The National Broadcasting Company at its affiliated stations present the Pacific story. This is the story of the Pacific. The drama of the millions of people who live around this greatest sea where the United States is now committed to a long-term policy of keeping the peace. This, as another public service of the National Broadcasting Company, is the background story of the events in the Pacific and their meaning to us and to the generations to come. Space is the music. The police take orders and cycle when they came back from the rain. Lock those prisoners up and push the guard with each of them. Yes, sir. Are you sure you searched them? I see you're being very careful about these animals. Yes. We've got some questions to ask them. How many did you ask? All they were in the revolutionary headquarters. Are there any big ones? When? There are some of the pamphlets we found on the place. Yes. How many of these did you find? Thousands. They must have just been printed. It appeals to the United Nations for help, eh? Yes, sir. And to the French people. Looks like they're going all out for independence this time. What would they do with independence? They're not ready for it. The big one they picked up in the raid was an Anamite professor, intelligent fellow, one of the leaders of the Viet Minh Movement, a League for Independence. And there's a lot more to tell you about that. Well, soon the excitement settled down. They brought out this professor for questioning. At once, when you French came back to Indochina, you raid and search our quarters and arrest our people. Do you French consider this the way to win the cooperation of the people of Indochina? Answer my question, please. It is self-evident that France is standing in the way of Indochina's independence. But you are a man of influence, professor. You are aware that when you express such thoughts, that you influence many others. The people do not have to be influenced. But you urge their existence to advise Admiral George Jerry Darjean, you? Did you not? We oppose the return of any Frenchman. Have the Japanese actively helped you against us? We are as much for independence from the Japanese as from your Frenchmen. But is the Japanese furnishing with arms? Professor, do the Japanese give you terroristic instructions over the radio? It is significant that immediately your General Jacques-Philippe Leclerc arrives here in Saigon that you ask us about the Japanese. Why did not you and your generals stay here and protect us from the Japanese? In 1940, you permitted the Japanese to move in. Yes, sir. Take the professor back to his cell. Yes, sir. You will come along now. I am making the same mistakes now that you have made ever since your friends came to Indochina. Well, it looks as though you are going to have your hands full. Sudden changes must be made. The situation in those early days of October was pretty bad. Lots of shooting, lots of killing. And it was going to get worse. The animites who make up more than 70% of the population of Indochina had openly challenged the return of the French. There are about 25 million people in Indochina and about 17 million of animites. The rest are Tonkinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Cauchon Chinese, Thais, people like that. The animites took the lead. Quite a few of the others followed. But it wasn't the spontaneous thing. It had been coming a long time. I talk with a professor in his cell. The French have been here since about the time of your American Civil War. And in all these years, they have failed to win the cooperation of my people. But your people are just one of the peoples of Indochina, professor? Yes. But we are the most numerous people. And the way can make Indochina a unified nation. Actually, Indochina is made up of five different countries, isn't it? Five different political units. Annam, Cambodia, Tonkin, Laos, and Cauchon China. How many of these separate countries are with you, animites? To put it another way, 95% of the peoples are with us for independence. The French say only 5%. Cambodia has declared its independence. Annam has declared its independence. And Luang Prabang, which is the main kingdom of the state of Laos, has established itself as an independent nation. And do you know what this means? That the French have got to reconquer these countries instead of just moving back in? Exactly. It is not simply a matter of the French moving in as the Japanese move out. We are independent. The French have no more right to take us over than they have to take your country over. But with some of the countries of Indochina independent and with at least one of them in favor of French rule, how can you unify the peoples and countries of Indochina into one nation? The unity of the animite majority is more important than the differences in the country. Yes, that may be right. For years there has been a trend. And this trend... Mr. Mayo. Yes? You will have to go now. Yes. Well, thank you, Professor. You have seen only the beginning, Mr. Mayo. Goodbye, dear sir. Goodbye. I thought about what he'd said about a trend. Looking back, there had been a trend. I had come to Indochina in 1935. There's something in the wind, sir. There's bad blood here somewhere. It's been coming for a long time. Anything can happen. Look at that, fellow Schlager. He's a tonkinese. You get to recognize him after a while. All these people milling around. It's like a pot of cake. Watch that, though. Is he one of the leaders? Probably. These people have been resenting the French here ever since they came. Just the tonkinese? No. Nearly all the people of Indochina. When Japan beat Russia in 1905, that encouraged them.  Yes. Same thing happened after the First World War. The French had used them as troops and in work battalions when the war was over. They came back and started asserting themselves. And ever since then, they've been asserting themselves. Organizing political parties and revolutionary societies and saying what they think and however and whenever they get the chance. Hey, something's happened. Yeah, the tonkinese is yelling something. Let's get over there. Here, you'll too.  What's the matter, Captain? Here is fair. Who'll have you? Here is fair. What's that tonkinese saying? He's exhorting the people to rise up against the French. You'll be fairly fair at once. Now, move. What is this, Captain? This is a path to the general outbreak. Two companies of tonkinese troops have mutinied that young day. Mutinied? Yes, until six of the officers. This demonstration is a path to the whole general outbreak. Now, here is fair. Come on, Argue. Yes, as I thought of it, there had been a trend. After that outbreak in 1930, I learned to see beneath the surface. I kept my eyes open. The nationalist movement was growing. During the 30s, this dozen of movement used legal means to fight in politics, campaign for their people, elected members to the municipal and provincial councils, sometimes to the national councils. And it was during this time that I met the professor for the first time. I had the impression that they are trying to promote the interests of us enemies. But the real test is whether they will permit us to promote our interests. For years they tried to destroy our institutions and substitute those of France. This they could not do. So they changed. Now they say they are equal to preserve our customs and our institutions. But will they permit us to advance? No. Except in their way. They have prohibited trade unions by law. And to strike is punishable by law. In the late 30s, the people talked to me about the growing Chinese threat. Do you think the Japanese were there to strike in the Indochina, Mr. Mayo? Do you think they would try to cut off the railroad to Yunnan? Do the French have enough troops and equipment here to defend Indochina against the Japanese? I do not seem to have much. Now that France is at war in Europe, do you think the French will make some kind of deal with the Japanese? Why don't the French take a stronger stand? When France fell, the fishy government signed an agreement with Tokyo. Schlag and I watched the Japanese troops march in and take over. What do you think this is going to do to the prestige of the white man out here, Howard? And it won't help him, especially with the animites. This is not after what the French have been telling them about looking out for their interests. Behold our new master. Oh, hello, Professor. This is a dark day for the people of Indochina. Oh, the whole world, Professor. What has happened now to all those benefits the French posted out? Well, they did give you certain benefits. What benefits? They prevented famine, they built schools and hospitals, built highways, things like that. Yes, and they created the political union of the Indochinese Union. And that helped keep the peace between the countries of Indochina. Do those things balance for what they've taken from us? The taxes and all the revenues from salt and opium and alcohol? And do they make up for all the years of bad administration they've imposed on us? On their disregard for the real interest of the people of Indochina? But you'd still rather have the French here than the Japanese, wouldn't you? Our wish is to be independent. You tell them! We saw some fighting during the next three months. The people of Indochina against the Japanese. They fought them in the hills of Northern Tang King. They fought them down in Koshin, China. The fighting spread right down here to Saigon. And they fought them at Douluang. A loss, of course. But instead of discouraging them, it had the effect of drawing the various nationalist movements into one nationalist movement. The League for the Independence of Indochina. We are now having the League representatives of the main national liberation societies of Indochina. We have representatives here of the workers, the peasants, of our armed forces, of our youth and our women. Our program is entirely oriented for the armed offensive with the object of freeing Indochina from the Japanese invaders. We demand an election of a representative assembly from all classes of the population to make a constitution for the Indochinese state with a form of government based on democratic principles. The Japanese clamped down on them, but they couldn't suppress the League. They couldn't tell who was a member of the League and who wasn't. Mr. Mail, you are an American. In the present delicate situation between your country and Japan, your behavior here in Indochina could prejudice your country's best interests. I don't quite understand. The League for the Independence of Indochina is pledged to the defeat of Japan. It would be wise for you to keep that in mind since you are here in Indochina at our suffrage. I managed to get out before Pearl Harbor. I went to Chongqing. Free China was in contact with the League. We knew that the League was building up not only against Japan, but also against France. The French knew it too. And all the time the Japanese were trying, with not too much success, to sell the Indochinese on the idea that they were really the liberators of Indochina and that they would give the Indochinese a much better deal than the French and that the Indochinese knew about promises. In 1945, Japan's military position in Indochina was shaken. U.S. air power started to hit the Japanese positions. Carrier-based planes from the Pacific fleet in B-29s. An American troop took the island of Palawan in the Philippines just across the South China Sea from Indochina. By March, the Japanese were getting nervous about the French officers. Admiral Deku and the others had been there and were dealing with. Admiral Deku, you have rejected our request for closer cooperation. For the joint defense of French Indochina. We have information. Some of your officers have favored an attack on our forces in Indochina and that you have been supplied by parachute from American planes. Therefore, you and the French commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Forces in Indochina are under arrest. Take them away. Chances are that at least some of what the Japanese said was true. The French committee had worked secretly to organize the Indochinese against the Japanese. And when the Japanese dropped all pretends of collaborating with the French in Indochina, fighting flared up. Some of it was pretty rough. The Japanese put it down of course and then went about setting up their own puppet regimes. The colonial status of French Indochina has ended. We listen to the Tokyo radio. Today, Anom has declared its independence from France and will cooperate with Japan. Those Anomites will never cooperate with Japan. The Japanese probably encouraged them to declare their independence in order to widen the distance between the Anomites and the French. Sure. But the Anomites are too smart to put themselves under the Japanese. They probably jumped at the chance to become independent and they'll only play ball as far as it suits their own purpose. Next day, the Tokyo radio made another announcement. Today, the factory of Cambodia has declared its independence. Seahorn, the Japanese think they're hurting the French and helping themselves by promoting this. But they're really strengthening the hand of the people. It could mean that the Japanese at last are trying to win over the Indochinese. Indochinese know what they're doing. It was time for the French outside of Indochina to make a move and they made it fast. 16 days after the Japanese took outright control of Indochina, the French Provisional Government in Paris issued a statement. The Indochinese Federation will constitute with France with the other members of the French Commonwealth a French Federal Union. The interests of this union will be represented abroad by France. Within this union, Indochina will enjoy autonomy. Nationals of the Indochinese Federation will be citizens of both Indochina and the French Federal Union. This double citizenship will make them eligible for all federal posts and offices in Indochina and in the Union. On the sole ground of merit and without discrimination is to raise religion or national origin. And what does it say about the government in Indochina? Indochina will have her own federal government resided over by the Governor General and composed of ministers responsible to him. These ministers will be selected from among Indochinese as well as the French. And what about the rights of the Indochinese? Freedom of thought and creed, liberty of the press, the right of association and meetings, and, generally speaking, all democratic liberties will constitute the basis of Indochinese laws. I wonder what the professor would think about this. We soon found out. What does the statement say about independence for Indochina? No mention was made of this. It promises many things. The same things which we NMIs have been demanding for a long time, such as access to all government jobs and individual liberties and representative assembly, but it carefully preserved the function of the Governor General as the supreme authority appointed by Paris. And it maintained complete French control over the military organization and the foreign relations of the Indochinese Union. After Nazi Germany collapsed and the United States really started pouring it on the Japanese, we knew that it was only a matter of time until the French would be back facing the music in Indochina. The end of the war came quicker than we expected. Indochina was divided into two occupational zones. The Chinese took over the territory above the 16th degree north latitude and the British took over below. The French did not have the forces present to movement at the time, so the British landed at Saigon on September the 9th, and I was there soon afterwards. Then it came. The British have come to re-establish French rule in Indochina. Shall we stand by and permit this? No, no! Down with the French! The French have reported their new Governor General to Rula, Admiral Thierry Dolgin-Lew, and listen to what he says. He says, we have not come to reconquer the country. We are approaching the Indochinese very loyally. We do not wish to interrupt them, but rather to grant them a freedom of action in accordance with the merits. We will allow them to deal with their own duties and responsibilities. Admiral Dolgin-Lew says that he will grant us a freedom of action in accordance with the merits. What merit? That the French will allow us to deal with our own duties. I say, we will uphold Admiral Dolgin-Lew and the return of the French with our lives. Vlogger and I watched the growing unrest. They say the animites have got at least 20,000 men here ready to jump the British. 20,000? Yeah, and if you ask me, they've probably got a lot more masked along the roads leading into Saigon. A couple of days later, it broke out. The losses were heavy. The fighting went on for a week. The British ordered the Japanese troops to help them against the animites. The League for Independence sent telegrams to the great capitals of the world. On behalf of the government of the Democratic Republic and whole population of Vietnam, we protest vigorously against the inhuman deeds of the British, Indians, French, and Japanese troops against the people of Vietnam. We address a sincere appeal to all peoples of the Democratic Front to all international organizations for social relief and to the Red Cross urging them to intervene without delay. Is it possible that after six years of horrible, murderous fighting that the whole world supports this barbarism by a gang of colonials against this small weak nation like ours? The fighting went on. Then the British commander and the animite leaders got together and worked out a truce. It lasted a few days, then the fighting broke out again. The British landed more troops. Major General Jean-Phillipe Leclerc landed. The French troops cleared the animites out of the villages on the outskirts of Saigon. The animites tried to capture the Saigon airport but were thrown back by the British. More French troops were landed from the French light cruiser La Goire. The eyes of the world were on Indochina. This is part of the whole revolution that's taking place in Asia, Howard. I'd heard that again and again. It's another evidence of the handwriting on the wall. The determination of the people of Asia to throw off the oak of the western nations. They can't do it, Schlager. Not yet, but it's in the cards. You see, British troops are fighting here alongside the French, helping the French. That's because the British want to re-establish their own authority in Burma and Malaya and in other places where they have interests out here in the Far East, which you can be pretty sure the French don't have the support of the Russians. I knew what he meant. Last spring, during the United Nations Conference at San Francisco, Molotov, the Soviet foreign commissar, said that the Soviet delegation had an active part in the discussions on the problems of dependent areas. Such countries should be enabled as soon as possible to take the path to national independence. You see, Howard, that's Russia's point of view. But what the French are most concerned about is America's point of view. Do you think there is an American point of view on this? Well, Sumner Wells, when he was under secretary of state back in 1942, said that the government of the United States recognizes the sovereign jurisdiction of the people of France and the territory of France and over French possessions overseas. Yes. And last spring in San Francisco, George Bidot, the French foreign minister, said that France could not contemplate any sort of trusteeship for Indochina. It's pretty clear that the French are thinking of Indochina as part of the French Union. Exactly. They know that the strategic position of Indochina on the borders of China and Burma and Thailand and facing the Philippines and Malaya and the Indies make them an Asiatic power. And they know that if France is going to win back its pre-war position as a world power, they've got to hang on to Indochina with its 25 million people and its rice and its rubber and its coal. But there was still another angle. China's relation to the whole problem. The Chinese occupy the northern part of Indochina. The understanding is that the Chinese were to occupy only the territory north of the 16th parallel. Why have the Chinese forces also occupied parts of Laos and Cambodia? They said that they are only in Indochina with the enemy and that they have no territorial ambition. Yes, yes, I know what they said. But they arbitrarily detained General Alessandro who was coveted Indochina with them. They permitted him to enter several days later. I'd like to ask, why didn't General Alessandro take part in the surrender ceremonies at Honore? The reason given was the rare reason because the French flag was not represented at the ceremony. Now, don't please. This dispatch has just come. Give it to me, please. Rebels raised their flag over a French mission in the suburbs of Honore. Who raised it? Apparently, it's the new political party. Union of revolutionary parties of the Vietnam. But why have these Chinese permitted them to raise this flag? I ask the question of the professor as well. We believe that China will do everything in her power to win independence for Indochina. Why, professor? First, the Chinese have for years played a big part in the economic life of Indochina. China will likely wish to strengthen its economic ties with us. Second, the best outlet of China to this sea is over the unarmed Indochina railroad through Indochina to the port of Haifeng. China may ask for a free port at Haifeng. But isn't it true that in years past that you fellows have fought to rid yourselves of Chinese domination which have always been suspicious and a little fearful of Chinese intentions? We will not fall under the sway of China or any other nation. Well, frankly, professor, what do you think Indochina's relations will be with France? France will possibly try to return with some form of liberalized rule. But we will go on fighting for independence. Time is up, Mr. Mayo. Yes. It will here not be permissible to visit the prisoners, Mr. Mayo. You see, Mr. Mayo? Yes. You will come now, please. Yes. Goodbye, professor. You may tell your people that we will yet have an Indochinese nation. You have been listening to the Pacific story presented by the National Broadcasting Company and its affiliated independent stations as a public service to clarify events in the Pacific and to make understandable the crosscurrents of life in the Pacific Basin. For a reprint of this Pacific story program send ten cents in stamps or coin to University of California Press, Berkeley, California. The Pacific story is written and directed by Arnold Marklis. The original musical score was composed and conducted by Thomas Peluso. The principal voice was that of Eddie Marr. Programs in this series of particular interest to servicemen and women are broadcast overseas through the worldwide facilities of the Armed Forces Radio Service. This program came to you from Hollywood. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


He is the reason I call it myth and there's a book I promote from time to time by God named Daniel Bertner. It's called what do women when anybody familiar with that book if you're familiar with that book, you know That he Criticizes us his own gender as I tend to and I have a lot of haters and critics because of essentially what he says is that Men there's a lot of things that men Believe about women because they want to believe it about women.    Oh wait What I do wrong What happened? Oh Fives, okay, I said I divide me into five category. Okay.  That woman is born with this biological impulse to be monogamous but her social programming of Concept I talk about all time.  Oh really?  She's gonna present herself as a four You know again a good girl or If not present herself as a good girl, this is my archetype of the erotic hypocrite erotic hypocrite is similar to wholesome pretender But she in addition to want to protect her good girl image She thinks man should whine and dine her for the pussy and one that's just a woman who's openly freaky Social program. I already talked about that now I talked about social program organized religion is One of the factions of society. I'll talk about this in my book debate about revolution They're promote the idea of monogamy for better or for worse So does media and entertainment So there's certain aspects of the public school system and Many of your parents your siblings other family members and elders in the community or your culture Manipulative head games. I talked about a lot at last year. So I don't want to well I'll talk about a relation to here's my next book possibly the sex Now guys in the seduction community PUA community They want to always say Alan. So what's the what's the great benefit of being direct? Like, you know, I'm an indirect guy The other thing indirect is okay. Like what's what's so wrong with being indirect?  They do not like to acknowledge the existence of manipulative time wasters What is the manipulative time waster?  She listened to all your stories That sound interesting And she's smiling and you thinking God I'm in there. No Women love man's non-sexual companionship Much more honestly than we do theirs Man could go weeks months even years without a woman's non-physical non-sexual companionship Guys left like that's like an understatement. We can't I've never had a male friend. It's a damn man. It's been so long since I spent time with a woman platonically man Crazy It's just not in our DNA makeup, but you better believe Women love your company in a non-physical non-sexual manner to the point where Going back to this title the Ability of sex. How do they sell you on the idea of spending time with them? Hmm. There you go See, that's the difference between them and just straight-up rejecters Rejectors of women see a lot of guys looking rejecters as the enemy But those women you should appreciate those women who straightforwardly reject you because they let you know basically You're never getting this pussy. Don't even try. Don't waste your time. Exactly Manipulative time-wasting they always want you to think you that close to get the pussy Well, if you go with me and my girlfriends to these bowling events for the next five weeks, I don't know Anything can happen like I've been like going to bowling with you for less than a week side that nice week might be your lucky week They love to use that vague ambiguous language like you never know Possibly maybe is four things that manipulative time-wasters want from men


Hello everybody and welcome back to my channel today. We are doing a seasonal surprise box opening I randomly got this in my big huge red box so that you guys would have seen if you're watching my vlogs for Vlun and if you hear anything in the background while I'm filming this my parents are sitting with an ear shot and they're Listening to me do this which is like insanely awkward. I need to get this done today And so they might be laughing in the background, but whatever. Let's go ahead with the open box Also to note I did order two of these but only one came so I've already emailed Aaron Connor customer service I was planning on doing a giveaway But I want to make sure that I can actually give another one away because it never arrived So I don't know if I get the other one I'll do a giveaway either on my Facebook or on my Instagram the links will be below for you guys So just follow me there to check it out if you're interested in a possible giveaway Again if for some reason they don't send it to me I don't want to do a giveaway on this video because you know, I just don't I don't want to be that big of a jerk So it's opening her up. All right, so it on the top as always it says Something strange sun kind of wonderful. Well, isn't that punny? All right, so here this says the summer seasonal surprise box is here The theme is sun kind of wonderful. Let the unboxing begin if this is your first box We'll come to the party if you joined us for the past two surprise boxes like I did We're so glad to have you back the seasonal surprise box box is chock full of hand-picked items that celebrate summer This box is unique. Nothing included is currently available for sale on our site. Say yes to exclusives We can't wait to see what you think cool. All right, and then like you can win a free box if you use the hashtag EC surprise box in the video. I always do that, but I don't win because it's okay. All right, so you open it up And none of this is on the website currently apparently so yeah, all right, so let's Rose gold you guys Why do they send me rose gold things? I know someone out there will love this and I will actually gift this to somebody in my life But yeah, it says shine on be better for it was gold or silver in my opinion But I know some of you guys share the rose gold opinion that I do But I love their zippers and I love their pouches, but rose gold I'm just not a big fan, and I know everybody else likes it, but just makes me want to throw up a little bit All right, so the next item is a lip balm that is very interesting But I understand the summer theme will you stop farting over there and you even lifted your cheek?  You know this. Oh my god. Oh My god Guys need to stop being in here when I'm filming a video it better not smell all the way over here All right, we needed a fart break apparently so this is a designer pencil set. There's six number two pencils And they all say different things. There's like create dazzle wonder shine There's a couple other ones in there, but I'm not going to open it just yet but very very cute with a little painted petals theme and then oh There's like a little pad of paper I've actually had pads of paper before from Aaron Condren I think they have like a little like rainbow edge But this just has the little asterisks that they're known for and if you look in it They're all different colors, which is kind of cool. I might actually bring that to work actually There's another keep it together band a little elastic band in the same color as the tissue nice teal color There is a little pad that says oh what a week and it has a Monday through Friday, and then the weekend so Maybe this is just like a little list of to-dos or I mean, I guess you could make it whatever you want These little dashes here probably are just for the the date obviously, but very cool And then you can put this anywhere you want It doesn't have like the little Sometimes the back of the Aaron Condren stuff has like these little Tabby's where they're like 3m adhesive kind of things where you can put them somewhere But I'm sure you could add them if you really wanted to put it like on a wall or something. Oh, this is cool Look, it's holographic Do you see this? Do you guys watch simply nail logical by the way because every time I see anything hollow? I always think of Christine. I will put her channel below if you have not seen the weirdness that is Christine from Simply Nailogical She's hilarious. This is actually really cool. I'm gonna have to use these and some of my spreads I actually like that and oh, this is cool. I'll use this for you know 4th of July or something This is really neat. I like this one a lot. It's got no rose gold you guys. I'm excited All right, and they give you a planner cover that's also in the holographic So maybe let's just think about this for a second now that they have this is a metallic Maybe they'll have holographic instead of the rose gold or maybe they'll add the holographic You know I'm saying like they need something else than rose gold because it's I'm over it. That's cool Oh, look at the back the palm trees. Hello. Hello Very cool. Well, I like most of it. So that's good I really like the holographic things. I think that's really interesting that they've you know done that now and then Yeah, I don't know. I mean this thing I Know a lot of people in that are watching this probably love this, but I'm gonna gift this to someone in my life I don't know who yet, but if it's you Congratulations, you got something that's rose gold. All right So that is it for the video if you guys have any questions feel free to post them below And I will get back to as many of you as I possibly can again about the giveaway Just follow me on social media if I do get the second box like I did order I will post it on one of those very very shortly. I will do it after this video publishes by the way So there's no giveaway with this one unfortunately because something got screwed up in the shipment So I do apologize about that, but hopefully they'll send it to me And then I can just give it away on one of those social media platforms So I'm gonna jet but give it a thumbs up if you like these kind of videos and feel free to subscribe I am here every Monday Wednesday and Friday with new content for you guys at 9 a.m. Central Standard Time Also, I'm in the middle of doing it balloon, which is a vlogging every day in the month of June So you can also subscribe so you can see that I do post daily I don't post at a specific time the vlogs daily, but I do post daily So feel free to check those out if you'd like, but that's it for me And I will talk to you guys in my next video


The formidable robot. Ho ho ho! Hello, my name is Drew Pickles, and I came to say that a troll story was made about THX-Tex as an early Christmas gift.  And just to let you know, Tex has the same voice actor as me, the iconic Microsoft Sam. Now with that shattered fourth wall out of the way, let's read the author's note first, and then on to the masterpiece of a story. This story is a funny pasta, and is therefore not intended to be taken seriously. With that being said, I hope you enjoy, and please make sure to leave your thoughts and feelings in the comment section down below.  I was trying to find a funny parody of a lost THX-Tex creepy pasta, and found a video called, Lost THX-Tex Trailer, Drew Pickles Kills Tex. I want to see what it looks like, so I clicked on it. Right before the video starts, there was a warning. This trailer was made to promote the release of the Rugrats movie, despite the fact it's not THX certified. Warning, you must be at least over 9,000 years old, and have 420 tacos at Taco Bell. A few seconds later, the trailer starts, and it shows a wide shot of the THX logo in a black background. Drew Pickles then comes out. Hello, I am Drew Pickles, and I am the most swellest man on the planet.   He then gets the sludge hammer and walks into the screen.  After all, I'm the most swellest man on the planet. He will pay.  He said to himself, I'm fucked, that guy's going to kill me. All I have is my chainsaw. It's nothing compared to Drew Pickles' giant sludge hammer, but I'm still going to fight back and keep going. The trailer cuts to Drew Pickles again. He's walking through a door on the hex of DHX, with a smirk on his face.    Just then, Drew took a swing at Tex with the sludge hammer, and Tex dodged. Drew took a second swing, and Tex dodged again. Drew's getting angry, because Tex is dodging his swings, and it looks like Tex is going to beat Drew, but that's not the case.  You're about to pay for what you did to me, Drew Pickles.  He then took out his chainsaw, and put it in Drew's neck. Oh no. That motherfucker got me with the chainsaw. But this is the point, he wants me to be dead.   The traitor cut to Drew again, and he had a determined face.  And I will get you, and it's going to happen right now. Because I am the most swellest man on the planet. He then took a swing with the sludge hammer, and he hit Tex right in the eye. Drew thought that he killed Tex with that sludge hammer, but that was the mistake of his life. The traitor cuts to Tex, and he has blood coming out of his eyes. He's angry because of Drew, and he took his chainsaw, and took it out of Drew's neck. I'm already out of my mind from the sludge hammer, but he got me again. My blood's coming out from the sludge hammer. Drew looked at the eye, and he had a smile on his face. Yeah, you see that Tex? I got you again.  You know what's going to happen.      Drew then took Tex's chainsaw, and he walked in on Tex, with a big smile on his face. He then swings with the chainsaw, and smashes it right on Tex's arms. Drew then goes back, and takes the sludge hammer again, and then he walks in on Tex. Any last words, Tex? Tex just sits there, crying like the baby he was.  It's going to be done. You're going to pay for what you did to me, and I'm going to make sure that you're not going to ever do anything to me again. Ever. I am the most swellest man on the planet, and you don't know that, but you're going to pay. Drew then took his chainsaw again, and put it in Tex's neck. He looked up at Drew.  Tex then chokes on his own blood. Then he dies, and Drew shoves his beheaded head into a toilet, and throwing his headless body into a trash can. Just then, it cut to the same shot from the beginning of the trailer, but Drew was saying, I am the most swellest man on the planet. I saved everyone who is scared of Tex. And now here comes the most swellest part, like sw 얼굴 vague, that was swell. The trailer finally ended. I was happy that Tex got lot he deserved, so happy that I copied and pasted the link to Reddit, Discord, and DeviantArt. After that, I went to bed, I had a weird fever dream, and no it wasn't about me getting killed or anything like that. Stop whining. It was about me turning into Marker from Battleford Dream Island while being in the blabber zone from Twipsy the Animated Series. Well, that's all I have to say. Have a great day, and bag that loss well. Bag that loss the swellest funny pasta ever made in 2023, and this is my first and only appearance in that same year, because 2024 is about to hit the floor. It's been a year since I made an appearance in 2022, with pasta commentaries being, The Lion Guard episodes hero, Little Einstein's Lost Episode, The Dawn is Your Enemy, Teletubby's Lost Episode group pickles rules the earth, which is not the one I'd expect, and Madagascar the Lost Internship recreation of the facetious scene with Tia the Jaguar. And just to let you know, in 2024, the shitty THX and Teletubby's pasta narrations from 2021 to 2022 are about to be moved to TVB146, better known as the video effects dweller, with major and or minor edits being made. Additionally for that channel, there's gonna be a few more narrations of passable and non-cringe worthy THX pastas, either done by Roban Hoarder or anyone else.  Now back on this swell THX funny pasta.  Well that concludes this swells video.  I am group pickles, the one of the kind swell soldier that brings you this message.  It's, hello, I am Dr. Beanson, the one of the kind soldier that brings you this message.  Shit, it's one of those fuckers from that nonsensical and plagiarizing MS Paint Abomination of a kid's webtoon, Greeny Fathom. Anyway, I will take over that so-called one-to-three Greeny Fathom, and then massacre the Greeny fuckers with my sludge hammer, and this is gonna be a tough one. Good luck, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and have a swell 2024.


Our next speaker is Bruno Borje from the University of Buenos Aires who will be talking about fundamentality and non-symmetric dependence. Sorry for running a bit out of time here due to technical difficulties, so we will just like go five minutes into the coffee break. I'll try to make it in 25 minutes, so I'll have a longer discussion. Thank you. I won't say sorry for my English, I should, but I will say that you can interrupt me at any time if you want me to clarify or rephrase. We work in Argentina mainly in Spanish, so English is not usually my thing. Well, this presentation deals with fundamentality and ontological dependence, and I'll try to show a way in which a non-symmetric notion of ontological dependence can be think to be compatible with the standard picture of reality as a layered distribution of levels of ontological dependence. So this talk maybe runs the way between science and metaphysics all the way around. It starts with metaphysics and goes to science, but still I think it would be interesting or I hope it to be interesting, point out some interesting facts about fundamentality both in metaphysics and in science. So I will start talking about what is usually called the layered conception of reality. This layered conception of reality depends, well it depends on maybe the word, it's closely related to a notion of ontological dependence that establish a strict partial order between ontological levels. So in order to that to happen we need our notion of ontological dependence to be anti-symmetrical. So then I will try to present some problems, issues, worries about what happens if we drop the symmetry as a logical property of our notion of ontological dependence. I will review an argument by Rabin that says that we can have a notion of ontological dependence that is non-symmetric, at the same time preserve the so-called layered conception of reality. I will criticize some aspects of this argument and I hopefully should show a new route to what I call weak compatibility, trying to put forward a noble notion of ontological dependence that restores some kind of non-symmetricity. So let's start with this layered conception of reality, this cake-like conception of reality as constituted by ontological levels. The usual way of the orthodox way of conceiving reality in this way involves many thesis, the main ones are now on the slide. I will concentrate here in the first one, which is the idea that there is a hierarchy of layers of levels that is structured by our relation of ontological dependence that give rise to a strict partial order. And in order that to happen we need our notion of ontological dependence to be reflexive, transitive and anti-symmetric. This way ontological dependence is closely related with fundamentality. In fact we are used to define what it is to be a fundamental entity as being independent of any other entity. But it usually happens that the three formal properties of ontological dependence has been questioned in recent literature and I will do the same here trying to defend a non-symmetrical notion of ontological dependence. But first, why ontological dependence should remain anti-symmetric? There are no many positive arguments for the anti-symmetricity of ontological dependence. Mainly what is maybe closer to an argument are intuitions that ontological dependence should be anti-symmetrical. And some paradigmatic cases in which we find instances of ontological dependence that are clearly anti-symmetric. But the main argument for the anti-symmetricity of ontological dependence is this more negative argument. And it points out the fact that if we abandon an ocean, if we replace anti-symmetricity by a different formal property, the whole idea of the layered conception of reality shall fall apart. We need anti-symmetry in order to the whole hierarchical picture remain. Of course there are many ways in which we can abandon anti-symmetricity. Of course we can go for a symmetric notion of ontological dependence which makes the whole layered conception collapses in one flat level of mutually dependent entities. So that it's metaphysical coherentism, some sort of Buddhist ontology in which everything it plays at the same ontological level happens to depends upon everything else. But the usual way to go in this matter is to replace an anti-symmetrical notion of ontological dependence by a non-symmetrical notion of ontological dependence. That is a notion of ontological dependence that admits both symmetric and non-symmetric instances of dependence. Of course there are many ways to do that. I will skip mainly the technical details but at the end of the day what it gives raise is to loops of dependence. Loops of dependence are not harmful by themselves. In fact if we are willing to admit symmetric instances of dependence you are admitting loops because if a depends upon b and b depends upon a you have a loop. What is worrying about loops of dependence, and I will try to show you that later on, is that whenever you have loops of dependence we have isolated niches of metaphysical coherentism. We have not the whole building isolated niches. I isolated, thank you, sex stores of the building that collapse into one flat level of mutually dependent entities. I will give an example and a clarification later so this point can you raise it in a few minutes. So loops of dependence are harmful because of that reason that I will show you in a few minutes. So moral of the story dependence should remain anti-symmetric. So there are two standard answers to this fact. The first is what I call divorce. Well if we need necessarily a notion of ontological dependence that is anti-symmetric in order to defend the layer conception of reality. So we should separate the talk of fundamentality from the talk of ontological dependence and find a different kind of relation called a building relation, grounding, whatever notion you prefer in order to articulate our talk about fundamentality. But ontological dependence and fundamentality should not share any room. And that's mainly the idea behind Elizabeth Barnes' answer to this topic. But the answer I'm interested in is one from Rabin who takes ground to be a subspecies of ontological dependence that is relevant to the talk of fundamentality. At the end of the day the point is non-symmetric ontological dependence and the layer conception of reality are compatible. So let's just take a look at the argument. So what Rabin says is that in the orthodox talk of fundamentality and this layered conception of reality we should accept what he calls the simple principle and it goes this way. If x grounds y then x is at a lower level or it's more fundamental than y. Well we should drop that principle, Rabin says, and we should replace it with what he calls the slightly less simple principle that is if x grounds y and x does not ground x then x is more fundamental or a lower level. This opens the question on what happens when the instance of the relation actually is symmetric. And that gives you, gives us two options, Rabin says. The first one is to think that they share the same level in our ontology. The second option is to think that they are incommensurable. So he takes the first one for many reasons. One has to do with the preserve, the transitivity of dependence and he thinks that incommensurability on this matter are, it's not desirable in the first place. So whenever we have symmetric instances of ontological dependence both relata should be placed at the same ontological level. Well I have many objections to this idea. I will just mention three that I will present as two. The first one is that this slightly less simple principle, let's just call it LS, SL, SP principle generates some counterintuitive cases of mutually dependent entities that we don't think should be placed at the same level in our picture of ontology. And the second one is what I mentioned earlier and I will try to explain it a little bit more is that we have loops of dependence and that gives rise to restricted olism and also a weak form of incommensurability. So let's start with this. I will pass these examples quickly because I will back to some of them later. These are paradigmatic cases that motivates the development of non-symmetric notions of ontological dependence. So just for taking one let's take the relationship between facts and constituents being fact fundamental category of reality. If facts and constituents are mutually dependent entities as some things they are and they depend symmetrically on each other, facts and its constituents should be placed at the same level of a hierarchy of ontology. So that doesn't seem to be intuitive since we want facts to be more fundamental such as substance or whatever than its constituents. So the other problem is holism. So if dependence is thought to be non-symmetric and we preserve the other formal properties what we have is a preorder and whenever you have a preorder by transitivity that is a formal property that we want to preserve what we have is that every element in the subset of elements that instance symmetric instances of ontological dependence depends on each other. So we have a flat level of entities. So let me give a quick example. We have this simple domain of six elements. So we divide it into sub-domains. The first one A, B, C are structured by traditional asymmetric instances of ontological dependence and the others of domain B, E, F and D are structured by symmetric instances of ontological dependence. So what we have is that in the second sub-domain the one that relates D, E and F everything depends upon everything in one flat level and this is not only an undesirable consequence for the so-called layered conception of reality but also it implies a form of incommensurability. If we try to relate one specific element of any of the subsets with the other that new element collapses into this flat level of metaphysical coherence. So what we have now is subsets in with metaphysical coherence obtains and that happens to be incommensurable regarding ontological level with the other parts of the set. So my own solution is to put forward a noble notion of ontological dependence that not having a better name I will call the dependence star and the intuition... I can't receive options. Let's make it a contest. So dependence star, sorry again, is built upon the intuition that we should distinguish two types of dependence relations of ontological dependence relations. One is dependence regarding existence and the other one is dependence regarding identity. So whenever x depends star upon y that means that x depends upon y for its existence but at the same time y depends upon x for its identity. So that's the intuition. Let's put some flesh in those bones. What could mean that something depends for its existence upon something else? Well the traditional way to go is what is usually called model existential analysis of ontological dependence. There are many ways to put this forward but the main idea is that definition of worship and existential dependence but I will pass this very quickly because as we may be aware this analysis of ontological dependence is not sensitive to some specific cases. Maybe the more famous ones are the ones described by Kid Fine. So let's say we have Socrates, I mean the philosopher, the guy, the human being and the set, the singleton that has its only element, Socrates. The first one is a human, the second one is an abstract entity and of course they depend on each other in some way but we limit our analysis to the model existential analysis. We have that they exist in all of the same possible worlds so they should be taken to depend metaphysically, existentially on each other but that's not intuitive. At the end of the day we tend to believe that the set exists because Socrates exists or in virtue of the existence of Socrates. So we have to move to an hyperintentional framework that can capture that more fine-grained relations of ontological dependence and that framework fine sets its the essentialist approach to dependence and in this essentialist approach to dependence we can identify two subspecies of essential dependence, essential existential dependence and identity dependence which are the two notions of ontological dependence that we are going to take in order to fill the gaps in our original definition of the beautiful named of dependence star. So what we have now is that x depends star upon y if x depends essentially existentially upon y and y depends upon x for its identity shows in the sense I illustrated in those definitions here. So what we have is not exactly a symmetric or non-symmetric notion of dependence but definitions that glue together two subspecies of ontological dependence in this essentialist view. So my first point here will be that this opens a route to what I called a weak version of compatibility. I mean a weak version of the compatibility between a non-symmetric notion of ontological dependence on the one hand and the layered conception of reality on the other hand. So we need some very simple assumptions about both identity dependence and existential dependence in order to not make the whole building of ontological dependence collapse in one flat level and not having any instances of incommensurability among ontological levels. So that is warrants. Of course the obvious immediate worry with this view is this objection that I called well there is no symmetry in the first place. Dependence start is not a non-symmetric notion of ontological dependence but just a tailor-made notion of ontological dependence that simply glues together two independent notions of ontological dependence in one theoretical construct. So I don't have a conclusive answer to that objection but I try to put forward some points that I think that would be interesting not only by for defending my view but also for pointing out some issues regarding how do we think about fundamentality both in science and in metaphysics. Okay first one they are of course distinct I cannot deny identity dependence and essential existential dependence are distinct dependence relations but they are not totally independent. First they are species of the same essential dependence relations and second they are always co-instantiated. It doesn't matter in with direction they run they are always whenever we have an instance of one of them we have an instance of the other relations and maybe more interesting they seem to be part of the same phenomenon that we can find whenever we think of fundamentality both in science and in metaphysics. So in order to show what I'm referring I will just take a few examples. The first one I thought I talked sorry about it before it's from the debate on what is the fundamental category of reality. In that debate one of the main contenders is factualism so we should regard facts as being the central fundamental category of reality. So if that's true we should say what a fact is and the usual answer from factualist is that the fact is I had two complementary categories that is the fact itself and its constituents. So facts and constituents are in a special relation that is the constituent or constituency relationship. So of course as we are talking about which is the more fundamental category of reality facts are thought to be more fundamental than its constituents but at the same time for a fact to be the fact that it is it is essential that it has those constituents and no different ones. So let me just give the example was in this slide. Sorry so see face I say this type the table is brown that's a fact and its constituents are the table and the brown let's say. So the fact is more fundamental than the table and the brown but still for being the fact that the table is brown they need to have those constituent and not different ones. So there is more or less the intuition that the fact itself is more fundamental or gives existence to the constituents but the identity of the fact itself depends upon its constituents. So I think this dependence star relation that I just try to put forward fits well with this example in the debate of on the basic ontological categories and well this is the case with the table and thank you. More or less the same can be said about the relationship between substance and accidents in a different frame the framework the substantialist framework. Of course it doesn't means that always existing dependence and identity dependence should run in different directions in many examples the majority of them they run in the same direction and this what happened in the relationship between so practice and singleton so practice identity and existential essential existential dependence run in the same direction but just in the last minutes I will skip more of the technical details. I want to try to mention symmetries and specifically some discussions in the ontology of symmetries I have more or less the same features that I try to cover with this notion of dependence star. Of course there's no need to make an ontological in interpretation of what symmetries are we are not obligated to include symmetries in our ontology but for some people the fact that symmetries have a determining role over particles fundamental properties it's a sign that we should include symmetries in our ontology and we can of course do it in many ways. The example I try to show in the screen I will try just to simplify just maybe read the bottom line the point. For philosophers such as Stephen French the fact that symmetries play a determining role over the identification of the kinds of fundamental properties that they are it's a reason to build well specifically in his case an ontology in which symmetries are thought to be the fundamental category of reality and the fundamental entity of reality. He actually articulates his eliminated form of ontic structural realism upon this assumption. Something not very far from it is the way in which we can identify fundamental properties only based on symmetry procedure. I will just skip this and well something in its vein can be said about the relationship between conservation laws and conserved quantities in the application of nether theorem. I will just skip this but the philosophical point of those cases at least of people defending and ontological interpretations of symmetries in this case can be maybe summed up in this quote by Silos that you have on screen. The fundamental properties of elementary particles seem to be determined by powerful global and local symmetries that exist in nature. So we started with the view that properties of elementary particles are unrounded because they are fundamental but in the end they are or probably are grounded in symmetries. So of course there is a lot to say about symmetries and the ontology of symmetry. We have I'm pretty sure a very interesting and illuminating talk by Christian Tomoro not in this vein but I just just want to put forward the idea that this notion star notion of ontological dependence can fit the idea that maybe fundamental particles properties depend for its existence for its identity upon symmetries while symmetries themselves depends from its existence for fundamental properties and maybe the debates between this positionalist and symmetry realist can be clarified in some sense by this notion. So just for for finishing the presentation I try to define this dependence star relationship by combining two species of essential dependence that are co-instanciated that seems to be part of the same phenomenon and they are maybe necessarily related oh the bomb my god. So so so I think and I tried to show that this opens a wave or what I call weak compatibility between the layer conception and a non-symmetric notion of ontological dependence but still if we think that that's not a truly non-symmetric notion of ontological dependence maybe this dependence star can see capture some interesting and also regular features about what we think the relationship between fundamental and dependence both in science and metaphysics thank you. So in this example for let's take this case we have a loop of dependence in the sense that e depends upon f f depends upon d but d also depends upon e so it's like a circle yeah by by transitivity but by transitivity what we should have is that everything depends on everything whenever you have a circle a loop of dependence between n entities all those entities depends on every other entity and that gives you if you accept that whenever you have symmetry you should put all those entities in the same level that you need to keep transit transitivity why sorry why do we keep why do you have to conserve transitivity well we can you can drop transitivity too but it seems to be essential to the very idea of a layered cake like conception of reality that if this is at a lower level than this and this is a lower level than what I don't have yeah I understand but third hand but at this this is at a lower level than okay yeah but isn't this the whole point of like this kind of metaphysical holism is to drop the foundational assumption in the first place so why should we keep the foundation so this sorry I think isn't the whole point of like loops of dependence or metaphysical holism as Russ Cameron calls them isn't this isn't the idea is to drop the layered version of reality so yeah but but so so if we so if you go so if you go through like we go for loops of dependence as a good way to constitute and to describe the metaphysics of reality then we wouldn't want to keep the layered version of reality at the end and we want to get rid of also that well that the whole there's a provision the whole talk that you you want to conserve the layer so so so so the main idea is this type of answer is possible that you can make this higher hierarchy the hierarchy the order layers of ontological levels and still have a notion of ontological dependence that is non-symmetric that is you have standard traditional cases in which there is symmetry but also some specific cases in with ontological dependence behave symmetrically in and these are the usual candidates for not only the only one but the usual candidates for for symmetrical dependence hey Bruno sorry no worries so I had a couple of observations the first is really just piggybacking on the last comment because I had a similar reaction but I was going to put it in terms of just wondering you know why it is or you know the layer cake conception of reality has purchased on us at all and I'm wondering if Raven in terms of your introductory remark that instead of going from science to metaphysics we're going to go from metaphysics to science but if we take this a priori metaphysical conception of the world as exhibiting this hierarchical layered structure right and then we take it to science right I think I mean one argument that I think many people may is that well what we find when we go to science is that there are lots of relations and dependence of different kinds that we can specify and it seems to provide us arguably with counter evidence for the layer cake picture so there's you know I think a substantive question as to whether once we're gone from metaphysics to science in this case we really have any strong rationality holding onto that picture so that was just one observation I wanted to know what you thought we do once we start to look at the scientific cases carefully because in those cases we have very specific relations that may just make the layer cake model not particularly attractive but then you know the more specific observation helped to do with the symmetries and now that I know that there's going to be a talk on this tomorrow I won't say much about it except to say that you know there are a lot of assumptions built in right to your example in that particular case you know that there are such things symmetries in the world that they have that the relevant relations are things like you know something having a determining role right that's a very poorly specified relation I mean what does that mean that you know particles drop out of the same what does that mean right so I mean some relations of dependence we can understand fairly well intuitively causal relations relations of supervenience and so on and so forth but dropping out in governing seemed really loosey-goosey to me so that's you know one comment that makes me think that it seems as though half of the debate is represented in the examples you gave and just a very kind of technical point on that you suggested that you know for the people to whom you're appealing there the relations made between symmetries and the properties the dependence that may go in opposite directions depending on whether we're talking about existence or ID but it seems to me that at least for some of these people like you bold and Stephen French is you right he wants the existence and identity dependence relations to go both in the same direction right but both the identity and the existence of the properties depend on the symmetries right so I wasn't sure who you had in mind as the example of the person who thinks that these relations of dependence go in opposite direction okay I will start for this last observation and then maybe I will ask you for help to remind them that the first one so the whole idea of this talk actually seems from the discussion not only among them but some discussions between Stephen French and his people and dispositionalism he says that if we take this layer conception of reality and we tell the dispositionalist story about how dynamics depends on the behavior of dispositional properties and then symmetries blah blah blah we just have to reverse engineer all of that and what we have is symmetries and conservation laws being the fundamental and maybe the only entities we have in reality but on the other hand we have people as Alexander Burt say well no no the dispositionalist story is fine and what happened with this determined role of symmetry principles and conservation law laws well we just can hope that symmetries are eliminated from future physics that that's Alexander Burt for example so so of course this notion of dependence start is not built in order to accommodate Stephen French positions and neither in order to accommodate Alexander Burt position but a way to try to conciliate both intuitions there is a sense in which what we have in nature are properties and there is also a sense in which something of that properties depends upon certain symmetries of course and I think that that takes me back to the second observation of course it's not necessary you can think about symmetries in a different way so this talk it's it's meant to be more or less like a toolbox from metaphysics to the metaphysics of science if you want to develop a ontological reading of symmetries and if you think that symmetries are items that should be include on one's ontology and you can if you want to preserve some general intuitions as the one I was mentioning before about their role well maybe there is a specific notion of ontological dependence that can be at use and we can discuss about the first one


This is a big country and distances are big and not all regions have the same quality of services in nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. So right now there are many facilities being built or are being started in operation that includes those services, those areas. Nuclear medicine, mainly positron emission tomography but also cyclotron and radiopharmacy facilities and radiation therapy devices and including brachytherapy. And it's been a major challenge for us to help them get started and train also human resources for them to operate and provide support for maintenance and all the areas where you need to pay attention in order to for this center to operate.