resumed on the forum. But something had been damaged beyond repair. The FantineDormouse fiasco had erected walls and drawn lines in the sand, both around EA and among her fans; its sad specter would haunt every Asylum crisis that spiked up forever after. “Fucking Patronizing Fucking” or “FPF” 🔍 became memetic shorthand in the fandom for overreaction and self-righteousness. 🐀
...And now you understand why, in the following years, some fans were so delicate and diplomatic in voicing their very legitimate complaints about messed-up orders, unsigned books, and puzzling lies... while unofficial platforms like Tumblr flourished with pent-up resentment and snark. 🦠

A NOTE ON HARASSMENT: “MAD GIRL, CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO YOU?”

Wouldn't they stop When you asked them to leave you alone? (“Mad Girl”, 2008 🎵)

Now, let's be clear, because it should not be minimized: EA has also been the target of genuine online harassment. Based on the simple fact that she is a woman with a public presence on the internet, I have zero doubt that EA has received (and perhaps continues to receive) more than her share of truly vile, bigoted, creepy and threatening messages – and, knowing what I know about the darker recesses of the Asylum, a terrifying amount of emotional blackmail and obsessive projection from people who hold her to punitively high standards. I'm also inclined to believe that it started way before she ever did anything that warranted any backlash. And that fucking sucks. It's repulsive and inexcusable, and the people who harass her should crawl into a hole and live among the worms.
Notwithstanding. In my decade-plus of following EA drama, the public comments on EA's own platforms (where people knew she was likely to be reading) have been, for the most part... civil and nuanced, and relatively mindful of the human? Even very confrontational comments (some clearly written from a place of anger and desire to shame) rarely resorted to outright name-calling or cruelty. When abusive or bigoted language did crop up, it was often promptly shut down by other fans as gross and uncalled for. In short: I have, with mine own two eyes, in real time, read some of the comment sections that EA described as cesspools of blind rage and odious attacks, and... I just couldn't see it.
If anything, for a long time, a lot of the angry comments directed at EA during any given controversy read more like break-up letters to an ex-best friend: harsh, curt and targeted in a way that cuts deep.... but also kind of screams how much love you still have for this person, against your better judgement.
Not that it wouldn't mess a person up to get hundred of those in a matter of hours, even if they don't individually qualify as “abusive”.
It's worth noting that prior to becoming semi-famous and regretting it, EA was also (by her own account and among other forms of abuse) a victim of intense childhood bullying. It feels like the two situations are closely connected in her mind when her focus seamlessly transitions from one to the other. 📺 I don't think that tremor in her voice is put on.
Based on her writings, I get the feeling that over the years, EA has developed a very black-and-white view of two monolithic groups of people. There's (an idealized vision of) her “real audience”, well-dressed, well-read, kind-hearted, and Asylum-savvy, who she fully trusts to “get it” – and buy it, and love it, unquestioningly, whatever “it” may be at any given time – because that is the true measure of love and loyalty. These are the people she makes art and merch for, the people she writes heart-emoji-filled newsletters to, and desperately longs to see in person again.
And then there's the lynch mob, those who really don't “get it”: the trolls, the faceless creeps, the basement-dwelling mouthbreathers, the ones who stalk her every move obsessively, waiting for any chance to spam her with vicious abuse and slander and obscenities. The latter only exist online (they are manifested into arbitrary existence by the internet itself, not by anything EA said or did), and there is zero overlap between the two sets of people. That seems to be the official narrative.

The "public eye" isn't an [enviable] place to be, and the closer I've come to it, the more horrified I've been. Because, for starters, who is "the public?" Is "the public" my audience? Hell no. My audience is special. They are not the general public. If they were the general public I would be a lot wealthier. The "public eye" means getting stalked, harassed, viscously judged, and put in danger. If I do things in the future that gain notoriety, I will do them in spite of fame, not because of it. I am out for world domination, but not fame. (Interview for The Moaning Times, 2014 📝)

In real life (well, mostly online, but I mean: on this shared plane of existence), things play out slightly differently. The Venn diagram of “true blue fans” and “people who criticize EA" and "people who know way too much about EA” is a circle. The call is 100% coming from inside the Asylum, and I think EA rationally knows that. But here's the thing: no matter how many shows and meet-and-greets you've dressed up for, how many loving and supportive comments you've left, or how many family heirlooms you once pawned to purchase a copy of the not-for-sale 2003 DJ pressing of Enchant... the instant EA feels attacked, everyone is a saboteur and a bully until proven otherwise, and suspected treason is dealt with on the spot. One strike, you're out. Unfortunately for everyone involved, her threshold for bullying seems to be “any remotely thoughtless opinion from any stranger on the internet”.
It makes for outstanding human-interest entertainment... but it also sounds an awful lot like the unhealthy patterns of a person suffering from all sorts of PTSD. 🔍 So, please bear that in mind as you read through this write-up. It's easy to make EA out to be the sole villain, a paranoid and delusional drama queen, based on her extreme reactions to things that often “weren't that bad”. Anything can, in fact, be “that bad” when you're thrown back into the very worst moments of your existence every time your brain decides that the situation is even remotely similar.
PTSD takes over your rational mind and actively distorts your perception of reality. That can be how a person ends up impulse-reacting to “a few people expressing an unfavorable opinion” as if the entire internet had just ganged up on them with knives. Which makes their audience feel unjustly accused, which makes them hostile, which gives the person actual good reason to feel attacked... and so the cycle of hurt continues.

You know the games I play And the words I say When I want my own way You know the lies I tell When you've gone through hell And I say I can't stay You know how hard it can be To keep believing in me When everything and everyone Becomes my enemy, and when There's nothing more you can do I'm gonna blame it on you – It's not the way I wanna be I only hope that in the end You will see: It's the Opheliac in me... (“Opheliac”, 2006 🎵)

And YES, it is extremely regrettable to have this as a trigger, when you're a public figure and you're bound to receive more negative feedback than the average citizen. “It's what she signed up for”, “it comes with the territory” and all that jazz. I really don't think EA was unaware of that fact when she decided to become a musician, share her personal life, and form an intense parasocial bond with her audience. But maybe she underestimated how hard it would be to process and recover from.
Just because you expect something unpleasant to happen, doesn't mean your psyche will be ready to handle it when it does – or that you'll pick the best and most effective strategy to deal with it.

A MADHOUSE UNDER MARTIAL LAW: MARCHING INTO THE FORUM WARS

There are two sides to every story... except for this one! (“If I Burn”, 2012 🎵)

You may have noted the military imagery in EA's “Make a Fucking Choice” response post – “resign your post in the Asylum Army”! What do psychiatry and the military have in common? They're both institutions of top-down social control. 🔍 EA's mixed metaphor may be a bit clunky, but it did foreshadow the evolution of the Asylum – in terms of aesthetics and power dynamics – in the years that followed the FantineDormouse incident and the release of The Book.
EA's next big release after the Asylum book came in 2012. It was a new album, an outline of the soon-to-be Asylum musical, called Fight Like a Girl (FLAG for short). As the name suggests, the main mood was bellicose. Incidentally, in the interim years, EA's communication style generally became noticeably more combative, incendiary, and (within her own spaces) controlling.📝 You remember those quirky word filters on the forum, that would change “fan” to “muffin” and “bra” to “teacup holder”? They kind of took on a Nineteen-Eighty-Four-burlesque flavor when you realized that one filter automatically changed “Fischkopf” to “Liddell” - and that circumventing the rule to address her totally real last name would get you banned, as would any discussion of her family. (“Wikipedia, random internet sites and heresay are not credible sources.” - Mod reminder of forum rules, 2010.)
Also, you try sustaining a serious, grown-up conversation among concerned fans about how Emilie Autumn should “take ratsponsibility for her mistakes out of ratspect for her muffins”. Thus, the official Asylum forum kept a tight grip on overt criticism of EA's claims and actions.

The Emilie Autumn forum is a dystopian hell. Truth be told, when I decided to leave you could not do anything but gush about Emilie. Otherwise all of her extremist arse kissing fans will be down your throat, ripping you apart in seconds, if you so much as questioned her behaviour. So much for freedom of opinion, let alone the idea of creating a harmonious community for ‘outcasts’. Hahaha. (2014 🐀)

The word filter thing really wasn't a big deal – I'm just pointing it out as one goofy expression of EA's need to control the narrative and rhetoric, which became especially noticeable in those post-book, pre-FLAG years. By that point, EA's fuse had been shortened by near on half a decade of non-stop touring / recording / writing / promoting / adjusting to the pressure and demands of an ever-growing fanbase, while also dealing with a horrorshow of personal turmoil and health issues behind the scenes. In other words: she was done taking any shit, in any form, or humoring anyone's ridiculous feedback regarding anything.
To be fair, it was never her forte to begin with. Will it come as a shock if I tell you that EA doesn't have the greatest track record for successful collaborative work? Let's do a quick-cut montage!
EA's very first corporate sponsor was her mother's “Enchant Clothing & Costume” online store 🔍; she went on to claim that her mother was dead. She sessioned for Billy Corgan, that went super well. 🎵 She liked Courtney Love for a minute, but that didn't work out because she felt that Courtney only valued her for her pee. 📝 (It probably didn't help that in early 2006, while EA was recording her post-break-up-tell-all album about Corgan, C-Love was recording her post-rehab-redemption album with Corgan. 🔍 Either way, EA didn't seem to like Courtney anymore after that. Courtney likes her, though! 📝) The one artist EA has ever approached for a duet (and by approached, I mean she recorded a demo and threw the CD on stage when he played Chicago in 2004) was, of all people, Morrissey. That never came to pass, thank mercy 🔍 – this fandom has suffered enough. In 2005, EA recorded some haunting vocals and violins for a potential collab with the frontman of Attrition. When, three years later, they were used on one track 🎵 of Attrition's All Mine Enemies Whisper, she alleged 📝 that the recordings had been obtained from her under the false pretense of a different project, then hideously altered to sound “out of tune”, and used without her permission. She enlisted her fans to boycott the album and the band, and threatened legal action. Meanwhile, on LiveJournal and Attrition's message boards, band associates were appalled: according to them, EA had been aware of the project's nature from the start... and had been completely unreachable, even through her label, during the months of its development. (Besides, Attrition is a semi-obscure English darkwave band from the 80s, whose micro-distributed albums don't even have their own Wikipedia pages... so I wonder what EA was hoping to get out of that theoretical lawsuit. These people own nothing but vintage gain pedals!) The song “Cold Hard Cash” 🎤 by Angelspit (who contributed a remix to one of her EPs in 2008) may or may not be an EA diss track. 🐀 Back when indie jewelry brand RockLove (which now has licensing deals with Disney, Marvel, and DC) was still someone's bedroom project, their first drop was an EA-inspired collection 🔍, which appears in many early Opheliac photoshoots. The partnership was terminated on bad terms, for unclear reasons; the RockLove owner shared in a statement that EA had “drunk the cool-aid” of Trisol Guy's shady business practices, and that the two of them had been spamming her with “crazed angry message[s]” for days.
Why am I talking about this? Because it was precisely one such ill-fated business partnership that triggered the Great Asylum Secession.
One fine day of spring 2010, the owner of vegan make-up brand Aromaleigh popped onto the Asylum forum to announce that they were cutting ties with EA, with damning receipts of copy-pasted emails (lost to time). Basically, the brand had been sponsoring her for half a decade, and while Aromaleigh had been actively promoting her music and tours, EA hadn't exactly been returning the favor. (Indeed, the extent of EA's sponcon seemed to have been a banner link to their website on her front page, and a single “random drunken endorsement” LiveJournal post that kind of reads like satire📝, from 2005.)
EA responded by banning the owner's account, deleting the thread, and posting this flippant statement a few days later:

Dearest Plague Rats, To be honest, I have no idea of what the hell happened with Aromaleigh, and I don't care to find out – the whole drama is a complete mystery to me, as I've been away for months touring and have not been in contact with anyone. All I know is that I've been promoting the company for ages and have not asked them for anything in years. (...) Please focus on more interesting things. I am. (“Save the Drama...” forum post, March 2010)

Posts questioning her good faith in the conflict were deleted from the forum. Shortly thereafter, citing how prolific and labor-intensive the Asylum forum had grown, EA shut down all non-EA related subforums – which, among many other topics, included a pretty active thread about Aromaleigh products.
So one Plague Rat decided to create a separate, members-only forum 📝, where users could recreate some of the now-defunct off-topic threads... and also freely voice their critical opinions of EA's behavior without fear of backlash from mods or rabid stans. Thus, “The Reform” was born. (Reform [n]: amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved.)
For a few weeks, the two-state solution seemed to work fine. And then word spread among forum mods and other diehard fans that there was this horrid other forum, where obsessive haters gathered to spew disgusting lies and vitriol about EA... and soon enough, it was bedlam in the Asylum.
Any explicit mention of the Reform was forbidden on the Asylum forum. Suspicion of participation in the Reform would get you banned. The party line was that The Reform was the enemy 🐀 – even though a number of people were active on both forums, because they liked freedom of expression almost as much as they liked EA. Double agents would lurk on the forum and report back with snark material; sycophants would infiltrate the Reform to identify traitors – much to the amusement of the “haters”, who mocked them and their ilk for “licking EA's pink sparkly boots”. There was no containing the seething, or the sass, among Asylum ranks.
Pretty soon, the insubordination spread to Tumblr. There was the “Ask the Reform” Q&A blog, where questioning fans could interact with “Rebel Rats”, get more details on past drama, and make up their own minds about the people EA called bullies.
And then, there were the “confession blogs”, which published anonymous submissions about EA, positive, negative or neutral, with little censorship. Finally, you didn't even have to pick a throw-away username on a private forum to voice your hottest / strangest / most controversial EA takes. Fans could vent, rant, lament, wonder, shitpost to their heart's content, anonymously. Obviously, given the context of frustration and censorship in the fandom, a lot of the first waves of confessions were EXTREMELY negative.
EA's acolyte Veronica managed to get the first one shut down. If memory serves, she misunderstood the confession blog format, and may have believed that all the posts on “Emilie Autumn Confessions” came from one or a small group of individuals. She was genuinely devastated, and wrote the blog admin to let them know that they were a terrible person who said terrible things. The admin was mortified, apologized profusely and deleted the blog of their own initiative. (Which goes to show that the concept did not come from cruel and malicious anti-fans, as detractors often claimed.)
But a new blog sprung up almost immediately, with a different mod team, and did not surrender. And much like in EA's own book, once the Plague Rats found out that they possessed the gift of speech... well, they really took to it.
Established in 2011 and passed on through generation after generation of mod teams to the present day, Wayward Victorian Confessions would turn out to be the longest-lived institution in the EA fandom. For over a decade now, through all the bleakest nights and dankest debacles of the Asylum, and despite its initial reputation as a troll den, WVC has acted as a kind of neutral ground and vox populi for the active fanbase and anti-fanbase. (The last nominally-active EA fansite to date, She Fights Like a Girl, is actually an offshoot of WVC: one of the old admins created it as a database to answer “frequently asked questions” about EA.)
Wayward Victorian Confessions has now outlived every other EA platform, official and unofficial. Were it not for the continued existence of the “troll den”, what little fan community survives in 2024 would be non-existent, plain and simple. To quote from late 20th century Canadian philosophy: isn't it ironic?

I feel like [WVC] is the only place I feel any of that old Asylum community kind of feeling I felt before EA got so focused on the book. It sucks that it’s so full of unhappiness, and I wish she hadn’t poisoned the sanctuary she claimed to have built. It’s just kind of fallen apart, like a crumbling building. (🐀 2016)

CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

If you're reading this I am going to assume one of three things:
A. You're MC-romance-curious and you want some great recommendations to get the juices flowing.
B. You're an MC romance hater and find yourself here to observe what paltry excuses I have for recommending this genre.
You’re about to comment "Good God Ochenkruto stop being so passe. 2011 is long gone, get with the times! We're into Mafia Dudes now, bikers are OUT!"
C. You're a die-hard (I refuse to type ride or die don't even fucking ask me) fan and want to see your faves here.
Before I get to the heart of the matter, a small preface:
I'm not here to debate MC romance as a genre, the depictions of biker culture or the feminist implications of reading these books.
Let's just say that I've run these ideas through my neurotic Judith Butler quoting brain and decided "Whatever, sometimes a romance reader wants to be stepped on by a sweaty guy with a beard."
Let those who have never felt the same way cast the first stone!
As criteria, my taste runs towards the medium-dark, heavy on grit, a 1% club and older characters. This might not be your criteria and I'll note books/authors I enjoyed that may deviate from this standard. I do not enjoy duologies, or trilogies about the same couple.
Lastly, and probably unfairly, but if the first book in a series has a virgin MFC, I will not read the series. It's not a fair rule but it's “me” rule!
Again, this is an opinion-based list, in no way am I casting aspersions on you if I'm critiquing your potential favourites, the reader's taste is not debatable, just the book itself.
Plus, I don't even have good taste, trust me.
Not that anyone needs to justify their tastes or their reading preferences but I enjoy these romances because they often center lower middle-class/working-class characters, frequently giving second chances to older MFCs, single mothers, and women who have blown up their lives and are trying to claw their way back to stability.
Generational poverty, the cracks in unfair systems, the struggle against that system laid bare and open, the hidden darkness of small-town life.
MC Romances give the "romance underclass" heroines their time to shine. Struggling women hanging on by the skin of their teeth, ready to do anything for those they love. Waitresses in trashy roadside bars with big dreams. Hookers without a heart of gold. Mercenary club sluts who want their piece of forever. Strippers who just want to dance. Runaways, former drug users, and women without housing or support. I want them all to find their perfect Epilogue.
The fantasy is that an outlaw, with sexy motor oil stains on his too-worn jeans is going to get you there, but realistically. A new used car, a fixed fridge, a place to live without mold.
Plus his forearms and rough voice and you know, commitment and monogamy.
Cream Of The Crop
{Reapers MC Series by Joanna Wylde}. Undisputed and unchallenged in balancing hot chemistry, dark-ish romance and small-town outlaw grit.
Please see this and this for more information.
Pretty Good
{Chaos Series by Kristen Ashley}
Not at all dark and not at all 1%.
And yet I dare you to read the big reveal scene in that book about the sad woman and the asshole she left twenty years ago and not cry like a loon.
Double dare you.
Warning: KA gets rightfully called out for problematic content, especially her portrayal of WOC side characters and this series has this issue in three of the books.
{Steel Bones MC Series by Cate C Wells}
More age gap than I like and less darkness than I prefer. Yet, her MMCs could easily also be wolf shifters and that's a compliment.
Bijou Hunter has a million small, three to five books, series in an extended small-town universe between West Virginia and Kentucky. Very slice of life, working-class ethos and extremely low angst books that span several generations of different chapters of different MCs.
TW: Some of the books and characters have the darkest and saddest backstories I have ever read.
{Dark and Dirty Sinners MC by Serena Akeroyd} is the OTT zany option. This is my "I didn't say it was good, I said I loved it" series.
Unfortunately, most of her MFCs are particularly unpleasant, she seems to excel at sassy heroines with no friends but makes up for it with very weird sex scenes. Again, I didn't say I had GOOD taste!
The "Plan To Finish in Full Shortly" Category
{Desert Dogs Series by Cara McKenna}-Recently a very nice person on this sub recommended that I go back and give this series a try with a different book. But I did not enjoy Book #3!
{Lock & Key Series by Cat Porter} - I got really sad reading the second book in this series and now don't know how to move forward.
{Riot MC Series by Karen Renee}- I'm willing to give the third book in the series a try even though the second one was a frowny face.
{Hell's Handlers MC Series by Lilly Atlas} - I don't have KU so I have to wait until I get a subscription again or some freebies fall on my lap. I medium enjoyed the first book in the series and would read more if I had the chance.
{Brazen Bulls MC by Susan Fanetti} - several interconnected series, but be warned this writer tends to kill off MCs post-HEA in subsequent books. YMMV.
{Torpedo Ink Series by Christine Feehan} is not what I would call very good, in fact, I think it's terrible. The overall plot makes zero sense, and the author tried to shoehorn the Russian mafia with paranormal abilities, kidnapped children turned super assassins into a small-town MC romance. It's the gooniest shit ever BUT WHY I AM STILL WAITING FOR MY LIBBY HOLDS?
Because I told you, I don't have good taste.
Aggressive Nope In Class of Its Own
Tillie Cole's Hades Hangmen MC - I think this might be the most blatant example of an author fetishizing whiteness while also pretending to "address" serious issues like race and class in America, all wrapped up with gratuitous torture porn. I read two books, skimmed a few others and realized that there is no female character that goes unassaulted and undegraded.
Additionally, I found that there is also no book where the author doesn't go overboard glorifying the MFC's "pale, almost translucent skin and sky blue eyes".
And I'm not even touching the redemptions of white supremacist characters matter.
The Rest (aka DNF'd series where I tried one or two books and gave up)
Geri Glen's Kings of Korruption MC Series - Flimsy
Glenna Maynard's Royal Bastards MC Series - Not for me.
Katie Wilde's Hellfire Riders MC Series - Not for me, first three books about the same couple.
Layla Frost's Hyde Series - Not for me.
Jessica Gadziala's Henchmen MC Series - Nope. Too dramatic.
Betty Shreffler's Kings MC Series - Not for me.
Erin Trejo's Soulless Bastards MC Series - Not for me.
Daphne Loveling's Lords Of Carnage MC Series - Not for me. Insta-lust.
Lani Lynn Vale's Hail Raisers MC - Too clean and overly innocent MFC in the first book.
Chelsea Camaron's Regulators MC - - Not for me.
Autumn Lake Jones's Lost Kings MC - First three books about the same couple. I am not three books interested in a biker and a lawyer. I am only one book interested.
Lena Bourne's Devil's Nightmare MC - Some deeply offensive content about a character.
Megan O'Brian's The Ride Series - Not for me.
River Savage's Knights Rebels MC - Not for me.
Ryan Michele's Ravage MC - Almost turned me off the genre completely.
Lane Hart's Savage Kings MC Series - Not for me.
Marie James's Cerberus MC - Too clean. Not for me.
Jamie Begley's The Last Riders - Holy slut shaming Batman! For a slut shamey genre this one takes the cake.
Anne Malcolm's Sons of Templar MC - I was extremely annoyed at these books and I tried to read three of them. Three!
Jordan Marie's Savage Brothers MC - Nope.
So that's it! Perhaps you'll find something from my list to your taste, or maybe you want to make a fiery defence of a favourite series/book that I unjustly dismissed.
Or maybe you hate all my choices and want to tell it to my beautiful, perpetually youthful, even though I haven't had Botox in four years because of IVF, forty-two-year-old face.
By all means, I welcome your ire.

I saw this pop up on Netflix and I was like Jeff Daniels? Tom Pelphrey? Diane Lane? Lucy Liu? Chidi!?!?!? Sign me up!
About 5 minutes in i thought 'wow, JD is playing a really on the nose Trumpian swinging dick business guy, it will be cool to start peeling back the layers'. But no layers were peeled. Once we started spending time with Peepers I got worried. Was Pelphrey overacting? Not really his thing, so what is l happening? Like the dude is just the most annoying and insufferable caricature of a hater, there is no way this is going to convince my brain this is a real person, even for 40 minutes at a time. So I thought, 'wow, these characters are bad archetypes to the point of surrealness, maybe this show is low key super surreal?'. But it was not. There was no surreality. There was no subtlety. Any subtext is couched about as well as a rhinoceros on a la-z-boy. Then there are the plot elements, like the horse show or the several meetings with the bankers. I kept waiting for JD's character to pull out the rug, but he just keeps on doing the stupidest crap imaginable which is also somehow totally predictable. And don't get me stared on the dude who 'assaulted' the police officer. How in the hell is the guy not going to take 60 days? He's got a pregnant wife and a place no executive assistant can afford on their own. He's going to make stand on principle and possibly lose years with his kid, not to mention the income to support them, when his only lifeline is an 'inundated' (quotes because he almost spends no time doing his actual job, when his employer is In a massive crisis) corporate lawyer backed by funds which will soon not exist. The show spends so much time using totally implausible scenarios the set up situations that are predictable and unsatisfying. I keep asking myself 'is this show so stupid it's smart?' Or 'is this show somehow really smart but I am too stupid to grasp it?'
Right now I'm just wondering how all these great actors each read the script, decided it was worth doing, and did it? Did the Netflix algorithm just come to the conclusion that throwing a stupid amount of money at David E Kelley and letting him do whatver he wanted would drive enough viewers to be profitable? How else can a show like this get made?

Read from April 29 – May 04, 2024
1/5 stars I HATED THIS
NOTE: I started out with an open mind read the first chapter, and then this turned into a hate-read.
That being said, no hate to anyone who enjoyed this book, I would love to hear what your opinions are, both on the book and this review :)
Let’s start with my ‘favourite’ quote:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”
Theo Faber, Psychotherapist

I genuinely do not understand what the hype around this book is.
To be fair, the second I read the words ‘TikTok sensation’ in the advertising, I should have known better.
The thing that struck me is that Michaelides is a SCREENWRITER, and this very much reads like a script, it felt like it was written solely for the purpose of selling the movie rights.
TLDR: This book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.
So, save yourself, if this is on your TBR, forget about it, read something else, ANYTHING else, read a newspaper, just don’t read this.
Longer rant Review, including the writing, characters, setting, and my main issues with this novel.

The Writing:

Is mediocre, at best. It’s very much in the style of ‘he said, she said’.
The best way I can describe it is that it reminds me of a middle-grade novel, where everything is stated clear cut and there isn’t much effort needed on the reader’s part.
There’s nothing wrong with that, for a KID’S book, but this is NOT written for a 10-year-old.
There’s long swaths of exposition, the chapters are between 2-5 pages long, we are constantly told who’s speaking, points are stated and then re-stated kind of like:

“Alicia Berenson has not spoken in 6 years” Diomedes said.
That’s right, from what I remember, she has not spoken since her husband was killed, 6 years ago.

So much needless repetition.
The reason I said that it reads like a script is because there is a lot of useless dialogue + endless descriptions.
Each character and setting is described in such needless detail, going on for entire paragraphs, for example:

Barbie was a Californian blonde in her mid-sixties, possibly older. She was drenched in Chanel No 5, and she’d had a considerable amount of plastic surgery. Her name suited her – she looked like a startled Barbie doll. She was obviously the kind of woman who was used to getting what she wanted – hence her loud protestations at the reception desk when she discovered she needed to make an appointment to visit a patient.

This character has been mentioned once or twice previously but she is relevant for MAYBE 15 pages out of 336.
Majority of the side characters are introduced like this, however, Theo isn’t really described in much detail beyond the ‘tall, dark and brooding’ trope and neither is Alicia, so the 2 protagonists are essentially blank slates.
The dialogue is so cringey, almost every chapter mentions the weather [this is set in the UK], like the weather is used as filler relentlessly.
There’s a bunch of continuity errors, the main one that comes to mind is that at the start of the book when Theo first enters The Grove [don’t even get me started on the name of the hospital, it sounds like the name of a cartoon villain’s layer, not a psych hospital] he is asked to give up his lighter and any other objects that could be used as weapons, yet he and majority of the side characters smoke CONSTANTLY INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.
The writing also reminded me A LOT of Colleen Hoover’s writing, and if that women has no haters, then I’m dead.

The Diary Entries:

Like I said, this book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.
The diary entries are written very weirdly, they don’t read like a journal, where you might get more of a stream of consciousness sort of style, they read like POV switches from 6 years in the past.
They don’t flow and amble like you would expect.
Examples:

Tears collected in my eyes as I walked up the hill. I wasn’t crying for my mother – or myself – or even that poor homeless man. I was crying for all of us. There’s so much pain everywhere, and we just close our eyes to it.
But I ruined the mood, stupidly, clumsily – by asking if he would sit for me. ‘I want to paint you,’ I said. ‘Again? You already did.’ ‘That was four years ago. I want to paint you again.’ ‘Uh-huh.’ He didn’t look enthusiastic. ‘What kind of thing do you have in mind?’ I hesitated – and then said it was for the Jesus picture. Gabriel sat up and gave a kind of strangled laugh. ‘Oh, come on, Alicia.’

The diary entries are not diary entries, they are memories.
People don’t write down entire conversations word for word like this when they journal, like “’
I had lunch with Martha’ he said”, you write it like “Gabriel had lunch with Martha today.”
I know why the diary entries feel so weird, they read like movie scenes, like a flashback.
Like the memory/subject of the diary entry should be playing in the background while someone narrates.
Again, this was a script, not a novel, I stand by this point.

The Characters:

Character development is frankly non-existent, the characters don’t exists as themselves, they exist to serve the plot.
They have no depth, and their motivations are lacking.
Theo faber: he was abused as a kid and is therefore damaged.
Chapter 3 was literally just an exposition dump of his entire childhood, just straight out of the blue.
It was like Chapter one: a report of the murder, chapter 2 further recollection, chapter 3: so my father beat throughout my childhood, I don’t know why.
Theo’s father was verbally and physically abuse, Theo attempted suicide when he was at uni, because the things his dad said made him feel like a failure.
But we are never told WHAT has been said, and therefore, we don’t see why exactly Theo would have doubts about himself.
Abuse shapes you as a person, if we got to hear his inner thoughts about what his father said, it would give greater insight into Theo’s identity as a character.
Besides that, Theo has a RAGING saviour complex,

“Unable to come to terms with what she had done, Alicia stuttered and came to a halt, like a broken car. I wanted to help start her up again – help Alicia tell her story, to heal and get well. I wanted to fix her.”

The book is filled with passages like that.
And besides that, it’s just filled with loads of nonsense psychobabble.
Theo is also OBSESSED with Alicia, the book tells us it’s out of guilt, but I contest and say that he’s just a creep who very much treats Alicia like a failed version of a manic pixie dream girl.
Alicia Berenson: Alicia is a walking contradiction.
We are told that she is beautiful, charming, sophisticated, but she instead comes across as an anti-social, paranoid shut in with serious co-dependency issues.
She has no friends, no relationships outside of her husband Gabriel, no hobbies, or interests outside of painting and having sex with her husband.
All she does in her chapters is paint, have arguments with people, have sex, and walk around.
Side characters: only exist to serve the plot.
Professor Lazarus Diomedes: the name alone makes me cringe.
He’s Greek, he has a lot of instruments in his office including a piano and a harp [which are never brought up after the initial chapters he’s introduced and he never plays any of them], he’s “unorthodox” and shunned, and he basically exists to be Theo Faber’s ‘yes man’.
Christian: stereotypical work rival who has a habit of calling all the patients bitches.
Yuri: He’s a psych nurse who takes Theo to bar and tell him that he and his wife divorced, and he fell in love with someone else. Fine fair enough, but does he approach this woman like a normal person?
No, he pulls a Joe from YOU and stalks and harasses her.
Yet later on THEO SAYS THAT HE IS A GOOD MAN AND THAT HE IS SORRY DOUBTING YURI. DESPITE INITIALLY BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIS BEHAVIOUR.
Then again Theo himself is a stalker so go figure.

The Setting:

The Grove is supposed to be a mental hospital used to detain mentally ill criminals.
Firstly, all the patients are female. It is never stated that the hospital is an all-female facility.
Second, we never get an idea of the scope of this place, there’s only one therapy room for EVERYONE to use, only 2 psychiatrists on payroll, Diomedes and Christian, 2 therapists, Theo and a side character named Indira, one psychiatric nurse, Yuri and an admin assistant, Stephanie.
The layout and descriptions are confusing, one area is referred to as the ‘Fishbowl’ throughout the novel.
Racism:
I don’t know if Michaelides has some internalized racism going on but every single foreign character has a habit of erasing their cultural identity.
Examples:
Yuri, the psych nurse who is Latvian –

Yuri was good-looking, well built, and in his late thirties. He had dark hair and a tribal tattoo creeping up his neck, above his collar. He smelled of tobacco and too much sweet aftershave. And although he spoke with an accent, his English was perfect.

This sort of backhanded compliment is considered racist, as someone who is POC myself, I’ve gotten this plenty of times and it always gives me the ick.
Jean-Felix, the gallerist –
He spoke with an accent. I asked if he was French. ‘Originally – from Paris. But I’ve been here since I was a student – oh, twenty years at least. I think of myself more as British these days.’
There were more examples, but these are the main ones I found in my notes.

Misogyny:

Firstly, the patients are all female, like I said earlier, it is never stated that it is an all-female facility.
This book is dripping with it, every single female character is either described as a manic pixie dream girl, a maternal figure, or a psychotic bitch.
The DOCTORS refer to their patients as bitches multiple times.
Example:

“She was entirely consumed with herself and her art. All the empathy you have for her, all the kindness – she isn’t capable of giving it back. She’s a lost cause. A total bitch.’ Christian said this with a scornful expression-“
Rowena gave a derisive snort. ‘Because Alicia’s the least responsive, most uncommunicative bitch I’ve ever worked with.’

Besides that, they are often compared to birds:

“I remember Mum and those colourful tops she’d wear, with the yellow stringy straps, so flimsy and delicate – just like her. She was so thin, like a little bird.”
“Alicia was sitting alone, I noticed, at the back of the room. She was picking at a meagre bit of fish like an anorexic bird;”

Alicia is also very much painted as a manic pixie dream girl in her diary entries, almost every page of her POV mentions sex, and it has no effect on the plot.
It was mentioned so often that I ended up keeping track out of boredom [I should have also tracked how often the weather was mentioned].
I think I have 15 tabs in 300 pages by the end of it for just sex scenes.
I don't have an issue with sex, but just like in movies when it gets thrown in for no reason, that's when it irritates me.
And of course the mentally ill woman with possible psychosis and BPD has to be shown as hot and a nymphomaniac.
Every one of her POVs reads like:
“Gabriel and I had an argument and then we had sex.”
“I went for a walk and fantasized about Gabriel.”
“I was trying to paint Gabriel but then we had sex.”
“I had an argument with someone and came home to wake up Gabriel and we had sex.”
I can see why this atrocity is a BookTok favourite.
Oh, and this line: [Warning NSFW]

“It’s still populated by sixteen-year-olds, embracing the sunshine, sprawled on either side of the canal, a jumble of bodies – boys in rolled-up shorts with bare chests, girls in bikinis or bras – skin everywhere, burning, reddening flesh. The sexual energy was palpable – their hungry, impatient thirst for life. I felt a sudden desire for Gabriel – for his body and his strong legs, his thick thighs lain over mine. When we have sex, I always feel an insatiable hunger for him – for a kind of union between us – something that’s bigger than me, bigger than us, beyond words – something holy.”

She’s out on a walk and salivating over 16-year-olds. Enough said.

Medical Malpractice:

Not only is a lot of the psychology in this book outdated, but in general, there is so much misinformation.
The psychology is so outdated, and it's mostly centered around Freud.
The biggest example I can think of is Alicia’s initial treatment, she has been put on Risperidone, which is an anti-psychotic prescribed to schizophrenic patients [Also prescribed for autism, BPD, etc. but that's on a case by case basis]
In the book, Alicia is shown to be completely out if it, she’s drooling on the floor, and practically comatose.
Risperidone is NOT a sedative [it can have sedative EFFECTS, but sedation is not the function] it acts on dopamine and serotine receptors and is used to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia, i.e. prevent hallucinations and help stabilize mood.
It should not be causing Alicia to be unresponsive.
[Disclaimer, this is just coming from my basic knowledge as a med student and a few quick google searches, if I'm wrong, please correct me.]
Moving on, Theo wants to treat Alicia but she’s on 16 mg of Risperidone, which is the highest safe dose possible.
He asks Christian to lower the dose, what does Christian do?
He stops giving Alicia 16 mg and switches her to 5 mg.
An 11 mg decrease. IN ONE DAY.
There is no gradual decrease, no safety precautions, NOTHING.
For context, Risperidone is prescribed in 0.5 – 1 mg increments.
This means that an 11 mg decrease is incredibly dramatic and DANGEROUS, it can send a patient into a psychotic episode, cause them to relapse and lead to withdrawal.
Christian being a psychiatrist should know this.
Patients are allowed access to a pool table without supervision, all the doctors smoke and offer their patients cigarettes,
Yuri deals drugs, Theo seemingly does no ither work besides talk to Alicia and play detective.

Depiction of mentally ill patients:

Throughout the book the patients are often referred to as animals, monstrous or zombies.
Examples:

“Her [Elif, a patient] face was pressed up against it, squashing her nose, distorting her features, making her almost monstrous.”
“It took four nurses to hold Alicia down. She writhed and kicked and fought like a creature possessed. She didn’t seem human, more like a wild animal; something monstrous.”
[Alicia is painting, Theo is watching]
“I felt like I was present at an intimate moment, watching a wild animal give birth. And although Alicia was aware of my presence, she didn’t seem to mind.”

On top of that, the word borderline gets thrown out A LOT, but it is never explained and is often derogatory.
Example:

[This is Christian the psychiatrist speaking, warning Theo about Alicia]
‘I’m just saying. Borderlines are seductive. That’s what’s going on here. I don’t think you fully get that.’

I am not against problematic writing, as long as it serves a purpose, but Michaelides is not talented enough to do something like this intentionally, and showing patients in this light serves no purpose.
Theo makes it very clear that he thinks that Elif, a Turkish woman, is ugly and rude, it is mentioned every time she is on the page.
This sort of depiction is harmful, mental health gets a bad enough rep as it is, again, I take no issue with problematic writing, but this is not problematic or controversial, this is ignorance.
The depiction of mental illness, coupled with the use of Risperidone, indicates, to me, that Michaelides did not do his research whatsoever.
He just thought of a cool idea and ran with it.
Oh, and lastly, let’s not forget:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”

No, just no. ANYONE can be abusive.
Correlation does not equal causation.
This is blatant misinformation and a very harmful message to send and I was actually so angry when I read that.

The Twist [spoilers]

The twist is the most ridiculous thing, and it hangs on by a thread.
I had already guessed that Gabriel was the one who Kathy’s affair partner was, and the entire thing falls apart when you realize that if any of Theo’s chapters were dated, you would figure it out immediately.
That’s a very loose basis for a dramatic reveal.
Yes, Theo is an unreliable narrator and I usually enjoy such stories, but this was just lazy.
I’m sorry, Theo followed Gabriel all over London and never ONCE saw his face, never heard Kathy moan his name when he was spying on them, not ONCE.
It’s poor when your twist relies on my suspension of disbelief.
Conclusion
- Poorly written, reads like a middle-grade novel. Michaelides is a screenwriter, and this very much reads like a script, designed to be easy to follow and direct.
- Horrible depiction mental health, both as a patient and in practice.
- Hollow, 2D characters.
- Misogynistic.
- Overall waste of time, save yourself.

I'll just quote the post from 'farms as I can't link it on Reddit, it's a good summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8vylyi_aY
So Chris did a livestream Q&A for his Ghost Doctor channel and it was pretty funny through and through. Chris kept saying all kinds of crazy shit and generally gave off schizo vibes the whole time, he is very adamant through the whole stream that he's better than every paranormal expert living today "I've evolved so much in this field that I can't learn from anybody anymore". If you enjoy listening to delusional schizo ramblings with a bunch of cope mixed in then I would recommend giving it a listen but the highlights are listed below.
Highlights: He has his Irate Gamer logo on the screen for the whole stream for some reason
0:47 Chris appears late to the stream and claims "Dark Forces" always try to prevent him from streaming and this was no exception. He believes there are spirits fucking with his computer giving it the "blue screen of death". He also says he is feeling sick and gives the reasoning "when you are as attuned to something like the secrets of the afterlife as I am the resistance is exerted grunting"
2:35 Chris has opened a new Ghost Doctor website where you can hire the Doctor himself to cleanse your house of evil spirits, demons, and other "dark attacks" like sleep paralysis, remotely. He also once again claims that the "Dark Forces" try to stop the website from going up. He offers a few tiers for his "services", the silver pack will get rid of shadow men and the gold pack will get rid of suicidal thoughts, because I know if I'm feeling suicidal I'm going to call the fucking Irate Gamer to save me and get charged $100. He also offers a book, a "Ghost Doctor Toolkit" and "Tar Water". He says once you buy these you can protect yourself from Dark Forces forever https://ghostdoctorchris.com/
8:52 Chris says he was attacked by a cloaked demon with chains in the middle of the night.
21:50 Chris claims that he is so successful and amasses such huge crowds at paranormal conventions that he's been banned from ever returning to them and that "household names" in the community have stolen his ideas to try to replicate that success. The example he gives is that he says he came up the term "parasitic ghosts" and he's seen others use that term without crediting him. He refuses to name anyone specifically. He goes into this subject again at 37:07 and he desperately insists that he knows what he's talking about and that these people are going to suffer in the afterlife.
24:40 Chris claims he has a new groundbreaking device that he doesn't even want to elude to because it's so crazy and he can't risk it getting out.
25:25 Chris says he talks to schizophrenics and tells them the voices they hear in their heads actually are demons.
26:43 Chris says that he's been told by other big names in the paranormal community "we don't want you here" (lol) He then goes on to explain that "once the genie is out of the bottle" that the "shit will hit the fan" and it will affect everyone, he references the situation he went through with AVGN and Youtube in the past and says this will be much bigger. And apparently according to Chris he's been warned by spirits to watch his back because things are going to come for him.
29:12 Chris tries to get viewers to send him money so he'll answer their questions.
31:00 Chris says that demons embed demonic incantations into chart topping pop songs and the most popular Youtube videos (probably the most sane thing in the stream to be honest)
32:10 Chris claims he witnessed a satanic afterparty at E3 and once again claims that Youtube fucked his channel in 2012 because he didn't fall in line (he doesn't specify what he means by this, I guess he means YT wanted him to worship Satan or something?) and warns popular Youtubers to watch their backs. He says Microsoft is the worst offender for these practices.
36:17 Chris gets distracted by his daughter wandering into his room and then goes on a rant about how spirits commonly try to attack his family and children and it pisses him off. He calls these ghosts low lives which I find hilarious.
47:30 Chris says he is visited all the time by spirits through the night who killed themselves begging for his prayers.
48:37 Chris says he doesn't care he has haters because they are going to be coming to him for help when they die and he will still not turn them down. What a nice guy.
51:58 Again, Chris desperately insists that he knows what he's talking about.
53:08 Chris says he can't talk about astral spiders because he's worried that other people will "steal his knowledge". What a nice guy. He later goes on to talk about them anyway and later says he believes that the tv show Stranger Things was "divinely inspired" because their interpretation of astral spiders was spot on. So essentially Chris watched Stranger Things and learned about astral spiders and then claims that if anyone else talks about them anywhere then they are obviously stealing it from Chris. What a hack lmao
1:00:18 Chris says the only other famous ghost hunter he likes is Zak Bagans (of course he is) but he is worried about him because he says Zak keeps getting darker and darker and he's going to pay for that.
Chris then ends the stream saying that he plans on doing these weekly from now on because "some crazy shit's gonna go down" and he wants to be on stream to talk about it.

Lifetime - Staked: 876.65u, Profit/Loss: +27.79u, ROI: 3.17%, Parlay Suggestions: 168-64 Dog of the Week: 13-15
2024 - Staked: 229.55u, Profit/Loss: -5.57u
As always, scroll down for UFC St. Louis Breakdowns. The following is just a recap of last event’s results.
~UFC 301 (PREVIOUS CARD)~
Staked: 10.75u
Profit/Loss: -0.29u
Parlay Suggestions: 4-1
It may be chalked up as the slightest loss, but the Pereira/Rebecki parlay rolling on means this one could end up in the green in hindsight, so I’m happy with how things went really. Shoutout to Joanderson Brito for a great gameplan, he never let Shore into that fight and I don’t think it really mattered that it ended under strange circumstances. Borralho dominated as expected. Lucindo could have been more live for a submission if she’d had more time in round 1, but her striking was too superior. Drakkar Klose did what he does best. On to the next one.
✅ 5u Caio Borralho to Win at -275 (won +1.8u)
✅ 2u Michel Pereira + Mateusz Rebecki to Win at -105 (rolls on to upcoming event)
✅ 2u Drakkar Klose to Win at -137 (won +1.46u)
❌ 2u Jack Shore to Win at +140
❌ 1u Iasmin Lucindo to Win by Submission at +350
✅ Arb on Martinez/Aldo (won +0.2u)
❌ 0.25u Parlay Pieces
❌ 0.5u Trixie

~UFC St. Louis~
From a fan perspective this card is a bit dry, but from a betting perspective I think it’s got a lot of opportunities and it’s one I’m really looking forward to. At the time of writing, the event is in nine days and I’ve already placed five moneyline bets! It’s nice that there will be a crowd too, the Apex is boring.
Lots to say, so let’s get into it!

~Derrick Lewis vs Rodrigo Nascimento~
Very surprised by the betting line here. Derrick Lewis cannot be trusted to defend a takedown at this stage in his career, and that really isn’t a secret at all.
In my opinion, unless Derrick Lewis is facing a pure striker with equally low output, or a massively inferior level of competition, he shouldn’t be the betting favourite against anyone in the UFC. Of course he’s the most prolific knockout artist the UFC has ever seen so he cannot be too much of a dog either, but he’s literally KO or bust in every single fight. Betting is a game of probabilities, and I think it’s difficult to really argue that Lewis should be favoured to find the KO 50% of the time in a five-round fight. Especially when he faces an opponent that has the capabilities to put him on his back. look how easily Serghei Spivac justified a -225 pricetag against Derrick Lewis! No significant strikes absorbed, and a submission win inside three minutes. How Jailton Almeida didn’t manage to do the same, I’ll never know…but it still was very dominant.
Rodrigo Nascimento may not come to the Octagon with a singlet on, but he’s quite reliable to shoot takedowns when necessary – Such as against Tanner Boser, another heavyweight with notoriously bad takedown defence. Another important facet to his style is his BJJ. It’s been some time since we’ve seen him win by submission, but a heavyweight that looks to finish the fight on the mat will always be better than one who just lays and prays once they set up a dominant position (such as a Curtis Blaydes or a Carl Williams). Lewis is surprisingly durable on the mat, which gives him the opportunity to have another crack at the KO when the next round starts, but a submission threat like a Spivac or perhaps a Nascimento can look to get the fight stopped before that happens.
Nascimento isn’t a bad striker either, and whilst I certainly don’t recommend it, I don’t think it’s super crazy to imagine him possibly winning a striking battle here by playing the range game and out-voluming Lewis – at the very least he will keep it competitive whilst he’s conscious. This isn’t going even going to be as binary as the Spivac fight, where extended periods on the feet are so clearly in favour of Lewis.
Lewis has faced a lot of grapplers recently. He was +370 against Jailton, +180 against De Lima, +190 against Spivac, +300 against Blaydes…so why is he a favourite against an opponent that can also land takedowns against him? And also one who is probably the second best striker amongst those aforementioned names!? I know that Nascimento isn’t a pure grappler like some of them…but surely it would take about 30 seconds of gameplanning to realise that grappling is definitely the route to take here? We’ve seen him go 15 minutes and have control time for more than half a fight before. I also know that Nascimento hasn’t fought a level of opposition anywhere near this experienced or ‘high level’, but given the gap in skills I think there are regional
I’m not saying Nascimento is a vastly superior UFC fighter or someone destined for great things, but he’s well-rounded and capable of executing a very obvious gameplan. I will therefore be playing him for 2u at +140 or better. This is purely a bet based on number I’m getting on Nascimento, and I think everyone should be on it. Perhaps I am putting too much stock into the intelligence of a fighter (something I never like to do), but this really is a must bet. I do not believe you can mathematically justify Derrick Lewis being expected to win more than 50% of the time against an opponent that is better than him at everything except pure power.
I decided to pull the trigger as the more I think about this, the more I think this betting angle is obvious. There’s a risk in going early as Lewis is obviously a popular name, but I think the +137 is clear value, so I took it for 2u.
How I line this fight: Derrick Lewis +125 (45%), Rodrigo Nascimento -125 (55%)
Bet or pass: 2u Rodrigo Nascimento to Win (+137)
Prop leans: None, though Nascimento Submission is the very obvious lean

~Joaquin Buckley v Nursulton Ruziboev~
Late notice fight announcement but glad to see Buckley got himself a co-main spot on a home card. Buckley’s slowly growing into a decent fighter, and has proven to be much more than just the hard-hitting muscle-man that he was originally thought to be. Seeing him get a win over Vicente Luque is pretty mad, I even thought he’d struggle with Alex Morono.
Nursulton Ruziboev’s brief UFC career has seen him win by KO early in round one both times. Yeah, he hits hard. What else? I don’t really know. Buckley can live and die by the sword if you want to go full rabies with him (plenty of KO wins but also KO losses to Di Chirico, Holland and Curtis).
I’m sure this one will be fireworks, but I don’t really know how you could approach betting this one, other than targeting the clearly juiced FDGTD. We got Guskov/Spann at -20000 a few weeks ago, so I wouldn’t hold your breath. Onto the next one. Excited to see the fireworks though.
How I line this fight: No idea
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None

~Terrance McKinney vs Esteban Ribovics~
Terrance McKinney is always an interesting fighter to look at from a betting perspective, because he’s got that unique 5 minutes of danger before falling off a cliff. It’s kind of funny to me how the UFC had to clearly cut back on the level of competition they’d been feeding McKinney, because he hit his ceiling pretty hard in the Sadykhov and Bonfim fights.
The front-runner style therefore makes his fights easy to get creative with, props wise. Basically, you go McKinney R1, or Ribovics R2/3. So which one do you go for? Well, that’s unfortunately where the confident opinions start to run out. McKinney should definitely be live for that R1 finish though, because I think Ribovics will struggle to contend with his power and physicality whilst they’re both fresh. His takedown defence against Radzhabov was not up to par either, and the scrambles could see him get caught in a submission against the opportunistic McKinney all the same.
However, if the fight does make it past that opening round, Ribovics certainly looks spirited and gritty enough to turn up the heat and force McKinney to capitulate like he usually does. It’s one of those weird capitulations where he doesn’t seem gassed or mentally checked out – it feels like he swaps places with his twin brother that’s not a fighter whilst on the stool. Kind of like Alex Hernandez.
So yeah, I’ll do what I usually do in these spots and see what kind of price I can get by building a McKinney R1 or Ribovics R2/3 prop for myself…but other than that I don’t think we’ll be finding any sort of value anywhere here. The McKinney prop narrative is pretty well documented at this stage. Though the live-betting angle will always exist because the 3^rd party people have no idea what they’re watching.
In terms of a moneyline, Esteban obviously has to be favoured due to the higher finishing potential across the available 15 minutes (he could win in R1,2, or 3). Definitely not interested in playing anything than that McKinney 1 or Ribovics 2/3 combination.
How I line this fight: Terrance McKinney +175 (36%), Esteban Ribovics -175 (64%)
Bet or pass: Potential single bet on McKinney R1 or Ribovics R2/3
Prop leans: See above

~Alonzo Menifield vs Carlos Ulberg~
Zo Menifield is a better fighter than many give him credit for, but I think this might be a terrible stylistic fight for him. He’s going up against the much more technical and quick striker, who can also hit pretty hard. For Zo to do the work he wants to do on the feet, he’s going to need to get inside, and for every moment he’s not there he’s going to be on the end of Ulberg’s superior straight shots. He’s basically going to have to get hit twice, to land one himself.
Before I started looking into this fight I was intrigued by Menifield’s potential path to victory via wrestling, but the stats he’s currently averaging 0.67 takedowns per 15 minutes, and just beat a kickboxer across 15 minutes in Dustin Jacoby without landing one. Not sure why I had it in my head that he looks to grapple.
That Jacoby fight does give some credit to Alonzo and indicate that he’s not as outmatched as you’d expect a less technical tank to be. The same logic I used in the opening paragraph really should also have applied to Dustin Jacoby, but DJ’s not a particularly reliable striker and is prone to some moments of stupidity.
So yeah…I think Zo’s got a chance, but it’s going to be an uphill battle that he loses more often than not. The line’s a bit too wide for my liking as Ulberg is flavour of the month at LHW, but either way I see no value to bet either guy here.
How I line this fight: Alonzo Menifield +200 (33%), Carlos Ulberg -200 (67%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None

~Tabatha Ricci v Tecia Torres-Pennington~
Another fight where I am very confused by the betting line. Yes, Tecia Torres has been out of competition whilst having a baby with Raquel Pennington, but it looks like she’s already back in ridiculous shape and I think the narrative of doubting/fading mothers is pretty overblown. Enough WMMA fighters have come back having given birth and looked fine. I asked a few mothers I know who work out and they didn’t think they suffered much of a set back once they shifted the initial weight. I take my research very seriously, you see, and if this bet loses it’s all their fault.
So I’m going to (perhaps foolishly) assume that the Tecia Torres we get for this fight is the same as the one from tape…and that woman absolutely should not be the underdog to Tabatha Ricci. She’s got a great mixture of speed and volume on the feet, and is more than capable of keeping herself safe in the grappling department. There are very few fighters outside the top five that I’d think should be a favourite against Tecia. And that’s even before considering that this fight is a decent matchup for her.
Comparatively, Tabatha Ricci has struggled whenever she’s faced an opponent that she can’t out-grapple. She put together a great run against Gillian Robertson, Jessica Penne, Polyana Viana and Maria Oliveira, but landed between 3-5 takedowns in all of those fights and either had a significant amount of subsequent top control time, or was the superior striker anyway. After that run, she faced Loopy Godinez in her most recent fight, where her takedowns were shut down and she was forced to strike against an okay-ish striker. It went to a split, but the majority of media scorecards were were in favour of Godinez for her superior striking. Not being able to differentiate yourself in the striking department against Godinez isn’t a very good sign really.
When it comes to decision heavy WMMA fighters, I think the statistics are at their most reliable (and I’m not much of a statistics guy usually). The stats here clearly paint the picture that Tecia Torres is the superior martial artist on the feet. She lands more, she gets hit way less. She has much better accuracy, and she defends more. And she got all of those superior stats from going 15 minutes against Marina, Namajunas (x2) Andrade, Joanna and Weili, whereas Ricci has padded hers by teeing off on Gillian Robertson and Jessica Penne.
If Torres-Pennington is able to get back to anywhere near the same level as she was before the pregnancy, I think the betting line is massively wrong here. God bless Alayah Torres-Pennington for this betting line! 2u on Torres-Pennington. I moved in when it was +137, but the line has shifted since. It’s always a good idea to consider playing WMMA underdogs, so this one was a no brainer to me.
How I line this fight: Tecia Torres-Pennington -150 (60%), Tabatha Ricci +150 (40%)
Bet or pass: 2u Tecia Torres-Pennington to Win (+137), perhaps an extra 0.5u on Torres Decision
Prop leans: Torres by Decision is a very reliable MoV

~Sean Woodson vs Alex Caceres~
Alex Caceres is a really tricky one. He has improved so, so much in the last few years, and I’d never have believed he’d make it this far. He was a contestant on TUF 12, the show most recent to when I started watching MMA (which also brought us Michael Johnson). Those who have been watching prelims for many years will remember when Alex was nothing more than a veteran that couldn’t wrestle for shit, and was constantly being used to further the careers of submission based fighters (Kron Gracie, for example). Somehow, during the lockdown break, he managed to sharpen the takedown defence and completely re-invented himself as a fighter. He’s 7-2 in his last nine, and the losses have come against Sodiq Yusuff and Giga Chikadze. A very respectable body of work.
Sean Woodson’s career has also had its ups and downs. He was touted as a prospect to look out for back in the day of Glory MMA & Fitness and everyone’s favourite UFC gambler, James Krause. Unfortunately for the gangly and unorthodox Woodson, he couldn’t handle the pressure and ended up having all of his hype destroyed by Julian Erosa. He won a few more fights, but then drew with Luis Saldana, and by that point everyone thought he was a busted prospect that couldn’t be trusted to win against anyone. Then he pulled off an upset against Charles Jourdain recently, and now we don’t know what to think.
So this is basically a bout between two guys who have blown hot and cold in different stages of their career, and they’re therefore guys I often look to gloss over when I see that they’re fighting because I know they can easily oveunder perform in relation to expectations. Woodson should be the more diverse and unorthodox fighter of the two to be able to win minutes against Bruce Leroy, but the power that Caceres has on the return very much could turn the tide in an instant. Woodson isn’t defensively sound and relies on his length too much, and we have seen him fumble winnable fights before.
I don’t have much confidence in this one at all, but I understand why Woodson’s the slight favourite, given his tricky style and frame, and the fact he’s a bit younger. The books have lined this one correctly though, using their vig to price either side out of being an appealing price. I’m not really sure how someone has a strong opinion on this one really.
How I line this fight: Sean Woodson -137 (58%), Alex Caceres +137 (42%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None

~Jake Hadley vs Charles Johnson~
Another Charles Johnson fight, another anti-grappling gameplan. I’m getting a bit bored of seeing the exact same fight really, it would be cool to see Johnson stand and trade with someone for 15 minutes.
In fairness to Hadley he’s hardly one-dimensional, but he’s definitely best as a grappler that uses striking as a means to an end. We have seen what he looks like when he can’t have significant top control time, or when he goes up against a guy that can put him on his back. And it shows him to be a great hammer but a bad nail.
Charles Johnson’s resurgence has been a very interesting turn of events! If you’re a regular UFC bettor, you’ll know Johnson as one of the most untrustworthy guys on the roster, who fails to put his stamp on rounds and only seems to be able to produce a maximum of 55% of superiority per round. That was, until he fought Azat Maksum last time, where his tenacity was enough for him to turn the fight on its head in the latter half, finally providing a Charles Johnson fight where we had confidence on what the judges’ scorecards were going to look like!
Johnson is a very hard guy to finish though, because he doesn’t have any actual major weaknesses that aren’t based on self-sabotage. That is going to turn into his biggest strength here against Hadley, whose 2-2 decision record paints a clear picture. In a fight where a finish is going to be hard to come by, I think this one is going to run very close, in typical Charles Johnson fashion. In short, Johnson’s skills nullify Hadley’s greatest skill, so this one should run closer than it might look on the wikicap.
Therefore, your only options are probably to hold your breath and bet Johnson as the +130 underdog for a bit of value, or pass completely. A bet on Hadley is definitely not adviseable at – money.
I was lining up to play the overs/FGTD, but I’ve seen that the Over 2.5 Rounds sits at -250…which is far too steep for me to entertain. Those bookies are sharp!
How I line this fight: Jake Hadley +100 (50%), Charles Johnson +100 (50%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: Either man’s decision prop could be an interesting way to bet this one.

~Jared Gooden vs Kevin Jousset~
Kevin Jousset makes his third appearance for the UFC, having impressed in two victories against Kiefer Crosbie (can) and Song Kenan (decent enough fighter). His output and diversity in the latter fight was really what caught my attention, as I was personally unsure he would be able to hang with UFC calibre opposition. I did bet him in his debut against Crosbie because his opponent that day has no business being in the UFC, but even the way he looked in that one had me questioning if he was up to the challenge.
On the subject of having ‘no business being in the UFC’, Jousset faces Jared Gooden. I know Gooden is a long time friend and associate of Dan Levy (HalfTheBattle) so I’m always hoping he does well, but honestly he’s proven countless times that he’s not good enough to be here. Of course, he’s a powerful guy, and in a cagefight that attribute is going to result in a couple of upsets…but Gooden has been competently outgrappled and outstruck on too many occasions for me to believe in him. Plus, he finally hit that KO path to victory against Wellington Turman, who is notoriously untrustworthy and shocking on the feet. If I remember correctly I was very adamant that people shouldn’t bet him there.
Jousset is a well-rounded guy as well. He’s not the most devastating striker but he does good defensive work (which is key here). He’s also more than happy to mix in takedowns and grappling when he deems it necessary, which is another advantageous asset here.
In short, whilst I’m still kind of suspicious of Jousset’s overally capabilities and whether or not he’s going to make anything of himself in the UFC, I can definitely see this one being an advantageous stylistic fight for him as the more well-rounded man. If Jousset can stay safe from Gooden’s power, he should have an easy enough victory on his hands.
In terms of the betting line, I would have put Jousset anywhere from the -200 to -250 range, which is pretty much where he’s landed. Makes sense to me. I’m glad I don’t have to consider betting this fight, because trusting either man with my money doesn’t feel good.
How I line this fight: Jared Gooden +225 (31%), Kevin Jousset -225 (69%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None

~Chase Hooper vs Viacheslav Borshchev~
Probably the most binary and therefore divisive fight on the card, which makes it possibly the most exciting one. Hooper’s a great grappler that can’t strike. Borshchev is a great striker that can’t defend takedowns.
I always land on the same conclusion when it comes to this kind of conundrum, and it’s because of our good friend Mackenzie Dern. Your BJJ doesn’t really mean shit if you have no wrestling (aside from pulling guard or catching submissions whilst standing, both of which don’t really happen often at all), and Chase Hooper doesn’t really have much wrestling. Of course, Slava Claus has bad wrestling defence…but I’d rate Hooper’s wrestling as clearly inferior to that of Mike Davis, Marc Diakiese or Nazim Sadykhov, so there aren’t actually strong guarantees that Chase can even consistently land takedowns here.
Obviously I think you have to make Borshchev the favourite here, as all fights start standing and his grappling defence seems solid enough that he shouldn’t get instantly submitted if he does get forced to the floor anyway. If that’s the case, I think he can clearly do damage and win fights off the scoring criteria. Hooper’s a tough kid, but when he eats shots they all look like fight enders with the amount his head snaps back. I genuinely think cutting his hair was a good strategic move for him. Also, this fight will have a live audience, and that plays ever so slightly into the metrics of the KO threat, not the grappler (because people still boo takedowns sometimes).
The books have it lined pretty where I would expect, with a small to moderate lean in Slava’s favour, so I don’t really think there’s any point in forcing a bet here. Both men have legitimate paths, it’s just that the Russian’s is slightly easier to land and will be more definitive. A win for Hooper likely sees him outgrapple his opponent for 15, whereas Borshchev can do it with one punch. Betting Slava KO would probably be the smartest play available, because that’s most of his win condition, whereas Hooper could win by all three methods.
I have noticed since writing that Slava may be moving down to -150, which is where I grade him without vig. If that price does solidify market wide, I may be interested in playing him to win by KO, or perhaps KO/DEC Double Chance. It would only be a 1u thing, but watch this space.
How I line this fight: Chase Hooper +150 (40%), Viacheslav Borshchev -150 (60%)
Bet or pass: 1u Slava KO or Slava KO/Dec…we will see.
Prop leans: None

~Trey Waters vs Billy Goff~
I honestly can’t remember a thing about either guy, I was surprised to see this wasn’t a double debut. From looking at Tapology I vaguely remember their last fights, with Goff steamrolling that Japanese guy on the South Korea card and Waters styling on Josh Quinlan.
I need a lot more info than that to be able to decipher this one. Info I honestly cannot be bothered to go and find, considering the most I could get would be a low-confidence opinion. I’mma pass on this one and admit I just couldn’t be arsed. I’m quite confident I wouldn’t have felt comfortable betting it anyway, so that’s probably some time saved. Check out Slayer’s breakdown on Wednesday/Thursday, he’ll have the goods.
How I line this fight: Didn’t do tape
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None

~Waldo Cortes-Acosta vs Robelis Despaigne~
I’ve been a consistent Waldo hater since he came to the UFC. He’s a fat guy who strikes, but his power actually looks to be severely lacking. In fact, the only thing he actually does well is a leg kick. Seriously, how can you be that size, that young, and still not KO 2024 Andrei Arlovski? Don’Tale Mayes did it. Waldo also lost a round to Chase Sherman and Jared Vanderaa ffs. I have every reason not to understand why he’s looked at favorably.
Robelis Despaigne’s UFC debut was short lived but impressive all the same. That stuff doesn’t tell us much at all, but he’s a very credentialed combat sports athlete (Lonon 2012 Olympic Bronze Medalist). I can’t really say it with super confidence, but this does feel like it should be a very winnable fight for him.
A lot of people are immediately quoting Despaigne’s MMA record and highlighting his inexperience, but my counter to that would be to consider what experience and tools he is actually going to need here?
I don’t think Cortes-Acosta will have any interest in grappling or attempting takedowns, and I also think he’s the inferior fighter from a power perspective. In a fight like this, what more do you really need?
I’m surprised Despaigne is only around -170 here. I get that he’s inexperienced in MMA but he’s far more experienced than Waldo in professional competition. Maybe I’m being too basic with my analysis here and Waldo actually has something for him, but I was expecting -250 at least. I did initially hesitate on whether or not I wanted to play Despaigne here, given I’ve not got a whole lot to offer in my analysis other than Olympian vs fat boi….but I don’t think Waldo brings anything uniquely MMA to the table that Despaigne is going to struggle with?
I scoffed at that Jhonata Diniz guy making his debut -250 to Austen Lane few weeks ago because I saw a clear angle for an MMA based opponent to capitalise on a skillset that the vastly more credentialed striker wouldn’t be well versed in dealing with. Given what we saw there, I’d say I was absolutely right. Diniz still got the job done, but Lane was able to weaponise MMA experience. Waldo probably won’t. Honestly it wouldn’t even surprise me to see Robelis try and show off some of his MMA improvements and shoot a takedown on fat boi.
2u Robelis Despaigne to win at -163. This could age terribly because I know I’m going against my principles here…but this betting line could look like an absolute gift in hindsight.
How I line this fight: Waldo Cortes-Acosta +250 (29%), Robelis Despaigne -250 (71%)
Bet or pass: 2u Robelis Despaigne to Win (-163)
Prop leans: None

~Carlos Diego Ferreira vs Mateusz Rebecki~
Very simple fight to break down, I think. Rebecki’s a very dominant wrestler with the topside grappling ability to keep you there once he grounds you. We haven’t seen him fight a super high level of competition yet, but I think we’ve seen enough to be excited by him as a prospect.
The above description of Rebecki’s style sounds a lot like a fella called Gregor Gillespie. We saw him face Carlos Diego Ferreira back in 2021 and ultimately force a stoppage by using his style to overwhelm CDF until the ref showed mercy. Mateusz Gamrot, an equally impressive grappler (but with worse top control time than Rebecki and Gillespie) also managed to get CDF to tap to strikes (which is a big, big red flag). Beneil Dariush, though not a pressure wrestler or big ground striker, was able to ground CDF and ride out top position to win comfortably against the Brazilian on two separate occasions. In short, CDF is a prime victim for Rebecki’s style.
And to make matters worse, all of those three aforementioned fights of CDFs happened three years ago. The Brazilian is now 39 years old, and we’ve only seen him compete once since the trio of losses. That was against Michael Johnson, in a fight he was quite clearly losing and was looking terrible in before his power and Johnson’s A+ capitulation managed to gift him a win. Sad for me as I was on the underdog there and felt it was a great bet, but really anyone who bets on a flake like Michael Johnson gets what they pay for.
I felt that -250 was just not a steep enough price tag for Rebecki here, so I bet him heavy a week ago. I fully believe in the guy’s abilities as a grappler, and CDF is ripe for the picking when looking to execute that kind of style. That’s not to mention CDF looks fucking old and clearly on his way out, and is being fed to a 19-1, 31-year-old beast that can get another dominant win on his record against a veteran with a recognisable name (if you don’t recognise CDF’s name, you a casual). I played Rebecki for 3u at -250, then parlay’d him for 2u more with Michel Pereira against Ihor Poteiria last week. That’s 5u in total riding on Rebecki.
I’ve noticed that the betting line has now moved into the -300s since then. I’m a bit sick of harping on about how much of an edge you get by working ahead, but there’s yet another example.
How I line this fight: Carlos Diego Ferreira +400 (20%), Mateusz Rebecki -400 (80%)
Bet or pass: 3u Mateusz Rebecki to Win (-250), 2u Mateusz Rebecki to Win (-105, parlay’d with Michel Pereira last week)
Prop leans: None, but CDF’s ability to wilt on bottom would make me believe Rebecki can finish him here, most likely via KO

~JJ Aldrich vs Veronica Hardy~
JJ Aldrich has historically been a bit of a money train for me, because she doesn’t get the respect she deserves for her skillset. I arb’d out of a bet on Aldrich when I confidently bet her at the opener against Montana De La Rosa (admittedly I got spooked by the line movement and the face I was on an island with that one). I also bet her against Na Liang (she underperformed there, in fairness), Gillian Robertson and Vanessa Demopoulos too.
Her style ain’t pretty, and it doesn’t blow your hair back…but Aldrich is a very competent striker that also has very good takedown defence. If you aren’t an above average striker, you’re therefore likely to struggle against her. Look what she did against Erin Blanchfield – she competently won most of the minutes in that fight and could have easily gone on to beat Erin were it not for that very lucky guillotine (not to discredit a good win from Erin, but it was fortuitous). Yes it’s easy to say that in hindsight, but it’s a testament to the skills Aldrich has, and the fact she’s not really faced too many steps up in competition over the years actually makes her quite underrated.
Veronica Hardy has been a bit of a strange one since she came back to competition. Everyone faded her (myself included) against Juliana Miller, which was possibly the squarest bet I have ever placed in my life. She looked good there, but I think her performance that day was flattered by how awful her opponent was and how much she overcame the betting odds and the lay-off. It felt like the perfect storm for Veronica, so the fact she overcame it kind of bolsters that win when in reality she beat a non-UFC calibre fighter. Miller is also purely a grappler and couldn’t get her takedowns going, so there isn’t really a whole lot of comparison to make for that fight anyway because that’s not JJ’s style.
Hardy’s last appearance came against Jamey-Lyn Horth, a then 6-0 Canadian fighter who hadn’t done anything remarkable in her career, other than beat the equally average and non-UFC calibre Hailey Cowan. The fight was razor close, with both women incidentally landing the exact same number of significant strikes and takedowns. A split decision was understandable there, it was a hard one to score. Wasn’t impressive.
Back to this fight, and I am once again very confused by the betting line, because I think the market is massively underrating JJ Aldrich, as always. She’s faced the much better level of competition in recent years, and the only fighter that’s gotten the better of her in the striking is Ariane Lipski.
Even if you’re just wiki-capping this fight, you should conclude that Aldrich deserves to be favoured. So what does Veronica Hardy have that bridges that gap and pushes her to be the slight favourite? Is it popularity? The fact that she’s hot? Her affiliations to Dan Hardy? The fact she’s a personality outside of MMA? I don’t know but I genuinely think it’s more likely to be any of those things than anything we see on tape! Because I didn’t see anything.
Honestly I think it’s quite likely that those are the factors. A fight like this isn’t going to get a lot of action, and any casual making a 12-fold parlay is more likely to recognise Hardy’s name? Idk, it’s a weird one but either way I’m betting Aldrich for 2u here at +125. I think she should be -150 at least.
How I line this fight: JJ Aldrich -150 (60%), Veronica Hardy +150 (36%)
Bet or pass: 2u JJ Aldrich to Win (+125), 0.5u JJ Aldrich to Win by Decision (+175 or better)
Prop leans: Likely an Aldrich decision

Bets (Bold = been placed)
1u Rodrigo Nascimento to Win (+137) (cashed out of a unit as Nascimento didn't take his Tshirt off at scale and that a huge red flag for me lol)
2u Tecia Torres to Win (+137)
0.25u Tecia Torres to Win by Decision (+170)
1u Terrance McKinney to Win in Round 1 or Esteban Ribovics to Win in Round 2 or 3 (+130)
2u Viacheslav Borshchev to Win (-137)
3u Mateusz Rebecki to Win (-250)
2u Mateusz Rebecki to Win (-105) (parlay with Michel Pereira from last week)
2u JJ Aldrich to Win (+125)
0.25u JJ Aldrich to Win by Decision (+170)
2u Robelis Despaigne to Win (-163)
0.25u Parlay Pieces (+420)
Parlay Pieces: McKinney/Ribovics Under 2.5 Rounds, Ricci/Pennington Over 2.5 Rounds, Aldrich/Hardy Over 2.5 Rounds, Viacheslav Borshchev, Mateusz Rebecki, Robelis Despaigne
Dog of the Week: JJ Aldrich
FUTURE BETS
2u Edson Barboza to Win (+125 or better)
2u Angela Hill to Win (-137)
2u Piera Rodriguez to Win (-120)
2u Kleydson Rodrigues to Win (-175 or better)
1u Abus Magomedov to Win & Under 1.5 Rounds (+100 or better)

disclaimer, this is only my 4th read of the book and the first in a few years so please correct me if I'm missing something obvious/frequently discussed in this sub!
I know that you're supposed to "both sides" Lizzy & Darcy in the first proposal, and see how they have equal faults of pride & prejudice, but I can't help feeling that even in a Wickham-free world, she should still have opened with "selfish disdain for the feelings of others" and "last man in the world" etc. The Jane/Bingley meddling on its own is bad enough: I think in this day and age someone breaking up your closest sister's first real love is a grievous, enemy-making offense (and Austen tells us that Elizabeth was literally in the middle of examining Jane's heartbrokenness in her letters when he stomps in), but given the times and how especially the Bennet girls' welfare is dependent on marriage, it's especially callous & cruel. And then his reaction to being confronted is truly the shittiest:
"he was listening with an air which proved him wholly unmoved by any feeling of remorse. He even looked at her with a smile of affected incredulity.”
So Elizabeth tells him "I hate you for breaking my sister's heart" and his response is to give her a little gaslighting smirk from where he leans against the mantelpiece like a twat.
Also, "disguise is my abhorrence" is quite rich because not 2 pages earlier we're told "As he said this, she could easily see that he had no doubt of a favourable answer. He spoke of apprehension and anxiety, but his countenance expressed real security.” Clearly he's fine with bullshit when it's for his own sake.
Re: wounded consequence/inferiority/family obstacles, I used to think the reason Darcy stomps around and laments her connections in the first proposal is because he has resigned himself to grinning and bearing her low connections and spending time with them for her sake, but then there's this quote from the Pemberly visit: "my uncle and aunt would have been lost to me; I should not have been allowed to invite them.”
I suppose you could say marriages in this era are all in spirit borderline abusive based on women having no rights against/outside of their husbands but I'm nevertheless stuck on this. Elizabeth fully believed he would have at least somewhat isolated her from her family & friends, and I really don't think Austen wants us to think Lizzy is incorrect/judging him too harshly here--there's that conversation with Col. Fitzwilliam where Elizabeth remarks Darcy should marry for having the "lasting convenience" of having someone at his disposal. Throughout the novel, we're impressed with how being overbearing is one of Darcy's core personal qualities.
It's also not crazy for Elizabeth to assume Darcy wouldn't have done anything to shield her from the inevitable malice that she would face in the Lady Catherine/Miss Bingley type circles he would take her to, given he wanted her to know, face to face, that feeling he's marrying way down is "natural and just". Elizabeth is 20 year old girl who has spent her whole life in one country village where she is popular & beloved--marriage to him (before he changes) would have broken her spirit and she (to my understanding at least) knows herself well enough to know this. It's ridiculous & obtuse of him to accuse her of being too proud to deal with his bitching about her family, if his attitudes towards where she comes from are going to dictate how he treats her as his wife. It's a question of her future emotional wellbeing.
In contrast, Elizabeth's big evil to Darcy is believing Wickham's false story about him that everyone else in her village also believed, leading to becoming his #1 hater and *so little endeavor at civility* and....that's it. It's not even that she besmirches him and turns people against him in Hertfordshire, Austen makes it clear that Darcy doesn't care about being disliked by the rabble and only needs an hour at one good ball to make everyone hate him anyway.
TLDR: I feel Elizabeth's self-flagellation for chewing out Darcy after the first proposal is unnecessary & exasperating to read. He sucks so much in the first half of the book and deserved worse. This isn't to say I think Elizabeth is a perfectly blameless character (her looking down at Charlotte for marrying Mr. Collins is off-putting), but between Lizzy & Darcy how are you supposed to view their faults and respective eventual growth as equivalent?
ETA: I definitely do appreciate Darcy's redemption arc and agree he deserves her at the end. My grief is more with the common idea that I've heard that the core of their love story is about them making equal mistakes & behaving equally badly, then changing for the better. I think he had much further to go than her

Disclaimer: This might be a rant/vent, but I’m not trying to attack/harass anyone personally, and I implore everyone not to do that either and try to keep calm.
Straight off the bat: I’m not here to defend Pinky's or Fiszi's actions, or any other people whose bad deeds were exposed in the past which led them getting fired. I'll stay neutral to those.
Rather, I’m here to speak in defense of Scott.
But first, a premise of how and why I look up to him.
I’ve been in the fanbase since 2014, and on Freddit since mid-2017. I’ve always stood by Scott and I've been supportive of him. There isn’t a single person in my close circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances who didn't hear from me how much I admire him. I could easily start a three-hour long lecture on how many good things he did. His works and overall personality is what kept me alive in the darkest times for the past decade whenever I faced Real Life struggles.
And even with that, I’ve had my own fair share of pains here due to how people like to bash on Scott and some of his artistic choices. I've had a nervous breakdown back in early 2019, but managed to recover thanks to the hype around the HW. Then I nearly got broken again in mid-2021 for reasons we all know. Sometimes I even feared I was actually going insane. But I've overcame it - because I never gave up on Scott.
I know they say that idolatry is a sin, and maybe I deserve to suffer through all this pain. But even with that, I prefer to stand by Scott forever and ever, rather than by a hivemind sending death threats and attacks right and left. I regard my choice as the lesser of two evils.
Now onto some points the community argued about:
I’m still not sure about the Talbert Files! Scott owes us an explanation/he is a liar!
First, he already gave his own response on the matter. Do you really think that people who leaked it are more truthful than Scott himself?
Second, wherever the Talbert Files originated from and whatever it actually is, it’s 110% non-canon. Rejected lore ideas, a fanfic, a hoax – it’s not a part of the current lore anyway. Either forget it or make a fanfic out of it. So, can we move on from it now, please?
But Scott defended Pinky's actions!
He didn’t; first and foremost, he acknowledged the fanbase's concern and only considered the possibility of her sticking for a while to do more artwork for the 10th anniversary game. Which is a product MADE FOR US ALL.
Don’t you get it? He asked her to do the previous works FOR US and he pondered on making some new ones FOR US TOO!
You’ve read his post as: “I prefer to be delusional and pretend she didn’t do any wrong”, while, in fact, what Scott meant was: “I’m trying to make more good visual content for the anniversary and for the fanbase I love via her drawing skills”.
People should understand that it’s not that easy to fire one artist and hire another one overnight. There are most likely complex NDAs and contractual things which are hard to cancel. Who knows what will be the state of the game now that Pinky left and there should be another artist hired; but oh well, time will tell.
I do implore you, however, to remember, if there will be some Pinky-made content in the further installments made prior to her leaving, that this is just the product of contract and she’ll not be getting paid for that. So no need to worry, if that's your main concern.
Plus, the “separate art from artist” principle still very much exists.
But he fired Fiszi on spot!
He said back then: “I won’t write much about it, but she no longer does artwork for the franchise”. Afaik, Fiszi mentioned she was getting less and less commissions over the year prior to her getting the sack, which means she was already one step from getting fired already. It was just easier to deal with the NDAs/contracts in her case, and, I wager, Scott most likely already pondered on firing her by that point anyway. And mind you, when Pinky tried to defend Fiszi, Scott immediately intervened and told her to stay out of this.
Do your math, guys. If Scott didn't want Fiszi's deeds to be glorified/supported by Pinky, then he wouldn't do that in regards to Pinky's past either.
But this franchise/FNAF1 evolved from constructive criticism!
No. It wasn’t just a case of: ‘Scott, the graphics of this beaver game doesn’t do it justice, you could improve this and that for the sequel, and I’m telling you that because I genuinely care for you’. It evolved from haters completely obliterating the Chipper’s game and downright mocking it and Scott himself, thus leading him to depression and suicidal thoughts.
The one thing that kept him from giving up everything was a blessing in disguise in a form of his therapist disclosing his dismay to the insurance company, which ended up cancelling his insurance. And then he felt that, I quote: “not only did my life have no value but now even my death had no value”, which led to a pivotal moment in his life. How do I know that? He talked about that himself openly back in an interview 2014, that’s not a secret.
So when you throw this "Listen to us, just like you did before!" argument in attempt to "constructively" criticize Scott, you inherently imply he should go through this again. That’s highly disrespectful. Don’t do that.
Scott should be/should’ve been informed on this and that topic!
Says the community that tried to spread rumours about Pinky allegedly blackmailing him or something more going on behind the scenes besides contractual complexities. Or constantly mixing up Pinky and Fiszi and their deeds. Or downright misinterpreting some things.
Mind you, the last straw for Pinky’s reputation was that one Scott fanart, which was okay by itself, but then somebody asked her whether she drew it with one hand, subtly referring to an inappropriate comment she had made years ago.
Pinky seemingly didn’t get the innuendo or preferred to ignore that, and responded she did draw it with one hand, because… Guess what, guys? Most people draw with only one hand. I draw with one hand too as well, and use the other to lift my tea cup or hold the sketchbook. Only Luis Wain drew his cats with two hands simultaneously, afaik.
Again, I’m not here to defend Pinky's past actions. I’m pointing out that the community here isn’t a bunch of innocent angels either. And no matter how many bad deeds a person did, they should be only judged for that, and not for what one may assume/project on/suspect of them on top.
I’m not denying that Scott being more informed is a good thing, though. I only say that sometimes we as a community are not that much of a reliable source either.
Not to mention all the cases of misinformation and hoaxes made deliberately to stir drama, like the recent The Talbert Files thing was most likely as well. It's abhorrent that there are individuals in the community who does this to deliberately throw Scott under the bus to paint him as a “guy who makes everything confusing”.
Scott is way too forgiving!
Might be unexpected from me in the context of this post, but I sadly have to agree with you.
He is way too forgiving towars this very unforgiving fanbase (or, at least, the most aggressive part of it), that kept verbally abusing and bashing him for years and causing true fans like me to suffer as well. But I also can’t help to admire his endless love and care for us. Such a martyr.
Mind you, that’s the same man who sometimes would act too fired up back in 2003 on internet forums. Yet he still went through full redemption arc mode since then. We’d better follow his example.
He sometimes reminds me of Moses, whose people would switch from “he led us from Egypt where we suffered!” to “he led us from Egypt, where we at least had homes, into this barren desert!” in a blink of an eye.
Also reminds me of a certain dude who would talk friendly to beggars, liars, thieves, etc. trying to always look for the best in them and encourage them to be better. While the most pious and "good" dudes felt very cross about it. Seems like nothing changed in people’s psychology for the past millennia.
Fiszi’s and Pinky’s misdeeds were out there for a long time, what took Scott for so long to address it and fire them?!
Oh yeah? Fiszi and Pinky were in the fanbase for years, and they were quite popular even before getting hired. Sure, they might have personally asked Scott to hire them, but he wouldn’t do that without them already having a popular background. I could have technically begged him to hire me back in 2015, but he obviously wouldn’t hire me because I drew quite crappily back then and had little to no followers.
And even after getting hired, Fiszi and Pinky had tons of followers and supporters, even until fairly recently. So where were WE all this time then, especially if we fancy ourselves as such all-righteous crusaders, hm?
Scott made a mistake, and he made a lot of them in the past.
Yeah, no one denies that. He said himself that, like many of us, he is only a human. He made mistakes in the past, and he will most likly make more in the future. To err is human.
But for some reason whenever Scott makes a mistake people here riot: “How dare you be imperfect and not be the person I imagined you to be and put on pedestal!”. And even if they acknowledge that Scott is only a human, they do it condescendingly, which isn’t much different.
This is why I choose to admit that even though Scott might have made a mistake, but I still forgive him instead of throwing stones. As any decent human being should do.
It was a stress for everyone, we have a right to complain!
I’m writing this right now amidst an anxiety attack and pangs of nausea, with my icy cold hands shaking and me shivering, while being at work and trying to keep a straight face in front of my collegues because we’re throwing a birthday party for one of them; thank you very much.
I know what’s like being stressed with this community; yet I still don’t immediately put all the blame for that on Scott, as if he is a scapegoat. Besides, for some reason, a big part of the community here likes to insist on their right to complain, which they have for sure have. Yet they would always immediately reproach others for liking something/appreciating someone they disagree upon, or even perceive it as a personal attack when it isn't.
Scott needs to do background checks!
Not that it is a bad idea, but not all things are so easy to be uncovered, like it was with Jonochrome, for instance. Mind you, he criticized Scott harshly back in mid-2021, only for himself later to be exposed for things 1000000x worse. Such a hypocrite.
So what, do you expect Scott to hire private detectives?
By the way, if you are so willing to make the franchise "better", why won’t some of you volunteer to make a group of people who would be his personal muckrackers/background checkers or something? Unless you guys have some questionable secrets upon your own sleeves, huh?
Scott should look up what’s going on in the community more!
He literally said he has neither time nor energy to check very single drama here. Nor does he use most of the social media, which is honestly a good thing for his psyche (and for everyone’s psyche, really). Like, he doesn’t use Twitter, and rightfully so.
You know, I would say that Twitter should burn in Hell, but Hell can’t burn in itself, apparently.
I’m so disappointed, I’m leaving the community!
Then just leave and no need to scream everywhere about it; that’s not an airport to announce your departure.
I'm not picking on those who decide to leave due to the toxicity to recover while still supporting Scott. I myself suffered here a lot. In fact, Scott is the reason I’m still here. He is not perfect, neither am I. But for me, he is an kindred spirit I look up to.
I guess I probably have a doomscrolling addiction since I stayed here for so long despite all the pain; but oh well, that’s besides the point.
Also, no need to worry about the people leaving/begging others to stay. It’s either rotten apples disappearing or nice people healing, so either way, good in the end.
~~~
So, what am leading to with this post?

1. Both The Talbert Files and Pinky’s situations reached their conclusions - so move on.
2. Treat others (and Scott as well) with respect like you would have liked to be treated yourself.
3. Don’t be a hypocrite and/or an unforgiving jerk.
4. Don't harass anyone regardless of what you think of them; just quietly distance yourself from the person disappointing you.

I also want to reiterate that it's not a personal attack against anyone, nor an attempt to generalize and state that 100% of the fanbase is like that. I just needed to get this all out of my system and felt that it needed to be said. Even if it ends up downvoted towards the oblivion, so be it.

Abstract: This article provides an analysis of “teaming,” or allying with a competitor, in battle-royale video games. Allying with a competitor is a normal strategy in social-deduction games, but it is often considered to be cheating in battle royale. Persistent complaints about teaming can be seen across a variety of social media platforms. This article surveys the controversy and outlines the major attempts to address such problems, including developer changes to matchmaking systems, automated moderation and opposition to stream sniping. These approaches are substantially successful, and yet there appear to be social and ludic conditions that make teaming an intractable problem. This article appeals to established economic and typological analyses of game goals to rethink the social dilemma of teaming in battle royale. The thesis argues that the major attempts to address the problem of teaming typically assume teaming is necessarily an unskilled strategy that circumvents the game goal of having a sporting contest of skills, but a comprehensive analysis of teaming allows us to recognize that it is conceptually possible to design regulatory mechanisms for teaming such that teaming requires skill. The conclusion begins to chart future research on sporting designs for regulating teaming.

Introduction

“Cross-teaming” or simply “teaming” in competitive multiplayer games is a strategy wherein a competitor temporarily cooperates with another competitor. Teaming is a central feature of social-deduction games centered on cunning negotiations, alliances and betrayals, for example the boardgame Diplomacy (Wizards of the Coast, 1954), the party game Mafia (Davidoff, 1986), the card game Are You a Werewolf? (Looney Labs, 1997) and the video game Among Us (Innersloth, 2018). In battle-royale video games, however, teaming has been a popular form of cheating. Battle-royale games are competitive, multiplayer survival games in which the last competitor alive wins the game. A match of battle royale typically has a large number of competitors in an arena with a variety of weapons. There are various game mechanics to decrease hiding/ camping and increase encounters between competitors, for example shrinking the arena area over time. Teaming in battle royale can provide a major advantage by allowing two competitors to outnumber a third competitor.

The analysis in this article begins with a brief history of battle royale and the crux of the problem with teaming. Teaming is a volatile practice that is randomized by the whims of other competitors, so teaming appears to provide an advantage based on luck within an otherwise sporting contest of skills. Players of battle royale use social media to complain about teaming, and game designers have addressed this problem in a variety of innovative ways inspired by both popular and academic conversations. However, illicit teaming remains a significant problem for the gaming community. How can we complicate our understanding of this problem and address it in new ways?

There are nuanced theoretical frameworks for unpacking the dynamics of teaming. The analysis in this article introduces and combines existing scholarship on the economics and typology of game goals. Jonas Heide Smith (2007) argues that cheating in online video games gives rise to a social dilemma, and I show how Smith’s economic framework can be extended to illicit teaming. Debus, Zagal and Cardona-Rivera (2020) argue that the goals of video games can be deeply equivocal, and I extend their analysis to consider alternate ways of framing the social dilemma of teaming. I argue that in the case of battle-royale video games, game developers have been largely prohibitive of teaming, but combining Smith with Debus et al. allows us to recognize that there can also be permissive and regulativeapproaches to teaming that substantially address the social dilemma. The major attempts to address the problem of teaming typically assume teaming is necessarily an unskilled strategy that circumvents the game goal of having a sporting contest of skills, but a comprehensive analysis of teaming allows us to recognize that it is conceptually possible to design regulatory mechanisms for teaming such that teaming requires skill. This article concludes by gesturing toward skillful regulatory mechanisms for addressing the social dilemma of teaming, including the innovative mechanism of “assimilation” in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 (Raven Software and Infinity Ward, 2022).

Battle Royale and Illicit Teaming

Teaming has been a part of battle royale since its inception. According to Teemu Pesonen’s article “The History of Battle Royale Esports” (2023), the Japanese film Battle Royale (Fukasaku, 2000) inspired the video-game genre. The plot of the film includes a government forcing students to fight each other to the death on an island, where only the last student alive may leave the island. The film also clearly includes cunning betrayals and alliances between competitors.

The genre of battle royale was further popularized by the American film The Hunger Games (Ross, 2012). Pesonen tells us that The Hunger Games directly inspired the first battle-royale modification for the video game Minecraft(Mojang Studios, 2011). In 2013 Brendan Greene, also known as “PlayerUnknown,” developed a mod called “DayZ: Battle Royale,” a battle-royale modification for the video game Arma II (Bohemia Interactive, 2012). Greene was inspired by other Arma II mods like Brian Hicks’ and Jordan Taylor’s mod for Arma II, “DayZ: Survivor Gamez” (McCarthy, 2017), and Green introduced to the battle-royale genre “items and weapons that were randomly spread across the map” (Pesonen, 2023). The first battle-royale video game to be officially published was PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (Krafton, 2017). The collaborative, online, multiplayer-vs-environment, survival video game Fortnite (Epic Games, 2017) added a dedicated mode for battle royale within a year of its release, contributing to the battle-royale genre both in-game building mechanics and cross-platform play.

Other major battle-royale games include Vigor (Bohemia Interactive, 2018), Apex Legends (Respawn Entertainment, 2019) and Call of Duty: Warzone (Raven Software and Infinity Ward, 2020), but I will foreground Fortnite for illustration. Fortnite debuted right when teaming was exploding in popularity in PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, but unlike Battlegrounds, Fortnite was initially designed to be a cooperative game, and elements of this cooperative spirit made it into the battle-royale mode, including the ability to communicate with others by dancing with them and expressing emotions. Fortnite’s battle-royale mode also implicitly encourages teaming insofar as it regularly awards prizes like virtual clothing and accessories to competitors who complete non-competitive challenges (for example, Dance on a Giant Cup of Coffee), which often leads to competitors cooperating until they can complete the challenge.

The most common, overt way to initiate teaming in Fortnite is to stop fighting and start dancing. If the dancing is reciprocated, the two competitors have indicated to one another that they want to cooperate temporarily. Other overt ways to initiate teaming include disarming yourself in front of a competitor, dropping healing items, building heart-shaped constructs and rapidly switching between ducking and standing stances. Subtle ways to initiate teaming can include pretending not to see someone, running away instead of attacking and defensively “boxing up” (hiding in your own building) without taking opportunities to attack. In each of these cases the initiation procedures take place during a match. However, teaming can also occur prior to a match when two or more people communicate their intention to first enter a match as competitors and then cooperate by identifying one another via coded behavior, for example meeting at a certain location or using peculiar virtual clothing.

Unlike a sporting contest of skills, teaming in battle royale currently has deeply random elements from beginning to end. The tension between a sporting contest of skills and random game elements goes to the heart of the controversy around teaming. Attempting to initiate teaming is a gamble. Dancing, disarming or deliberately passing up opportunities to attack exposes vulnerabilities. Competitors have short-term incentive to eliminate anyone who is initiating teaming because the initiator’s defenses are down. Not everyone has an equal opportunity to team because reciprocation relies on the whims of others. Even when there is an established collusion, there is still an incentive to be the first to betray the other, which makes the long-term benefits of teaming precarious. If teamers are the last competitors in a match, a competitor may betray the other, eliminate themselves or wait until environmental damage randomly decides who wins. Ultimately, teaming introduces a volatile element of luck into a sporting competition of skill.

Controversies and Proposed Solutions

I searched for and surveyed comments about the teaming controversy on live-streams, blog archives, developer patch notes and game-specific discussion forums, including twitch.com, youtube.com, bohemia.net, hypixel.net and reddit.com. This article only cites about two dozen posts and forums, but I believe these sources on teaming are representative of the thousands of ephemeral commentaries I have seen across a variety of platforms. The arguments both for and against teaming display strong emotion (sleaches, 2020; Seahawks12, 2022; ThatOneRedditBro, 2022; Clix, 2023). In my assessment there is a general trend in the dispute. Across the major battle-royale games, game players have complained about teaming for being an unfair advantage and, usually, against the official rules. Posts that defend teaming may be dismissive of the seriousness of casual teaming, but these defenses can also be passionate appeals to the enjoyability of cunning alliances and betrayals (successXX, 2016; Emble12, 2021; SzzzMK47, 2021). Fans who defend teaming have been insultingly dismissed as unskilled competitors who can only win by cheating. The controversy over teaming has led game designers to propose a number of creative solutions, but the persistence of teaming despite these innovations speaks to the practical intractability of this problem.

Certain solutions to illicit teaming speak to the perceived motivations of teaming. Early in the teaming controversy, developers discerned in teaming a simple desire on the part of solo competitors to compete in teams, and the result has been optional game modes for legitimate team-based battle royale, namely Duos, Trios or Quads. However, illicit teaming continued to be common in Solos as well as team-based modes. Another widespread interpretation of teaming is that it is used by unskilled competitors who simply want a sporting chance against vastly higher-skilled players, and the result has been skill-based matchmaking, wherein competitors are matched equally according to an automated index of their perceived skill. Teaming remained common.

Game designers have attempted to prevent teaming by addressing the tools used for teaming. Competitors who can communicate prior to joining the matchmaking queue may conspire to join the queue at the exact same time, which increases the odds of getting into the same match and allows the competitors to find one another to team. This problem led game designers to implement a randomized matchmaking time-delay so that it does not matter when someone joins the queue (swapode, 2017). Game designers may also use a filter to prevent competitors from entering the same match if they are one another’s “Friends” list. Streamers have proposed anonymizing competitor names and appearances to prevent this kind of teaming (Amos, 2019). These approaches have been effective, but teaming remained a substantial problem.

Matches can also contain automated moderators that help gaming communities police teaming. In the article “Collusion Detection in Team-Based Multiplayer Games” the authors Laura Greige, Fernando De Mesentier Silva, Meredith Trotter, Chris Lawrence, Peter Chin and Dilip Varadarajan explain how automatic moderation works to help catch teamers in tournaments (Greige et al., 2022). Competitors who use teaming to climb the ranks of a tournament show an improbable consistency in their respective match rankings over time. Therefore, automated moderators compare gameplay data over several matches to identify these improbable correlations and flag competitors. The moderator assigns to a pair of competitors a higher index of teaming the more frequently that those two competitors begin a match close to one another, stay close to one another and end a match with similar ranking. The goal of automatic moderation is to select cases for further review by human moderators. A majority (but not all) of the cases flagged by the automated moderator were confirmed by human moderators to be genuine cases of teaming, so the system is largely effective. However, automatic moderation does not necessarily aspire to perfection or even to identify collusion itself. Rather, automatic moderation works by identifying the probability that two competitors are colluding, “Hence, human intervention is still essential and further investigation by human experts is required before taking any enforcement action against the potential colluders flagged by our model” (Greige et al., 2022, p. 13).

Human moderators may observe or review matches in order to remove competitors who act like teamers, that is, competitors who are in proximity, do not attack one another and/ or simultaneously attack a third party. Unfortunately, these are also the behaviors of legitimate competitors who are camping, stealthy, short on resources (if not empty), low on health and/ or ambushing ongoing fights, namely “third-partying.” Complaints about people who ambush ongoing fights consider this tactic to be unsporting, but it would make no sense to demand that such an integral strategy should be banned from battle royale simply due to its affinity with teaming. It is not possible to entirely prevent the appearance of teaming because teaming is an implied product of games where players must be selective about which competitors they move against. When competitors in the end game must be selective about which other two competitors they move against, two competitors can have a legitimate ceasefire and mutual third target without any intention to team. Competitors complain about being removed from matches or even banned due to moderators mistaking their legitimate behavior for teaming (simon-whitehead, 2020). The intention to team can be difficult to discern even for human moderators.

One curious case of persistent, illicit teaming is one-way teaming. This occurs when a competitor helps another competitor without their consent. This typically happens when a fan of a streamer gets into the same match as the streamer, and the fan (while watching the live-stream) does whatever they can to benefit the streamer--leaving resources in their path, healing them from a distance (for example, with health splashes), or intentionally getting eliminated by the streamer (thus awarding the streamer loot and credit for the elimination). Sometimes this is benign, like when fans enter a streamer’s match only to build heart-shaped constructs for them to see, but this form of teaming can cause significant social friction.

In April of 2023, Epic Games banned the Fortnite streamer Cody “Clix” Conrod for two weeks due to illicit teaming (Gan, 2023). This meant that Clix was also effectively banned for the following lucrative Fortnite Championship Series tournaments. The teaming occurred due to the actions of a stream sniper who healed and supplied Clix largely without Clix’s consent (Gan, 2023). Stream sniping refers to a competitor watching another competitor’s live stream to see what their competitor sees. In this case the stream sniper was a malevolent troll with an account named “N1 Clix Hater,” and the troll was likely deliberately trying to get Clix banned (Clix, 2023). However, the penalties would be the same if the one-way teaming was from a benevolent fan. Clix admits some responsibility for teaming because Clix solicited certain helpful behavior from the stream sniper over the live stream, although this solicitation was solely to catch the sniper in the act of stream sniping, that is, to get them banned (Clix, 2023).

One-way teaming had a lasting impact on Clix. Following the end of the two-week ban, Clix streamed his first match, and a competitor began healing him with the same splash items that “N1 Clix Hater” used. For fear of being banned again, Clix started screaming out loud and running from the one-way teamer to avoid the appearance of receiving a competitor’s beneficial items (again), then Clix abruptly backtracked to aggressively attack the one-way teamer for fear of appearing to be too non-confrontational or even intentionally leading the teamer. Audience members joked that Clix had a flashback from the PTSD of being banned, but Clix has made it clear to his viewers that being banned from the tournament really was a deeply serious, extremely stressful event for him (Clix, 2023). It was a serious threat to his career and reputation, and more generally it highlights the way in which streamers have a real burden of altering their gameplay to avoid the appearance of benefiting from one-way teamers.

These cases suggest that despite the attempts to address the controversy over teaming by appealing to competitors’ desires behind teaming, by moderating matches and by avoiding stream snipers, teaming remains an intractable problem for the battle-royale community. The teaming controversy lies in a tension between competitors’ desire for a sporting contest of skills in a battle-royale format on one hand, and on the other hand the fact that battle royale is basically, structurally permissive of nonsporting conditions like the volatile dynamics of teaming or third-partying. The basic setup of the battle royale genre seems to make teaming--however impermissible--always theoretically possible.

Collective Action Theory and Social Dilemmas

In the article “Tragedies of the Ludic Commons--Understanding Cooperation in Multiplayer Games,” the author Jonas Heide Smith uses collective action theory to understand how competitive games have cooperative aspects that give rise to social dilemmas (Smith, 2007). Understanding how these social dilemmas work is important for addressing social problems like cheating in online multiplayer games, including illicit teaming. Collective action theory is an economic lens that identifies the individualistic and cooperative forces in the production of collective goods. Individuals may have an incentive to enjoy the benefits of a collective good without contributing to its production, but without enough individuals cooperatively contributing, no individual could enjoy the benefits of a collective good. In this case there is a social dilemma, that is, when the individual and collective incentives are at odds in the production of a collective good.

An illustrative social dilemma is the problem of commons. This problem occurs when a collective good like global, environmental stability requires cooperation in, for example, not exterminating the last of any rare resource (like an endangered species), but the rarer a resource is, the more individuals are incentivized to capitalize on the resource. Social dilemmas are conflicts between a group and its individual members where individual members can benefit from “free-riding” so long as not so many members “free-ride” that the good of the group collapses, in which case there would be no benefit for any members. What counts as “free-riding” can vary greatly--Smith mentions cheating, griefing and irresponsible play (Smith, 2007). Here I am concerned with cheating as a social dilemma to better understand teaming.

On my reading of Smith’s analysis, cheating is a form of free-riding in a social dilemma insofar as cheating allows a competitor to gain a good--winning--at the cost of a greater collective good--having a sporting contest of skills. To clarify, team-based games normatively require cooperation between the members of a given team for the collective good of a team, namely winning. However, Smith points out that there is also a normative cooperation between otherwise competing teams because the greater collective good is a sporting contest of skills. Competitors cooperatively agree not to cheat to win, and this preserves the greater good of having sporting contest of skills. The collective good of a sporting contest of skills is greater than simply winning in the sense that a sporting contest can be enjoyed by all competitors, even losing teams. If players cheat, the contest is no longer about skills, so the remaining good is winning, and the collective good of a sporting contest of skills entirely collapses.

The use of a social-dilemma framework to address the problem of teaming has already been started by Rheem, Cho and Verma (Rheem et al., 2019). Here we have the idea that teaming can be prevented by interrupting the communication between teamers. For example, if competitors typically spin in place or rapidly duck and stand to initiate teaming, then perhaps matches could include bots (artificially intelligent competitors) who imitate this behavior but do not follow through on teaming. This would confuse competitors about which attempts to team are genuine, ultimately dissuading competitors from teaming. Other ideas from Rheem et al. include rushing competitors, separating competitors at the beginning of a match and separating competitors who have been previously flagged for teaming. Ultimately, it is important to dissuade teaming by altering the conditions of initial contact between competitors. I think Rheem et al.’s work can be extended further if we combine it with Smith’s analysis of collective goods and cheating in social dilemmas.

Illicit teaming, as a form of cheating, is a form of free-riding, and we might address teaming by applying Smith’s solutions. Smith first considers government as a solution to social dilemmas. Government would be parallel to the moderators of a match, that is, catching and banning teamers. However, we have seen above that teaming is a problem for even human moderators because teaming can appear identical to legitimate strategies at the end of a match. I would argue that Smith’s conceptual parallel for this problem is offensive-language censorship in online games, wherein Smith argues that moderators do not have a perfect way of determining what is sufficiently offensive to warrant censorship.

Smith also considers how “a group of principals can organize themselves voluntarily to retain the residuals of their own efforts” (Elinor Ostrom quoted in Smith, 2007). This solution primarily works when there is “a certain degree of permanence, the possibilities of monitoring the actions of other community members, and the prospect of future interaction” (Smith, 2007). In other words, like real marketplaces, cooperation is often obtained through systems of accountable reputation over time, for example, rating systems for online vendors/ buyers or for ride-share drivers/ passengers. Someone’s reputation for teaming may lead to their exclusion from a private clan, guild or association of battle-royale gamers.

Smith’s variety of solutions can be synthesized and extended to a wider, public base of players if competitors were to rate each over time in conjunction with automated moderators, perhaps leading to a reputation-based matchmaking system that parallels skill-based matchmaking. Reputation-based matchmaking could reward honest competitors by systematically matching them with other honest competitors and vice versa. Competitors who are repeatedly flagged for teaming might be matched more frequently with others who are flagged for teaming (as opposed to banning them). Of course, there would be disingenuous raters, but another system could filter out raters with anomalous behavior. Another difficulty would be applying such matchmaking to any game with anonymous competitors who can create new accounts to avoid the consequences of their reputation, but battle-royale games could require everyone to submit a verifiable personal identification to decrease the abuse of such fraudulent sock-puppet accounts. This is an extreme but not implausible solution to illicit teaming.

The Typology of Game Goals

Extending Smith’s economic framework to battle royale allowed us to imagine the extreme limits of solutions to illicit teaming as a social dilemma. One way to go beyond these limits is to rethink our implicit assumptions about the split goal of battle royale, namely winning and competing in a sporting contest of skills. What counts as a sporting contest of skills? Or, what counts as an even battlefield? To address this issue, we can begin with a broader theoretical examination of goals in games.

In the article “A Typology of Imperative Game Goals,” the authors Michael S. Debus, José P. Zagal and Rogelio E. Cardona-Rivera unpack the theoretical problem of what counts as the goal of a game (Debus et al., 2020). It can be easy to confuse a game’s goal with its end, with preventing its end, with getting points, with winning, with improving skills or with having a sporting contest of skills--these are very different things. There can exist a typology of game goals, but it must account for equivocations in casually framed goals. The authors note that the goal to “survive” or win in “the context of battle royale games” can be conceptually split between avoiding elimination and eliminating others, whether aggressively or passively (Debus et al., 2020).

Debus et al.’s analysis of surviving or winning can be extended to the goal of having a sporting contest of skills. I argue that it is important to recognize that a sporting contest of skills is conceptually split between a contest of skills where no competitor has an advantage on one hand and a contest where competitors use skills (not random conditions) to obtain an advantage on the other hand. This distinction allows us to recognize that the prohibition against teaming as “unfair” relies almost entirely on the first sense of a sporting contest of skills, that is, a contest where no competitor has an advantage. An extension of Debus et al.’s analysis allows us to see that this popular objection to teaming is not necessarily valid. If competitors must use skills to obtain an advantageous position, then it can be entirely sporting for one competitor to have an advantage over the other. Of course, the prohibition against teaming assumes that it takes no skill to obtain a cooperating competitor because the opportunity to team is randomly decided by the whims of competitors. But is this assumption valid? If we put Debus et al. together with Smith, we can raise the important question, is there a way to design battle royale such that skills are required for teaming?

Skillfully Regulating Teaming in Battle Royale

There are battle-royale video games that prohibit most forms of teaming yet permit teaming under specific conditions, and these games can contain mechanisms for skillfully regulating teaming to preserve a sporting contest of skills. For example, in 2020 the battle-royale mod of Fortnite added a recruiting mechanism that enables an artificially intelligent, Non-player character (NPC) to be hired to cooperate for the duration of the match (Çakir, 2021). These AI-controlled NPCs are not necessarily competitors, but they are potential competitors insofar as anyone can hire them to fight on their team. This mechanism satisfies the desire to recruit without entirely spoiling a contest of skills in Fortnite because the skill level of NPCs is artificially kept quite low. NPCs often clumsily expose the location of whoever hired them, which balances out the advantage they provide. Further, anyone may hire an NPC, so there is an equal opportunity to team. However, the number of hirable NPCs in a given location is limited, which makes the opportunity to team with an NPC somewhat precarious. This NPC-recruiting mechanism has the effect of making each match into a race to hire the only NPC in a given location, which then significantly skews the following fights. Yet, there is significant skill involved in a race to hire an NPC. In Fortnite this race looks like competitors skillfully timing their jump from a moving starting point (a flying autobus) and skillfully timing their deployment of a paraglider to get to a location as efficiently as possible. The NPC-recruiting mechanism is a small but not insignificant step toward regulating teaming such that obtaining a cooperative competitor requires skill, namely the skill of racing to a location as efficiently as possible. Nevertheless, there remain substantial concerns that hired NPCs ruin the fairness of the game (IMainSpyAndImNoWeeb, 2023; emotx, 2023).

The battle-royale video game Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 (Raven Software and Infinity Ward, 2022) introduced a skillful regulatory mechanism for teaming called “assimilation” (Rain et al., 2022). There are four regulatory features of the assimilation mechanism. First, there is a communication option to explicitly invite a competitor to one’s team. The invited person can explicitly accept or reject the invitation to join the team. Second, the game prevents members of a team from damaging their teammates, and this mutual immunity extends to assimilated competitors. Third, assimilation is limited to teams that have lost a teammate. A player can assimilate as many competitors as teammates they have lost and no more. This also means that assimilation does not work in Solo competition modes. This mechanism prevents teaming from spoiling the contest of skills by keeping the maximum size of official teams consistent. Of course, it is still random whether or not a competitor accepts an invitation to team. Even when faced with the choice to be eliminated or cooperate with a competitor, players may simply choose to be eliminated, for example in order to spite an enemy or in order to begin a new match with the friends they had been playing with. A fourth feature of assimilation is that an assimilated competitor can choose to leave their team at any time. This is problematic for a sporting contest of skills insofar as it unevenly enables cunning betrayals through surprise defection. Of course, these regulatory mechanisms do not prevent unofficial, illicit teaming over the maximum size-permitted limit, but such illicit teaming would not have the protection of mutual immunity.

In November and December of 2022, Warzone 2.0 contained a Trios mode named “Unhinged” wherein the assimilation feature was no longer limited to a three-person team but a six-person team, meaning double the capacity of initial team sizes (Morton, 2022). In my view of player responses on reddit.com, Unhinged was polarizing for the Warzone fanbase (Boynus, 2022; Handbrake55, 2022; Infinitely_Infinity, 2022; Pmmeyourrocks, 2022; u/[deleted], 2022; C4ptainchr0nic, 2023). Defenders of Unhinged typically appealed to the fun of cunning alliances and betrayals, while others gave the usual complaints about teaming as an unskilled strategy.

Why was Unhinged removed from Warzone 2.0 on 14 December 2022? Fans of Unhinged wondered why they could not have an Unhinged mode while the complainers play a different mode more to their liking. We can make educated guesses about what happened based on player complaints. Unhinged had a problematic social and gameplay dynamic. First, players reported an increase in toxic communication (ThatOneRedditBro, 2022). Warzone 2.0 contains a mechanism called proximity chat wherein competitors can talk with one another if they are close enough to each other. This mechanism can be turned off, but proximity chat provides an advantage for inviting a competitor to team up, so Unhinged included more use of proximity chat relative to other game modes (SirDankz, 2022). The dynamics of competition and moreover betrayal seems to have encouraged toxic proximity chat between competitors. Complaints include the use of racial slurs. This made Unhinged extra problematic for popular streaming platforms that prohibited racist content. It is easy to imagine that the Unhinged mode was a liability in this sense, and I think proximity chat ultimately stifled the potential for Unhinged to further develop its explorations of regulated teaming via assimilation.

In terms of gameplay dynamics, players complained that the teaming dynamic in Unhinged effectively requires competitors to race to find a cooperative competitor if they are going to last to the end game, but not everyone can equally find a competitor. Competitors are incentivized to refuse cooperation in favor of betrayal to obtain the short-term benefits. Unlike Fortnite’s race to hire an NPC using a skillfully timed deployment, there was no parallel skill for racing to team up with another human competitor in Unhinged.

Conclusion

Further explorations in regulatory mechanisms for teaming can be developed on the basis of each element of teaming that would make it unskilled. Teaming is randomized or made unskilled by a number of things we can identify from the preceding analysis. We have seen that there has been randomness through an ambiguity in the communication of invitations to team, and the explicit invite function of assimilation resolves this issue. We have seen randomness in the whims of a teamer’s betrayal, and assimilation addresses this issue with mutual immunity to damage for competitors who accept an explicit invitation. Although assimilation currently allows teamers to defect at any time, which reintroduces the randomness of whimsical betrayals, it would be interesting to explore a mechanism that regulates defection by requiring a defection to be announced well ahead of time, say a thirty-second countdown until there is no more mutual immunity to damage. A defection countdown would eliminate the surprise element of defection.

Assimilation’s mechanism of explicit invitations currently does not address the randomness of the whims of competitor’s acceptance or rejection of an explicit invitation to team. However, the NPC-recruiting mechanism in Fortnite circumvents this randomness by forcing NPCs to accept the first invitation to team that they receive. We can easily imagine that assimilation can address the issue with human competitors similarly. When a competitor sends an explicit invitation to another competitor, a mechanism can make this invitation automatically accepted, immediately establishing damage immunity between the two competitors. Explicit invites would then be coercive invites, and the whims of the competitor’s interests in teaming no longer affect the opportunity to team.

I would argue that one current feature of assimilation is unnecessary to preserve a sporting contest of skills, namely a size cap on teams (inclusive of assimilated members). The idea of capping or limiting the combined size of a team is clearly meant to make the competition more even, but we have seen that a competition between unevenly sized teams can be sporting if teams use skills to retain teammates. Exploring the effects of different size caps for teaming would be interesting for future research, but a size cap is not necessarily needed to preserve a sporting contest of skills.

Given this robust revision of assimilation--coercive invitations, mutual immunity and a defection countdown but not necessarily with a size cap--the major randomizing elements of teaming are reduced, and skillful competition is preserved. However, new sets of issues emerge for the dynamics of teaming in battle royale, and game designers can benefit from exploring these new issues. I consider here a few questions for future research on the effects of skillful regulations of teaming in battle royale. What are different ways of regulating the duration of a coercive assimilation? What is the effect of implementing an indefinite duration until one member announces their defection? What is the effect of implementing a forced automatic defection of any assimilated members at the end of a match? What is the effect of establishing a determinate, short amount of time before auto-defection? What happens if competitors are given one or more options to renew their alliance? How can the ability to send a coercive invitation be distributed among players? What is the effect of giving players one or multiple chances to extend a coercive invitation at the beginning of the match? What happens if the ability to send a coercive invitation is regulated by possessing an in-game item to be found in the arena? What impact does the number of such items available make? How might the race to such items be regulated to require skills? What happens if an assimilated member can send a coercive invitation to a third party, and how might damage immunity be distributed in such a chain of assimilation? That is, if a first competitor coercively invites a second competitor, and the second competitor coercively invites a third competitor, do the first and third competitors have mutual immunity for the duration of the first assimilation? How can cooperation be encouraged between a coercive inviter and an assimilated member? What happens if teaming competitors receive bonuses by remaining proximate to one another? What happens if they receive penalties for straying too far from their teammates?

Finally, I want to note that robust mechanisms for skillfully regulating teaming can exist alongside prohibitions against teaming outside of these mechanisms, and in such a case skillfully regulating teaming would not really solve the intractable problem of illicit teaming. However, perhaps a well-regulated avenue for teaming would satisfy much of the desire to team, and there might be less incentive to team illicitly when official teaming offers sufficient protection against random betrayals. It remains to be seen how regulating the outlet of players’ drive to team will affect players’ engagement with prohibitive teaming.
References [Cut for Reddit Post Limit on Characters]