So before we get into 10 manifestation techniques, I just want to make it clear that it's all about your intention.  If you don't like doing it, if you have some kind of block and you don't believe in them, then don't do them. Doing techniques isn't going to reprogram your mind. That really is the key with anything that you're trying to manifest is reprogramming your mind and your belief system around whatever it is that you're trying to manifest. Because if you look at affirmations, those actually change in neurological pathways in your brain to adapt a new belief system and in my opinion, and I don't want to put my limiting beliefs on you, but techniques just aid you to do that. They help you get into the feeling and into the state that you already have your manifestation, which is the key to manifesting. So I want you to think of it as kind of like say you're, you know, 15, 16, whatever the age is when, you know, you can start to drive. You get behind the wheel of a car and you start to learn how the car works, how to drive and going through the actual motions. That's kind of like what affirmations are. So they are like on a different level than techniques. They're not a technique, they're the machine. Now you could sit there and read about how cars work and how to drive, but you can't learn how to drive a car by just reading about it and studying it. You actually have to get behind the wheel. So techniques are kind of like reading and learning about it in a sense that like they're super helpful. They aid you in being able to manifest, but you still have to reprogram your mind and do your affirmations. So we're not going to be talking about affirmations today. If you do want to learn more affirmations, I will put that video right here. Hello, love bugs. Welcome back to my channel. If you're new here, I'm Sarah and I created this channel to help you build a more fulfilling and loving and beautiful life through self mastery and spirit duality. And today we're going to go through 10 different manifestation techniques. I'm going to just give a brief overview of each one so we don't make this video too long. But if you do want a more in-depth video on any of them, just drop it in the comments below and I will absolutely do that for you. I do want to say that I have done every single one of these techniques. Some of them I really like. Some of them I don't. I'm not going to tell you which ones because again, I don't want to put my limiting beliefs on you. And the whole point of this video is to give you options to figure out if you want to do these and which ones you want to try. So the first one we're going to talk about is called the whisper technique. So a lot of people that practice this technique do it specifically on other people that they want to do something for them, something they're trying to manifest from another person. It doesn't have to be that way. It's totally up to you how you want to do this. So what you want to do is close your eyes and imagine that you're actually approaching the person that you want something from and you pretend to go up to their ear in your mind and visualize it and actually whisper what you want them to do. So an example of this would be say you want a promotion at a job.  I am the one you're giving the promotion to in whatever language, you know, works best for you. Number two is sex. So this stands for state akin to sleep. Another way I like to view this as kind of the theta state that your brain is in right in between awake consciousness when you're awake and just live in your life and you're when you go into unconscious mode when you're asleep. So it's that kind of like middle ground right in between the two where you're kind of like sort of just slipping into dream world and unconscious world but you're kind of still with it. And this is really beneficial because this is when your subconscious is the most open to suggestion. This is what they do when they do hypnotherapy and things like that.   If we're going back to the example of getting the promotion, you could do something like you know visualizing that your boss is calling you and saying hey congratulations you got the promotion. I'm really trying my best not to give my own personal opinions on this video but I just feel like there's something really magnificent and truly spectacular about the dream state and so you know. Alright number three, this is water cups. So a lot of us know that water holds a lot of energy in it. It's a very fascinating thing the way that different waters crystallize when it goes through different paths. You can kind of hold things almost like holding memories. So water is very powerful. If you do use an intention to use it in a positive way.  I'm just going to give you one today and that is the two cup technique. So you're going to take two cups. You're going to put your current reality on the first one and you're actually going to fill that up with water and then you're going to put your desired reality whatever that is on here. So you would actually write down you know I currently have $2,000 in the bank and I want $10,000 whatever it is and then what you do is you kind of just speak over the cup of the water is in and you talk about all the things you would feel and what you would do and blah blah blah. If you had that desired result and then what you do is you just simply pour it into the other one and you drink it. Okay. Number four is the three six nine method. So what you're going to do is write down whatever it is that you desire three times if it's a person, write the person's name, if it's a job promotion, write the job promotion, if it's health, then write that down, whatever it is three times then after that you write the event of it happening six times. So my boss just called me and gave me this promotion. My boss just called me and gave me this promotion, whatever. And the last part of this, which is the nine is writing how you would feel nine times. I am so excited and honored to be given this promotion that's going to help me buy my next house or whatever it may be. So that's a really simple method. It does take a lot of writing. So if you like to write this one's probably for you. If you don't, it might not be. I don't know, try it out. Number five, scripting. So you kind of want to think about scripting as journaling, but from the point of view of your desired reality. So if we think about regular journaling and if you need help with figuring out how to journal, I do have a video for journaling on beginners. And I will put that right here. But what you want to do is journal from that state.  So say for example, you want to be married. You would write as if you already are and all the things that you guys would be doing together, how you'd be feeling where you'd be living, whatever your desire is with that in the present tense. And in my opinion, the key here is to try to involve all five of your senses when you're writing this down. What are you thinking? What are you touching? What are you feeling? What are you hearing? What are you smelling? And just really put yourself in that moment of how you would be journaling from the point of that desire already happening for you, already being your lifestyle in the way that you're living. Okay. Number six, again, try not to give my opinion. This is the I remember when technique. So all you do is say, we'll go back to the $2,000 example. I remember when I only had $2,000 in my bank account, but now I have $10,000 in my bank account. So it's almost like you remember when, like it was in the past of whatever it is that you're currently experiencing.  I remember when I was living at my house by myself, but now I'm in a beautiful, loving, committed relationship. I remember when I couldn't find a job, but now I have all sorts of companies calling me. I remember when I was 200 pounds overweight and now I feel strong, healthy and lean. Those are just a few examples, but that's a very simple one that you can kind of just do anywhere in your head on paper. Doesn't really matter. Number seven, this is vision boards.   You're super crafty. You can draw them, whatever you want. And then you can either put it on your phone. You can put it on an actual board and you just sit down in front of that each day for however long you want. You can do two minutes. You could do 10 minutes. You can do an hour. It's totally up to you. And just visualize yourself within those scenes of those pictures. I'll show you mine. So here are the vision boards that I made. As you can see, I really enjoy collaging. So that's kind of what I did with both of these.  You don't have to do a collage like I did. You can just do a few pictures if you want. You can put this on the back of your phone and, you know, whatever you feel like doing. Number eight and these are subliminals. So a subliminal is essentially a music track that has a specific type of frequency that is supposed to penetrate your subconscious mind combined with different messages, affirmations, whatever, that your conscious mind, your ears in this 3D reality cannot hear, but it does get into your subconscious. You can do this really any time of the day. You know, just have it going on in the background, if you'd like. I like to do it when I'm going to sleep because I feel like I do a lot of these affirmations and some of these techniques here and there during my waking hours. So this way I can kind of do it while I'm sleeping as well. Number nine, this one is very simple and that's just plain visualization. So obviously throughout this video, you've heard me talk about visualization a few times with the other techniques. But if you want to just do it on your own, you can do that. Think about when you're daydreaming or when you're having a mental conversation with someone or when you're just imagining a dream situation for yourself. And again, just like with the 369 or the scripting method, you really want to try to get all five of your senses involved. If you want to own a house that's right on the beach, you know, when you wake up in the morning, what are you seeing? What are you feeling? What are you hearing? What are you smelling? And really just get yourself into that mind and see that scene from the first point of view. So from your own point of view. I know sometimes I have a little bit of trouble with that because for some reason my brain works with like seeing myself in third person. I don't really get that. But I would recommend if you can to do this in first person to make it seem as real as possible. And number 10, which is truly my favorite manifestation technique, even though it's much deeper than that and I wouldn't necessarily consider it like a technique that like the other ones that I've mentioned in this video. But I do believe this to be the most powerful and the most soul fulfilling and that is prayer. Prayer combined with gratitude is really the basis of transforming yourself. And like I mentioned in the beginning in my intro, like self mastery and just giving thanks to God, giving thanks to the Creator for everything that you have in life, for thanking Him in advance, for giving you, you know, these things that you desire and you know, just having gratitude for all that you already have. So there you go. That's 10 different manifestation techniques. I hope you enjoyed this video. Like I said, if you do have any questions or want me to go any deeper on any one of these, please just let me know in the comments below and I will certainly make a video for you on that. If you also have questions about any of these techniques, just feel free to write them in the comments and I'll be sure to answer everything that I can. Have so much fun experimenting with these techniques. And if you have any that I didn't mention that you've tried that you've really enjoyed, let us know in the comments below so that we can try them as well. I love you guys so much and don't forget to like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video and found it valuable and I will see you again next week.


Hydrogen fuel cells are an attractive alternative to traditional fossil fuels due to their environmental friendliness and high efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells can generate electricity directly from hydrogen gas, making them ideal for use in electric cars. Integrated with batteries and a control system, these hybrid cars can provide a sustainable solution to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy. This article was authored by Yogesh Menoran, Saeed Esan Hosseini, Brayden Butler, and others.


And, of course, I have the pleasure of introducing Professor Deborah Cameron, and I will keep this short so we can get to Professor Deborah Cameron. In August 1986, I packed my clothes that were strewn across my room in my Long Island, New York home and got into a car with my parents. I was about to begin my studies at a small liberal arts university in the Northeast U.S. I had graduated from a good public high school on Long Island and felt confident in my intellectual abilities. I never saw myself as a New York speaker. We rarely understand our own situativeness, particularly at 18 when we were in it. When I arrived at college, I found that some other students whose backgrounds were from private preparatory schools found my use of phrases such as don't matter, as in it doesn't matter, amusing, that I couldn't seem to muster the H sound at the beginning of words such as huge and humor, and to this day I still have to force it, was further fodder for their teasing. The teasing ensued and many of my linguistic practices shifted. Many of my mundane New Yorkisms slowly dissipated. This cleansing of my everyday linguistic practice was made more real for me seven years later while studying at the University of Wisconsin Madison when someone said, wow, you don't sound like someone from Long Island. To which I replied, well, I've only had one beer. In 1995, Professor Deborah Cameron published Verbal Hygiene, a book that helped redefine the study of language and communication, a book that was republished this year because of its continuing value in our discussions of how and why language matters. In the original text, Professor Cameron explores the ways in which systems of power structure the way language and particular linguistic conventions are normalized, made real through the practices of institutional authority and everyday practice. My mundane example, I would suggest, is a product of the wider attempt to erase difference and regulate language. It is about the power to declare what is appropriate language. That power is, of course, also about spatial control. It is, after all, when language seems out of place, that it often gets the most attention as the spatial boundaries of what is right and good is hierarchically overlaid on top of what is wrong and bad. What is said is also about who belongs where. And language, as Professor Cameron argues in the 2012 afterward to Verbal Hygiene, is a tool that is mustered to produce those effects and affects of power even as it fails to totalize in a variety of ways, a point I'm sure she will return today in her discussion of 9-11. As such, the notion of a monolingual global society where the English language erases difference and produces a unified identity thus fails to fully understand at how many different levels language works. As Professor Cameron has also noted in the afterward, she remains passionately committed to contextualizing the dynamics in which language and linguistic conventions are formulated. As she suggests, for example, in her 2000 article in American Speech, which might be the best title of a journal ever, quote, power matters and history matters. The construction of the self of a persona through language is a symbolic act, but it is also one constrained by the resources available to do it, which in turn are shaped by material conditions, those of the past as well as the present. In grounding her questions about language and the material conditions through which linguistic practices is produced, Professor Cameron provides us with a theoretical and a conceptual lens through which we might interrogate the shifting terrains of meanings that are part and parcel of the regulatory performances that try to clean everyday speech, even though, as we all know, those performances are always partial and incomplete. Her focus on power in language is also why she has been called upon to be a public intellectual, a role she takes on in her popular books such as The Myth of Mars and Venus, her blog on the Trouble and Strife website, and her participation in radio programs such as Women's Hour on the BBC. She does this work, of course, without compromising her efforts to untangle the discursive framings of what she has studied. What is so valuable, therefore, about Professor Cameron's scholarship is the way in which she works back and forth between the, quote, scientific debates around, say, a new Darwinian understanding of male-female difference and the much more popular self-help literature that draws from the new biological science of sex gender differences. In short, Professor Cameron is able to work across bodies of knowledge to show how discursive formations around sex and gender or sexuality may be temporarily reified through various outlets, be them scientific or popular. It is this ability to implicate what we do in the academy in what happens in everyday experience that also makes Professor Cameron's scholarship timely and important. It is thus very exciting to have Professor Cameron here today at the University of Arizona. Her work has influenced far beyond the fields of linguistics, anthropology, or communication as it operates across and through different disciplinary conversation and appeals to scholars across the liberal arts, such as myself from geography. With that said, I ask you to welcome Professor Debra Cameron, who comes to us today from University of Oxford, to speak about the one, the many, and the other, representing mono-multilingualism in post-911 verbal hygiene. Thank you. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Am I standing at a reasonable distance from the microphone? Good. Okay, my title today includes the phrase verbal hygiene, which was also, as the dean said, the title of a book I published in 1995. And for those who aren't familiar with that work, I should explain that verbal hygiene is my term for all the normative metalinguistic practices through which people attempt to improve language or regulate its use in accordance with particular values, for instance, authenticity, beauty, truth, efficiency, logic, clarity, correctness, and civility. Verbal hygiene was never meant to be just a synonym for the more familiar term, prescriptivism. Prescriptivism, which normally refers to the conservative and elitist promotion of correct standard usage, is certainly one instance of verbal hygiene. But the hygienic impulse takes many other forms, and they may be underpinned by radically different values. Plain language campaigns, for instance, are generally motivated by anti-elitist sentiments. Campaigns against racism or sexism in language express a commitment to equality and social justice. The artificial language movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries were part of a search for peace and international understanding. While today's movements to preserve or revitalize endangered indigenous languages affirm the value of cultural diversity and a particular conception of authenticity. Those interventions are not usually discussed under the heading of prescriptivism. But they are all examples of what I would call verbal hygiene. And collectively they illustrate an important point about that phenomenon. In any given time and place, the most salient forms of verbal hygiene will tend to be linked to other preoccupations, which are not primarily linguistic, but are rather social, political, and moral. The logic behind verbal hygiene depends on a common sense analogy between the order of language and the larger social order, or the order of the world. The rules of language stand in for the rules that govern social or moral conduct, and putting language to rights becomes a sort of symbolic surrogate for putting the world to rights. That is why so many debates about language are engaged in with such extraordinary and apparently disproportionate fervor. Because in most cases they are not just debates about language. If you see a sudden flurry of media reports on some hardy perennial of linguistic discourse like children doing badly and spelling tests, or there's too much profanity on television. This may appear to be just the random eruption of grumbling or scaremongering that has always gone on and always will. But if we recognise that verbal hygiene is a coded discourse, it becomes possible to interpret these outbreaks as neither random nor trivial. But a symbolic expression very often of very deep desires and fears. Decoded in this way, the verbal hygiene preoccupations of a particular time and place offer a way into the collective imagination of the culture in which they arise. Now in the spirit of that approach that I've just briefly outlined, my question about multilingualism and monolingualism is not so much what they are as what they symbolise and what imaginative and ideological work that symbolism does in particular historical and cultural conditions. The point about historical and cultural particularity is very important in my way of approaching this. Verbal hygiene is a coded response to the anxieties of a specific moment, so it can't be assumed that the same linguistic preoccupation will have the same symbolic meaning in every case, that just because it seems to be about the same bit of language, it's actually always about the same thing. For instance, a minute ago I mentioned current anxieties about endangered languages. Today, I think it's fairly clear that these concerns are linked to broader anxieties about the future of the planet and about the loss of cultural diversity in an increasingly globalised world. At other historical moments, by contrast, the desire to preserve linguistic and cultural diversity has been linked to very different ideological commitments and expressed very different kinds of fears. The Nazis, for example, were ardent language preservationists. They championed the rights of the Celtic-speaking minorities in Britain and France and worried we might think presciently about the future dominance of English. But this position, which we would now be inclined to think of as politically progressive, was shaped in the Nazi case by the language ideology that Christopher Hutton labels mother tongue fascism. The linguists of the Third Reich asserted the primacy of the mother tongue on the grounds that every language expressed the essential racial character of the group that spoke it natively. If one race adopted another's language, they would not only be expressing themselves in an alien and inappropriate medium, but they would also be corrupting the racial purity of the language that they adopted. This principle featured very largely in discourse on Nazi anti-Semitism. The Jews of Europe were said to have a father tongue, Hebrew, but no mother tongue. They were accused of illegitimately appropriating other languages, such as German, and in the process, polluting them. Now, I give this example not to accuse today's language preservationists of fascism, which would be inaccurate as well as offensive, but rather to underline the point that verbal hygiene can only really be understood in relation to its specific historical and social context. Established discourses on language are continually recruited to address new social and political anxieties, and in the process they are re-inflected with new meanings which can then be carried forward and recruited to yet other causes. What I want to look at today is a case in point. The recruitment of discourses on language, including on monolingualism and multilingualism, to address the political problems and the cultural anxieties which have risen to prominence since the events of 9-11 and the onset of the so-called war on terror. I will focus in particular on the way that process has played out in my own society, which is Britain. But since in this case we are dealing with a transnational concern, there will undoubtedly be points of similarity as well as difference with verbal hygiene initiatives going on elsewhere for the same reason. And one of the things I hope to hear in the discussion is contributions from people who are from quite other places that I don't know anything about on how it has played out that. In modern European history, discourse on monolingualism and multilingualism, and especially on the former as an ideal and the latter as a problem, is strongly associated with nationalism and with the construction and the subsequent management of the modern nation state. Allegiance to a single language, identified with a particular place and the cultural traditions of that place, has been a powerful symbol on one hand of what unites the nation and on the other hand of what distinguishes it from other nations. It stands in other words for both identity and difference and these have prototypically been imagined in terms of ethnicity. Even today in parts of Europe, especially though not only post-Soviet Europe, it is possible to observe verbal hygiene practices expressing traditional ethno-linguistic nationalism, one people, one nation, one language, in a relatively pure form. In Britain, however, there is much less scope for that particular form of verbal hygiene, at least in relation to the majority language, English, because English of course does not belong uniquely to England as a place or to the English as a nation. In the case of English, discourse on language and nationhood tends to revolve around the issue of unity rather than distinctiveness. And what I think is very striking about the British case is how little purchase until recently that discourse has had on the popular imagination. In that respect, I would argue the United States and Britain have followed very different trajectories over the last 150 years. Although it is an oversimplification, it wouldn't be completely inaccurate to suggest that in Britain during the last 150 years, the anxiety about disunity and social disorder that has driven most verbal hygiene has focused primarily on divisions of social class. Whereas in the United States, for obvious historical reasons, more anxiety has tended to focus on racial and ethnic divisions. One consequence of that difference has been a much lower level of avert political conflict in Britain about multilingualism. It's not that Britain isn't a multilingual society, it has been one throughout its history, and today its largest city, London, is one of the most linguistically diverse in the world. In the year 2000, a survey of the languages known by school pupils in London identified 300 named first languages other than English. But it's only pretty recently that that diversity has become a focus for serious anxiety. Now, I certainly don't mean to imply when I say that that Britain has been free from racism, but that is certainly not the case. When post-war labor shortages prompted the UK government to encourage large-scale immigration from the former British Empire, especially the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean, the result, very quickly, was an upsurge of avert political racism. But while this was manifested in some very ugly ways, it was not on the whole manifested in racist campaigns of verbal hygiene. Nothing comparable to the US English-only movement ever developed. No attempt was made to enforce the speaking of English as a qualification for British citizenship, or to restrict the use of minority languages in public space, or to prevent local authorities from providing services in those languages. This may have been in part because the white nationalist organizations which hovered on the fringes of British politics from the 1970s onwards had no interest in forcing immigrants to assimilate. What they demanded was an end to immigration and the forcible repatriation of all non-white people, including those born in Britain, to their ancestral homelands. These groups commanded some popular support, but too little electoral clout for the mainstream political parties to feel obliged to take them seriously. By the early 1990s, when I was researching my book, Verbal Hygiene, there was a continuing current of opposition to immigration and a growing backlash against multiculturalism, particularly in relation to the school curriculum. But I found very little evidence of widespread anxiety focusing specifically on multilingualism. It was a fringe obsession. Yet today, that anxiety has become avert and ubiquitous. In the space of only seven years, my country has gone to being a country with virtually no language policy at all, no official language, no language requirement for immigration or citizenship or voting, to being a country where every week brings forth some new regulation or government pronouncement on the importance of everyone speaking English and only English. In 2005, a new citizenship test was introduced under the rather innocuous name of Life in the UK. Indirectly, it is a language test, since it has to be taken in what's called a recognised British language. That phrase has to be used because we really don't have an official language. We are a federation, nominally, of four nations and the indigenous Celtic languages that exist in three of them, though only with great vitality in one of them, Wales, also have to be recognised as British languages. So overwhelmingly, the test is taken in English. And in theory, someone resident in Wales or Scotland could opt to take it in Welsh or Gaelic, but that hasn't happened often enough for the Home Office to make figures available on how many candidates there have ever been. They do, though, make statistics available on the pass rates for applicants from different countries. And those figures are instructive about the gatekeeping function, the test fulfills, and the role played by English in relation to that function. In 2009, which is the most recent year for which full figures are available, US citizens, Canadians, Australians, and South Africans, so people from what branch Catru would label the Inner Circle, had pass rates of close to 100%. For applicants from outer circle countries like India, the figure was about 80%. For those from China, it was approximately 65%. And for those from Iraq and Afghanistan, it was well under 50%. Meanwhile, all non-EU citizens wishing to live in Britain, even if they have another basis on which to claim the right of entry, such as being married to a British citizen, must demonstrate some knowledge of English before the UK border agency will admit them. And if you're educated in Britain, mere proficiency in English is no longer enough to satisfy the government. Last month, the Communities Minister, Eric Pickles, that is, in fact, his name, made a well-publicized speech in which he declared, extraordinarily, that every school leaver in Britain should be able to, quote, speak English like a native. He didn't say which native. Those who failed to reach that goal, he said, risked making themselves an unemployable subclass. That he felt able to make that comment in the middle of a recession when something like 20% of all Britons between the ages of 18 to 25 are unemployed, tells us how far this demonization of the non-English speaker has become normalized in British political discourse. Only just before I came here to Arizona, I was reading a set of new professional standards for school teachers, which will come into force in England and Wales in September of this year. And they specify that one of the professional standards that teachers must be able to comply with, and it doesn't matter what subject they teach, is they must show an understanding of and a willingness to promote high standards of literacy, articulacy, and correct standard English. So what is driving this demonization? Well, partly it reflects the hardening of public attitudes to immigration, which has been seen all over Europe. The migrant who cannot speak English or who refuses to learn it is represented as a social parasite, a cynical freeloader who consumes Britain's resources without contributing to its economy. But the current hostility to immigration is itself not based only on economic considerations. It is also connected, I will argue, to the much larger reshaping of the cultural and ideological landscape which has taken place in the past decade, precipitated by the 9-11 attacks and the chain of events that followed. These events have provoked anxiety about the threat posed by certain kinds of immigrants, to the security and to the values of Western democracies. The increasingly assiduous policing of our borders is one response to that perceived threat, the threat of terrorism and of radical Islam. But in Britain, the war on terror is not just a war on immigrants. A no less urgent task than to keep the undesirable from coming in from outside is to defeat the enemy within and language is part of the terrain on which that battle is being fought too. As you probably know, Britain had its own small scale 9-11 in 2005. It took place on July the 7th and is therefore often referred to as 7-7. There's a touching failure there to understand what the double meaning of 9-11 actually is, but let it pass. What happened was that four Muslim men, all of them British, travelled to London from the towns where they lived, carrying homemade explosive devices which they proceeded to detonate on three underground tube trains and a bus, killing themselves and more than 50 other people. This provoked a wave of anxiety about the problem of the so-called homegrown terrorist. Prototypically imagined as a young man of Pakistani ancestry but born and raised in Britain, whose failure to integrate into British society has made him politically disaffected and vulnerable to being radicalized by extremists preaching jihad. Preventing this radicalization became part of the mission of a new government department which was set up in 2006 with the title Department for Communities and Local Government. The department now headed by Eric Pickles whose remarks on speaking English I quoted before. The central task of the Department for Communities is to promote something which is called community cohesion. In practice, what this has turned out to involve is a concerted effort to discredit multiculturalism and dismantle the apparatus which supported it while championing an overtly assimilationist agenda. Language emerged early on as a theme of this campaign. On one level, the message was straightforward and uncontroversial. To participate fully in British society, minority ethnic groups must master the majority language. But since no one had ever seriously disputed that proposition, the question arose of what purpose it served for politicians to harp on it so insistently. In my view, the purpose it served was basically ideological. It was being established and largely for the benefit of the majority rather than the minorities who were apparently being addressed was a code in which English monolingualism became the privileged symbol of social cohesion while societal multilingualism came to stand by contrast for division and fragmentation. If we understand this code, a number of things make sense which otherwise would not. For example, in 2008, the community's minister of that time who was a Labour politician, one of the interesting things about the community's ministry is that the change from Labour to Conservative has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to their rhetoric, it's remained exactly the same. So at the time, the community secretary was a Labour politician named Hazel Blears and she made a very peculiar speech in which she urged local councils to stop translating official documents into minority community languages. And what she said was, instead of translating everything, you should think very carefully about how you can bring people together. Now, at a literal level, I put it to you that it is quite difficult to follow the logic of that recommendation. How exactly does putting the same English-language leaflet through every citizen's door have the effect of bringing people together? For those citizens who are unable to read English, declining to provide material in any other language might well seem like the opposite of an inclusive gesture. Translation itself can be thought of, and very often has been, as a way of bringing people together by giving them access to the same texts even when they don't share a common language. But by the time the minister made her speech, there had been a sustained attack on translation as a multiculturalist practice which signified not inclusiveness but divisiveness and ghettoization. The image of the same text rendered in a series of different languages and scripts had become a very powerful symbol of ethnic and religious fragmentation, a stark reminder of difference and otherness which needed to be erased in the interest of cohesion. And this has continued. So, for instance, in the most recent report from the Department of Communities that I forced myself to read before I came, there was a whole section about how people felt very uncomfortable going into shops where they couldn't read the signs. And as I read this, I realized it was not talking about minorities being unable to understand signs in English. It was talking about the majority going into shops where there might be things labeled in Polish or Punjabi. So this made people feel uncomfortable and was there for something that should be got rid of. But the war on translation, which has continued since 2008, is by no means the most illogical element in the discourse which represents English monolingualism as a defense against fragmentation and the extremism it allegedly encourages. What much of this discourse unaccountably overlooks is that the homegrown terrorist whose spectacular emergence in 2005 prompted the whole concern about community cohesion is himself most often a native speaker of English and not infrequently a monolingual one. The point was dramatized shortly after 7.7 when martyrdom videos made by two of the bombers were retrieved and then broadcast by the media. No subtitles were required. The language in which these young men explained their political philosophy and said goodbye to their loved ones was not Arabic, Urdu or Punjabi. It was English spoken with a Yorkshire accent. Interviewed for a documentary, one survivor of the 7.7 attacks said that she found the accent the most chilling feature of the video. A fairly astonishing remark given the content of it and what followed it. But the idea that there is something particularly disturbing about the use of a regional English dialect as the medium for an Islamic terrorist's martyrdom video is not without a certain symbolic logic. In the discourse I've been talking about so far the key opposition, rhetorical opposition is between cohesion symbolized by English monolingualism and fragmentation or sort of social disunity associated with the maintenance of other languages. The fragmentation is figured as a threat but the nature and source of the threat is actually quite vaguely evoked using generic terms like extremism and radicalization. There's no actual mention in community's ministry documents. The word Islam isn't mentioned, the word terrorism isn't mentioned. But in the second discourse I want to talk about, the code is less opaque. Language becomes a metaphor for the so-called clash of civilizations and the central opposition is between English and Islam. Now this second discourse is not specifically British. In fact it seems to have originated in the United States. In a short article published in 2005 the applied linguists Sir Hale Calmini drew attention to a policy being pursued by the United States government after 9-11 whereby large educational aid packages were directed to countries which were considered to be centers for Islamic radicalization. The idea was to reduce Islamist influence by encouraging governments to adopt modern and secular forms of education in preference to religious schooling. Pakistan for example received over $250 million in aid as part of a package whose objective was described as quote, resting control of the schools from the mullahs. One of the initiatives this money funded was the introduction of English teaching at elementary school level as well as secondary level. Apart from being seen as a contribution to economic development English language teaching was also regarded by the architects of US policy as an effective tool for countering religious extremism and inculcating pro-western or at least less anti-western attitudes. Now it might be asked why they believed that learning English would have those ideological effects and the answer seems to lie in the old nationalist idea that each language has its own distinctive character and functions as a vehicle for the values that it distinctively embodies. This idea has been elaborated extensively on discourse in discourse on English but shown of its kind of any nationalist underpinnings and put into a global context. So English is recurrently said to embody the virtues of openness, tolerance, pragmatism and democracy. In many popular histories of the language these qualities are invoked to account for the meteoric rise of English from obscure and peripheral Germanic dialect to global lingua franca. Now in reality of course, the spread of English is explained not by its linguistic characteristics but by its speakers success in pursuing the classic four C's, commerce, conquest, colonization and conversion. But English boosterism remains a significant current in verbal hygiene discourse and the values the language is supposed to embody have taken on a political significance which is new in the post 9-11 context. In 2003 for instance, the right-wing commentator Paul Johnson offered an odd linguistic defense for the US-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan describing the US as quote, uniquely endowed to exercise global authority because America has the language of the 21st century. A more secure world, he continued, will be legislated for, policed and adjudicated in English. Now I said that the discourse this comment belongs to is structured by an opposition between English and Islam. English is figured as the language of legitimate global authority and as a natural vehicle for the core Western values of rationality, moderation, tolerance and democracy. Islam on the other hand is represented as irrational, fanatical, intolerant and autocratic. It is also profoundly unmodern. Whereas America has the language of the 21st century, Islam in this discourse is stuck in the dark ages. Now Islam of course is not itself a language and you might think in that sense that an analysis that opposes it to English is a flawed one. But the qualities predicated of Islam in general are often discursively projected onto language and one language in particular. Quite logically, Arabic, the language of the Quran which Muslims regard as sacred. Not that the Arabic of the Quran is the language used by Arabic speakers in everyday discourse but that nuance does not seem to stand in the way of the symbolism working. Well before 9-11 in 1994, a contributor to the journal Middle East Quarterly posed the question, does the Arabic language encourage radical Islam? He concluded that the answer was yes and not only because Arabic has been shaped by Islamic culture and history in much the same way that English say has been shaped by Christian culture and history. At a very basic level, he claimed, the language resists rational interrogation and critical thought. Last year, somewhat similarly, the broadcaster Al Jazeera got hold of a PowerPoint presentation which was being used to train FBI agents in the fine art of interrogating people who were either speakers of Arabic or from an Arabic-speaking cultural background. The presentation included a fairly amazing section on language which asserted among other things that, quote, the Arabic-speaking mind is swayed more by words than ideas and more by ideas than facts. As a literal proposition, this seems not so much wrong as just entirely devoid of any meaning. Facts are surely also ideas and many, though not all words, are the signifiers of ideas. So what is the FBI talking about? But at a symbolic level, I think the import is rather clearer. Arabs speak a language ungoverned by the norms of truth and logic. It is utterly alien and threatening to our values. Once again, though, what is elided in this discourse is that large numbers of educated Arabic speakers do in fact speak English. In fact, there's a growing phenomenon and some would say problem, whereby the most educated Arabic speakers find it easier to write English than having been educated in that medium than to write traditional Fusar, which they feel incompetent to do. The idea that more English teaching will mean less terrorism seems entirely misguided when one considers a point made very trenchantly by Sahel Karmany that the attacks of 9-11 could not have been carried out by Arabic monolinguals. To prepare for the attacks, organize them, execute them without being discovered, the terrorists had to have some level of proficiency in English. Conversely, the homegrown and monolingual English-speaking British terrorists of 7-7 got their political education not from continuing cultural contact with Pakistan, but from the online preaching of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was a valuable asset to Al-Qaeda because he spoke English and was therefore able to reach a global audience on the internet. Global terrorism is no different from global trade or global tourism. It too depends on the transnational flow of people, money, commodities and information. And in that sense, is inherently a multi rather than a monolingual phenomenon. This excursion into post 9-11 verbal hygiene might suggest that the traditional symbolic meanings of multilingualism and monolingualism are ceasing to serve any clear ideological purpose. In Britain and probably in other majority anglophone nations, it is still possible to generate political anxiety around the very idea of societal multilingualism. But I suspect that is largely because the monolingualism it contrasts with is specifically English monolingualism. Outside our own borders, we do not valorise monolingualism. On the contrary, British foreign policy like the USAID policy that I talked about before offers active support for the teaching of English and therefore in effect for global multilingualism. So it's one thing at home and another thing abroad. In continental Europe, the idea of a repertoire which includes English alongside whatever the nationalist symbol is is entirely unremarkable and it would be toothpaste you couldn't put back in the tube. So in current discourse and practice, I think the opposition that carries the main ideological load is not the contrast between multi and mono, between the one and the many, so much as the contrast between one language and another, the one and the other. In the age of globalisation, global conflicts, be they economic, political or religious, are increasingly played out in the symbolic arena of verbal hygiene by way of representations of languages and the values they supposedly embody. And one of the things I think is being expressed in this kind of discourse is a kind of fear among English speakers that the power they have wielded in the world for 400 years may soon be eclipsed. The extraordinary popularity of mass market books which rehearse the story of English, celebrate the triumph of English, proclaim it as the language of the 21st century, the global language that will last forever, the vector for democracy and the spread of capitalism and, you know, to places like China which have never known it before. This is, to my mind, one sign of this anxiety. The story of English never actually changes. It's the same facts in the same order. So the fact that people apparently want to read it over and over and over again, penned by various celebrity authors, might suggest that it is functioning as some sort of comfort blanket. Another interesting sign of the times is the emergence of a discourse which seriously considers what might take over from English. Mandarin is one popular candidate. Another that's been suggested is Globish, a kind of artificial English-based pigeon. Another is a scenario where you have the world divided again into regions where there will be a dominant language of influence for a region rather than the whole world and possibly the most radical is machine translation, as suggested by Nicholas Ostler in his book The Last Linguafranca which argued that English is not an exception to the law of history and that its global preeminence is doomed to fade away. In Ostler's vision of the future, no one will need to be multilingual and no surviving language will be endangered. Everyone will be able to use their mother tongue and be instantly understood thanks to the wonders of technology. I think we've heard this morning how far away we are from that position. Each of these imagined scenarios offers a different take on what moral and political values the ideal linguistic order should be based on. But although the answers vary, what I would say is there is and never will be any escape from the question. Yesterday, someone asked after Michael Holkvist's talk, what's behind the fear? Why are people so afraid of multilingualism or of other languages? My answer, that's always been my question. That is the central question of my work on verbal hygiene. And my answer is that what's behind the fears that drive verbal hygiene is always the fear of disorder, of social breakdown or moral anarchy. For cultures which have codified representations of language, which have reduced language to rule in any way. Language is always apprehended as a sort of microcosm of order, a metaphor for moral conduct. Linguists persistently misrecognise this analogy, this correspondence, this mapping of one order onto another. Linguists misrecognise this as a mark of people's ignorance and lack of understanding to be remedied by our more scientific knowledge about what language really is. I believe it is we, the linguists, who fail to understand something very important about our object of study, something which in my view is inherent to it and not just grafted on from outside. It is our failure to engage with the underlying logic of verbal hygiene that makes us so irrelevant or ineffectual in so many important political debates. And that's really where I want to end. I don't know if we can be any less ineffectual, but it certainly doesn't help if we don't understand what language is doing in events like the ones that make up the war on terror. So I'm going to stop now and open the floor to other people. Thank you. Total silence. Yes, thank you. I just, in terms of what you just did, your conclusion with which I completely agree. We're also shooting ourselves in the foot, linguists, by not doing that. Because we fail to see that it's precisely those attitudes which can precipitate sound shifts, linguistic changes, pronunciation shifts. And without, how can we properly analyze those without taking into account the cultural forces and all of those anxieties that you described that precipitate me? Thank you. I just, just to keep the dialogue going and finish very quickly, I was just getting into it. Surely English is remarkable as being historically unregulated. Remarkable lack of an academy or attempt to control it. Isn't there a sense to that? Yeah, that doesn't mean there's never been any attempt to control it. It just means that the agencies have been different from, you know, they haven't been state agencies, if you like, they've been private individuals or sort of institutions of one sort or another. There's certainly always been attempts to regulate it. But the idea that we don't have an academy and we don't have a government department of culture, actually, we do have one now. Department for culture and sport. But I think that's all part of the ideology of it's a pragmatic language. It's an open, tolerant language.  And we've just got on with it in our laissez-faire way and that's why we've triumphed and, you know, the French can go to hell. That's what it basically amounts to. But it's a bit of an illusion that there's no regulation. Sorry. So I guess, I'm like, I didn't want you to stop. And so I wish, the point on which you ended, I do want you to play it out a little bit because so let's say the linguists in response to say, I mean, one thing here that confirms your approach is the fact that we had, about a decade ago, we had a wave of English-only legislation which numerous states, I think 28 or 32 or something, passed various versions of English, official English legislation. And now it shifted over to anti-immigrant legislation and it's just a recartification of the same sets of anxieties, I think. But if the linguists' input on these kinds of questions of English only say are, well, just to say to people, well, actually, you're just afraid of disorder. How helpful is that? What difference does that, in other words, what actually can, what kind of intervention can be illuminating and effective? Okay, I didn't make myself clear. I make this argument at very much greater length in verbal hygiene. Then the issue isn't that linguists shouldn't make factual interventions. In fact, I think the extent to which they, don't bother to do so is kind of horrifying. Like one thing that I think never comes into a debate on this business about immigrants should learn English is, okay, how long does it take to learn English? That kind of thing. We have research on that. There are things in which a factual intervention can at least influence governments because they subscribe to a sort of scientist ideology in which they do attempt to make evidence-based policy. It's very, very striking how policy on language is less evidence-based and public debate on language is less rational than on many other subjects, which are actually, you would have thought, harder for the layperson to understand, economics or climate change or whatever. However, where I think linguists shoot themselves in the foot is that they insist on decrying the whole discourse of value. They insist on saying, no, no, no, no, all possible scenarios linguistically are entirely equal. It is a vulgar error to say that this matters, to say that there are norms in any way or that we could talk in a sensible way about what would be reasonable norms. I think if linguists won't talk about value, laypeople will always dismiss them. It's like, these people study language, but clearly nobody has ever cared less about language than the denizens of the Modern Linguistics Department. And I think that's absolutely true. So linguists refuse to say, and we could be debating what the norms should be, but what linguists usually appear to be saying in public is, stop having any norms, it's a category mistake.  Monkey's cries have been in a state of degeneration for thousands of years. He's saying, it's exactly like this. It's a natural phenomenon, it's an instinct. It's as stupid to talk about what we value in language as it would be to talk about what was right and wrong in the behavior of non-human animals. I say, it's entirely different. And if you don't understand the role that normativity plays in language, inherently, as well as symbolically, then you are betraying your objective study. There's an aspect of language that you are falling down on the job of both describing and explaining. So that's my objection to linguists. It's not that I'm saying they shouldn't ever intervene and say, well, actually research shows this or that, but they have to put it in a frame where it is not just senseless to talk about norms or value. Hi, thank you very much for your presentation. It was really amazing. So my name is Norman Mendoza Denton and I'm here in the School of Anthropology and I'm a native Spanish speaker. So I have a one-year-old daughter that I'm trying to speak in Spanish with all the time. And this is against the backdrop of legislation, well, a judge in Texas that decreed that speaking monolingually to your child was, I came to child abuse and so on. So I go to the Safeway to the store and I speak to her in Spanish and we're labeling all the objects in Spanish and she goes around and does that.  And then they say, and they hear that I also speak English because I speak to the shop people in English and they say, well, do you ever speak to her in English? You know, like in this really worried tone, do you ever speak to her in English? Because you know, I mean, I'm sure they're thinking that's important. And I say, no, I never do. Well, what about her dad? No, he speaks to her in Arabic. And then this incredible look of like shock and horror. Like, oh my God, an Arabic Spanish bilingual. And then they say, well, is she going to learn English? Like, well, she goes to school in English. Oh, big relief. And then they're like, okay. And I tell them, you know, you gotta give Spanish a chance because most of the day she's in school in English. And then I guess my question is that there's a deep ambivalence in the linguistic situation, especially in Tucson where a lot of people also speak Spanish. Once they realize what the program is, then they're like, oh, let me help you. And then they start speaking to her in Spanish. And I just, like that always floors me that there's both of those, well, both. There's that resistance of disorder and the threat of disorder and of an incredibly disordered situation where you have this clash of everything kind of all mixed up in one person. And at the same time, once they realize like, oh, maybe it's not such a threat, then they see it in this more benign kind of way of like, oh, maybe multilingualism is okay. This is a chance for me to practice. So I've just always been struck by the ambivalence in these matters. No, that's a very interesting example. And thank you. Part of the problem for linguists, it seems to me, is that they are perceived by the people who make policy as academic pointy heads. I mean, who are talking about something that because they have, they can't recognize that there is a professional specialized knowledge of. So that the linguistic knowledge of language is something that comes from people in the university. I mean, who are usually dismissed as being unable to contribute to a substantive conversation about value. So part of being concerned for values, it seems to me, is recognizing the peculiar value that we are perceived to manifest in the society in which we are working. Right, but what you're saying doesn't entirely apply to discussionable subjects. It's really very extreme in the case of language. So in other words, government policy makers will take advice from pointy heads on lots of things, including things that people have personal experience of, such as child raising. I think it's a very particular thing with language myself, which, and it is, that it takes, I mean, it takes all the years of a linguistics degree to get socialized so that you don't make value judgments anymore. You know, you really have to unlearn them. That's a major part of your task as a linguistics teacher, to get on and on at your students, no, that's not wrong, no, that's not bad. It's different. All varieties are equal, blah, blah, blah, to get rid of that value discourse. And I think that's what lay people can't understand. And I also think that, you know, just because you get rid of, you critique certain values, it does not follow that you have no values. I mean, well, I'll give you a very small example. Linguists aren't free from their own values about their own discourse. The organizers of this conference wish to start a new journal, the Journal of Critical Multilingualism, and I wish them luck, but I notice they say that anyone who sends in a contribution needs to conform to all the rules in the Chicago manual of style. Now, excuse me, but why? Those are, and, you know, those are not the native language of everybody as a British academic, I don't normally conform to the rule that distinguishes restrictive from non-restrictive relative clauses or puts the punctuation mark inside the quote mark, rather than, you know, I put it outside. This is entirely arbitrary, entirely conventional, entirely, and linguists take that for granted.  By the way, I don't object to, you know, I'll go along with the Chicago manual of style, but I just point it out, you know, as something where we haven't questioned our own prescriptivism at all. Deborah, thanks very much. That was immensely cathartic. And just to add to your lovely examples, the 2011 census last year obviously had a question on it about language policy. And the question was, how well do you speak English very well, moderately, or not at all? And this was the first time that that question had been included in the sentence. But I want to take up your question at the end about linguists. And I'm wondering about modern linguists having been in the UK part of a group that have been campaigning rigorously to have languages policies during the exact same time period that you're looking at in your talk. And where we've seen in England are languages, a modern languages policy come in, which is about the value of multilingualism, of learning a range of different languages. And where in the Scottish context at the moment we do have a Gallic language policy and all public institutions are having to think through what it means to embed a Gallic language discourse into the public sphere and how that fits with your questions around linguists and their norms and values. Okay, that's sort of a huge question. I'm not sure I can deal with all of it. I think the sort of multilingualism policy that you find in Scotland and in Wales, there's something very strange about it because it's caught between various discourses one is an old, sorry, the phrase that comes to mind is the kind of blood and soil. So I can have language rights as a Gallic speaker in Scotland or a Welsh speaker in Wales, but I can't take them with me to England. I can't, so then they're dependent on my territoriality. And so they're actually about preserving the trace of a particular heritage. I mean, when the Scottish Parliament opened up and people were swearing those of loyalty, I was very pleased to see that for everyone who swore an oath of loyalty in Gallic, there was also someone who swore it in Punjabi or Chinese, both of which have more speakers incidentally in Scotland than Gallic does. But this is a point that Mary Louise made yesterday about how post-colonialism produces a multilingualism that is not equal. But when the post-colonialism gets post enough so that the thing becomes indigenous heritage and is on the verge of extinction, then we change our tune. But I don't think that anywhere in Britain there is an egalitarian language learning or language teaching policy. And I think we haven't sorted out these things about. They are grappling with it in Wales. So in Wales, you can opt for Welsh-medium schooling all over the country. And many of the people who opt for it are not historic Welsh speakers. They're doing the same thing that people do with French and Canada, sort of buying a kind of advantage for their children in terms of cultural capital by sending them to a school where they will have the immersion experience. And the question of whether people have the right to speak a language which is not ethnically, historically, ancestrally theirs, something that you can't justify with old-style nationalist or identity politics, that remains a very vexed question, doesn't it? I think I'd also have to say about Britain that maybe Scotland is different. I'm not as in touch with it as I was, but in England anyway, all pious aspirations to foreign language learning in schools have to be subject to the critique that not enough time is spent on teaching foreign languages in schools for anyone to acquire any level of proficiency that makes any difference at all. So I think we're in a bit of a mess, frankly. I don't know if that answers your question. That's a very depressing point. I just want to bring it back to the US context and what you said before. Two points that go to value and norms. One is that, in fact, as somebody who speaks German to his kids, I've heard the same people who raise those same kind of fears about bilingualism with regard to languages, well, Spanish, can turn to me and say, oh, you speak German to your kid, that is so cool. So I think that not all bilingualisms are regarded as in the public discourse as equal and even, I'd then point to another dynamic that I've observed a lot is that speakers of languages other than English in the US also themselves are very fearful about using those languages, even with their own children. I've had many parents come to the university park and come to the university just to talk and say, should I speak language X to my child? I really, you know, I'm very worried that they will be disadvantaged and cognitively, socially. So that's a very widespread phenomenon and it should also be looked at together with these other conventions. Yeah, I think the first thing you said really does go to my point about, it's not a contrast between one and many, it's a contrast between one and other. So some others are more acceptable than others. So it is basically about how particular languages are symbolized in a particular context. So being bilingual in a Subbleton language and being bilingual in what's perceived as a kind of elite language are two very different things from most people's point of view. I imagine this discussion will continue and we may even see its immediate impact in a revised version of the call for submissions at this point. But I think we need to now take a break for lunch. So please join me in thanking Deborah Cameron for her wonderful talk. Thank you.


Distinguished guests and visitors, it is with great pleasure that I am addressing the Institute of International and European Affairs here in Dublin. I welcome this opportunity to discuss FATF policy with informed participants of an FATF member state. Ireland has been a member of the FATF since 1991 and has actively contributed to the evolution of the FATF standards throughout its participation. Today I look forward to providing you with a brief overview of the FATF, its mandate and membership and its cooperation within the global network of partner international organizations such as the IMF, United Nations and World Bank among others. Our coordination has remained essential to harmonizing and implementing the revised set of FATF standards. I hope to convey to you that international coordination and cooperation is essential to completing the FATF's work in assisting countries to effectively implement the standards on anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, I will cover the FATF's work on assessing compliance with standards. The FATF is the global standard setter on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The FATF is an intergovernmental body which was established in 1989 by the ministers of its member jurisdictions.  I would like to briefly touch on the evolving membership structure of the FATF. From its establishment in July 1989 by the group of seven summit in Paris, the FATF has grown to become a body where 34 member countries, two regional organizations and eight fat style regional bodies cooperate. The regional bodies have gained a stronger status under their new mandate and currently take part in all FATF activities as associate members. Together, these members comprise the global network of FATF which currently represents 192 jurisdictions with six more countries on the way to membership. This leaves about a dozen jurisdictions outside the network. Under the Russian presidency, the FATF has made it a priority to assist remaining jurisdictions to become members of appropriate fat style regional bodies. All member and prospective member countries have to submit written political level endorsement of the FATF recommendations and agree to full implementation of them and to undergo a peer assessment of compliance. Three times a year, the FATF plenary brings together member countries, observers and fat style regional bodies to carry forward its work plan and to discuss possible new work. Given that we are a task force, we operate under a fixed lifespan which requires explicit agreement among ministers to prolong it. The fact that ministers have extended our current mandate by eight years to expire in 2020 is a testament to the FATF's prior achievements as well as an indicator of the work that remains to be done. The fat's role as the standard setter on countering money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing has necessitated cooperation with many international organizations. While 25 international organizations have the status of FATF observers, our cooperation is often focused on our partner organizations' specialties. For instance, we cooperate with fat style regional bodies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to develop our common assessment methodology. And as I will highlight later, the IMF and World Bank also cooperate to provide technical assistance to countries. Additionally, the FATF has worked to adopt numerous United Nations conventions and Security Council resolutions into its recommendations. This level of cooperation would have been impossible without the endorsement and support the FATF has received from international organizations. We also work with international stakeholders to identify national level vulnerabilities to protect the financial system from abuse. Fat typology reports are designed to assist relevant stakeholders and countries to identify and respond to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, trends and methods. The FATF recommendations are detailed technical standards that cover regulatory, supervisory, law enforcement and legal issues. Our approach to designing the standards is holistic, integrating measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing into a single set of recommendations. I strongly believe and experience has shown that a single set of recommendations and requirements is less resource intensive and a more effective approach for both government and the private sectors. In further development, developing our global network, the FATF will continue to work with the FATF-style regional bodies, the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations and other bodies. I would now like to provide an overview of the FATF recommendations. The foundation of the FATF recommendations is the criminalization of money laundering and terrorist financing at the domestic level. Our standards require countries to adopt definitions of money laundering and terrorist financing offenses on the basis of international conventions such as the Vienna Convention and the Terrorist Financing Convention with the intent of covering the broadest range of predicate offenses. Furthermore, we require countries to put in place mechanisms for freezing, seizing and confiscating assets related to money laundering and terrorist financing. Our recommendations also recognize that countries must provide supervisory and law enforcement authorities with the necessary resources and powers. For example, we require that financial institutions should effectively apply the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's core principles to their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing efforts. This allows the FATF to more seamlessly apply its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing supervisory standards across a variety of jurisdictions and financial institutions. Our standards require that supervisors have powers to compel information from and apply fines to financial institutions. We also require countries to establish financial intelligence units that serve as the nerve centers for collecting and exchanging information on illicit financial activities. Finally, we require that law enforcement authorities are provided with the necessary investigative powers and human and organizational resources to pursue those engaged in money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Although empowering authorities is critical to pursuing illicit financial activities, we believe it is essential for the financial sector to have in place strong preventive measures to dissuade such conduct from the outset. The FATF's customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements oblige financial institutions and designated non-financial business professionals to conduct due diligence on customers and where necessary file reports about suspicious or unusual transactions or activities. These standards are further tailored to deal with so-called politically exposed persons as well as financial techniques and products which pose enhanced risks. While these standards are rigorous, they are founded on a risk-based approach which provides those carrying out due diligence with flexibility in allocating their resources. A particular focus of the next round of country assessments, which has just begun, is to increase transparency and ensure that countries create the proper frameworks to disclose the beneficial ownership of legal persons and arrangements. For example, revised recommendations 24 and 25 require that investigative authorities have access to adequate and timely information on persons related to legal entities and arrangements, trusts, bearer shares, and nominee shareholders. Such information can play a crucial role in assisting authorities to solve financial crimes. Finally, our standards provide tools for international cooperation among countries. Our recommendations on mutual legal assistance require countries to put into place mechanisms for cross-border cooperation on investigating money laundering and terrorist financing crimes. Countries cannot rely on secrecy provisions to refuse requests. Countries are required to set up mechanisms for international asset freezing and confiscation requests. These measures directly counter the advantages criminal or terrorists may enjoy when operating across multiple jurisdictions. I would now like to describe how the FATF assessed compliance prior to the latest revisions of our standards. I will then discuss how recent revisions to the standards will affect future assessments. Money laundering and terrorist financing are transnational crimes. Therefore, it is important that assessment of all countries is done in a thorough and consistent manner and that all countries are required to correct any deficiencies which may be identified in the course of an assessment. Since 2004, the FATF, the FABSTYLE Regional Bodies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have all used the same methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF recommendations. All assessment reports are publicly available. They have given the FATF a real insight into implementation and compliance issues across many jurisdictions. Importantly, these detailed reports show countries and policy makers which deficiencies are present in their jurisdictions. The purpose of undertaking these assessments is to identify deficiencies in the country's AML-CFT system and encourage countries to correct them through a peer review mechanism. The information we gathered through our assessments is also valuable for technical assistance providers and coordinators, such as FABSTYLE Regional Bodies, the IMF and the World Bank. With this information, those organizations are able to react much faster to identify needs and to assist countries to implement the standards. In addition, the United Nations can also use this framework to deploy their assistance and guidance to countries. While assessments and technical assistance are critical to the global efforts, further actions are sometimes required to address money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Since 2007, the FATF has analyzed high-risk countries and issued specific recommendations through the International Cooperation Review Group. We have regularly issued public statements to highlight deficiencies in particular jurisdictions. We make regular reports on countries judged to have strategic anti-money laundering or terrorist financing deficiencies. In the cases of Iran and North Korea, the FATF has called on its members to apply countermeasures in order to mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing risks originating from these countries. The latest FATF list contains nine further countries that have either not committed to an action plan developed by the FATF or have not made sufficient progress in addressing strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering or counter-terrorist financing regimes. A few brief words on the current round of assessments which the FATF and FatStyle regional bodies have just commenced, as this is one of the core tasks of the global FATF network. In addition to a focus on technical compliance, the current round will have a much stronger focus on effectiveness. Generally speaking, the FATF uses the term effectiveness or effective compliance to describe whether a system is achieving the results it should achieve. Although our previous assessments have always taken effectiveness into account, they focused mainly on technical compliance. While this approach has provided a solid understanding of the legal framework that countries have in place, it left an incomplete picture of which countries achieve the required results and effectively comply and which do not. Therefore, in the current round of assessments, technical compliance and effectiveness will each be assessed and rated. The goal of assessing a country's effectiveness is to understand how well the entire structure of a country's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing system works and whether the FATF recommendations are being met in practice and produce the right outcomes. In order to assess effectiveness, the FATF has adopted an assessment framework based on a series of defined outcomes. Given the importance of the revised recommendations, the FATF has stressed the need for jurisdictions to pursue speedy adoption of legislation to translate the international standards into their own domestic frameworks. As with the assessment of the technical compliance, it is the responsibility of each country to demonstrate to assessors that it is compliant with the effectiveness outcomes. The FATF's high-level objective is to protect the domestic and international financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing, thereby ensuring that the integrity of a country's financial system is strengthened and secured. At the same time, the FATF recognizes that countries have diverse legal, administrative and operational frameworks in addition to different financial systems and cannot therefore take identical measures to all threats. In this vein, the FATF is pleased to see that the European Union is taking steps towards finalizing its fourth anti-money laundering directive. Let me conclude by summarizing the main points of today's presentation. In terms of achieving its global mandate, the FATF relies on its members as well as the FATF-style regional bodies and observer organizations to establish effective anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing systems. The combined perspectives serve to directly enhance the flexibility and efficiency of our standards and their implementation. Our revised standards place a greater emphasis on transparency and our new assessment methodology provides a tool to assess the extent to which countries are meeting their commitments, including whether their systems are actually working in practice. This is a new and challenging task. It will require our assessors and members to collaborate in novel ways. This need for cooperation underpins the commitment the FATF has to working with its members, the FATF-style regional bodies and observer organizations, to see that the standards are properly and consistently implemented. We have been working to provide guidance to countries on these and other issues. However, our multilateral cooperation allows us to also call on FATF-style bodies, the World Bank, the IMF and the UN, which all remain strongly committed to achieving our common goals. Therefore, moving forward, we will continue to provide assistance to countries through the FATF's global network in pursuing our common goals of preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism. I hope that my comments today have provided the audience with a better understanding of how FATF and its global network works and how it intends to work in the years to come. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today.


Welcome to my Armory. In here we have over 1,200 weapons. We range from your basic standard 9mm Beretta all the way through your top-of-the-line sniper rifles, thermal scopes, night vision, all kinds of different things. My name is Gunners mate, second-class Nathan Van Leer. I'm originally from West Lafayette, Indiana. I'm down here at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane. I'm the armorer for the schoolhouse here. I install faults. I break weapons down to the bare frame. I issue and receive weapons to the classrooms and to facilities around the base. My favorite part about working here is the challenges of working with weapons that are not in your everyday Blue Water Navy. Things from the Mark 15 sniper rifle to your 25 pistols to your MP5s. Out of all the weapons here in the Armory, this is my favorite. This is the Mark 20 sniper support rifle. The reason it is my favorite is because prior to coming here I had no experience with this weapon. I have the job that every Gunners mate in the Navy would want. I work in the NSWC Armory.


Wait, what do you mean that's not Yeet? Oh. I digress.  It's probably what you're expecting me to say. To be honest, that's not how I feel at all. I think he's actually quite the unique artist. But there is some problems with his music. My friends asked me to go to a Yeet concert that's coming up very soon, so I wanted to get hip on his music, so I decided to ask my chat on Twitch to get me hip on his music. Okay, he gave me something mainstream. I'm not mad at it. And while listening to this stuff, I've kind of realized I'm not hating. I just need lyrics chat, because I don't know what he's saying. I already jumped out the show. When I listen to artists, I have this innate ability to where I listen to the song once and then the second time around, I would know a lot of the lyrics already.  I had to watch a lyric video. I've never had to do that before. And while I was watching the lyric video, I honestly don't think he was saying the stuff that I was reading. I think somebody is capping who had to make these videos. I think y'all lying, bro. I'm going to be real. I know this is a lyric video. I really don't think he's saying what I'm reading right now, chat. There's no Rosetta Stone that can help me figure out these lyrics. He's also setting trends for new words.  I don't I don't even know what a twizy is. Do you understand his slingo?  What is Tiz? Can you tell me what that is? Drug. So he pops drugs. Tiz is a drug. Tesla. Also, Tiz is a store for Tesla. Bro, he's talking about this Tonka truck in every single song.  At first, when I first heard it, I thought it meant like big booty. Like, you know what I'm saying? Like a shawty got that Tonka truck. Good to your head right now. Recite a yeet bar in the comments below right now. Don't look it up. Actually, recite one off the top of your head. And that's going to prove my point right there if y'all can't. Who knows?   That's all I wanted to talk about. Give me your opinions in the comments below. It's your boy, Biscuit. I'm live on Twitch right now. If you want to give me your opinion live, I'm going to get off here and I'm probably going to attempt to go actually listen to yeet.


Hey guys, this is Tasha from Start of School Crochet. This week's Saturday Stitch Explorer tutorial is called the paddle stitch. Here it is. I've done a few rows here to show you. It's a great stitch. It has loops in there. It's really nice, and I didn't have to modify this one too much. So let's get started. I'm using a three-weight yarn and a four millimeter hook. Okay guys, so our stitch works in multiples of eight, and then you add two and four for the foundation chain. Also, I hurt my hands last week. That's why I didn't do my stitch explorer tutorial. So sorry about that guys.  Okay, so one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and I'm going to do sixteen. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. So I have sixteen here. Then hold on to that last chain, then work two more and four more. That's for your foundation. So here we're going to work into the seventh chain, which is the one I'm holding. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We work one double crochet, a chain one, and a double crochet into the same chain, chain two, sorry, double crochet, chain two, and double crochet. Then we're going to skip three chains and work two double crochets, a chain one, and two double crochets into the same chain. So there we have two doubles, a chain, and two doubles. Skip three, you repeat this until you reach the end. You're going to double crochet, chain two, and double crochet into the same space. And then when you have seven chains left on your hook, it works a little different. One, two, three, five, six, seven. So we're going to skip the three, work two doubles and a chain one, just like we did before. Two doubles, chain one, and two doubles. And then when we're at the end, we're just going to skip two chains and work one double crochet into this last chain. And then for, that's your row one. For row two, you chain three, turn it, and you're going to work into the chain spaces of each of the ones that we did before, the little clusters. So you're going to skip one, two, three double crochets, and in this first one, we're going to work the first part of our repeat, which is a double crochet, chain two, and double crochet. Then when you go into this one, you're going to work the two double crochets, chain one, two double crochets, and we're going to work into the center of each like that. And you work into the last one, the two doubles. Basically, you're working opposite of what you're working into. So on the ones with the double crochet down below. So every time you reach one of these clusters like this, it's a two double crochets. The one above it's going to be the single double crochets. So that might keep, make it easier, because I messed up a few times doing mine. When you come to the end here, you're going to work a double crochet into the chain one, or the top of the chain. You can work through one or two loops. It's up to you. So you're going to repeat this row two until you reach your desired height. So it's really easy and it works up really fast. So you're going to skip these three, double crochet one, chain two, double crochet one, skip on over to the center, chain space, work two double crochet, one chain, and two double crochet. Super easy guys. And I love this stitch. I think it's my new favorite stitch. It does work up super fast. Oops. Once you get a rhythm going with it. And then again, when you come to the chain three on the end, you just work a double crochet into the chain. And I'm sure if you wanted to, you could probably work around the chain. Either way would be good. But that's it. So you keep working this row two until you reach your desired height. All right guys, subscribe, hit the little bell. Let me know what you think about this stitch. And if you do create anything with it, just hashtag paddle stitch so I can see it. Happy crocheting!


One of the most common questions I get asked is, you know, how do I start day trading? So what me and my mentor about it for our viewers on YouTube is create a free Mentorship course that reveals our 12 secrets that every single brand new day trader should know before they get started But please take note that there is limited seating every single week So please reserve your spot at my investing club.co link is in the description What's up everyone? It's a Tony's on here. Good to be back. I was pretty, you know sick and allows two days Because of a second dose. I'm feeling much better now. And uh, yeah first day back and it's a red day, so and Yeah, you know Because of that, I think that there are a lot of lessons that I want to go over this video And also to answer a lot of your questions regarding, you know, like a lot of people been asking me why My losses are always so small compared to my winners and I will try to kind of explain it in this video and Let me Bring the chart. Yeah, you know, I lost like 159 Bucks, you know with commissions and all that maybe over 200 bucks or something You know today was a tough day, right? There's a lot of There's a lot of crazy shit happening You know, like see see me see EMI You know crazy volume today around like 400 million or something and Not easy day at all Let me I Can couldn't find the one I posted Yeah, I think this was this one Yeah, you know, there's not much to be Sorry guys this one 159 no, it's just like the money.  Okay, and To me it's like this You know, it's really easy when you win I mean, you know when you have a winning day You know, it could make few hundred bucks or few thousand bucks and you know and your rules are not tested, right? Usually we tend to do well Or like we are sticking well to the rules when we win, you know, that's that's the easy part.  You don't want to lose, you know back all the profits or you know You'll completely stop trading after that, right? And so that's easy, you know following the rule 10 30.  They have the consistency they've been making a lot of money or like they've been making consistent money For weeks and months. Okay, but they are not consistently profitable because of that, you know loss, right? Usually one loss wipes out everything Like on this one, right? Let's say This is the broken chart, right in the pre-market. I mean tank from 8.2 all the way to 6.3, right? Psycho, you know psychological line 775 easy, right? You get that, you know, right at the open here like 6.9 almost there you got 80 cents another one 7 Let's say you scale 775 you still make money And then, you know part of the process shorting view app make money shorting, you know 775 make money here, so and You know and if if you short it, you know the stock like on the first bound is to that view app right here Crack and you make money here and try to you know short it back And then let's say you're gonna you're gonna short it here right at the view app All right, seven and let's say you risk above view app since you don't want to you know, give back too much, right and 7.8. Yeah, you Ending up, you know stopping out right here and this is I think this is really the key point like this Let's say you're not gonna, you know, like, you know, like this is really to me that's one of those outliers is Pop into that via reject right stuff Right here, and this is like pretty much the sign what we used to for the last two weeks, right? I'll just stuff like that I mean stock should have you know died after that or at least, you know, give you a decent wash after, you know Small part back into that view. I'm sure wash back into that 6.4 here. Okay, so trap You get out, right? I would have taken that trade every single time. Okay? Short here raise above here. Okay paper cuts one loss another one stuff shorted back second loss, okay, so These are the two losses that I took but Again, I asked myself Was it part of my strategy? Was it part of my process? Would you like would you have taken that trade in the future again and again and over again? Right? It's gonna happen again. Will you take it, right? If your answer is yes, then this loss It's nothing but the cause of doing business. This is one of those those outliers, right?  So instead If you didn't ask yourself that and you have FOMO you're breaking your discipline You're trying to revenge trading, you know after this one you size up here Size up here and size up here cover right at the top and now you're hitting it, you know pretty much max loss so This is usually what happens is When you let that, you know Like comfortable or like, you know manageable loss turning into much bigger loss Usually it's when it's and you know You breaking your own rules. You breaking your own discipline.  Thank you so much for watching our video You want to see more of our videos? Please subscribe to our YouTube channel by clicking the button here We do our best to post a new video every single day If you have any questions about MIC or any general trading questions, please text Tosh You just in the number here also stay up to date by watching some of our most recent videos right over here