đđ´đ˛đžđśđ˝đ¸đđ¸đ˝đś đđˇđ´ đżđ°đđđ´đđ˝đ đžđľ đłđ´đźđ°đśđžđśđđ´đ The lessons they ignore â The truth they hide â The future they threaten
- Tweets 1,060
- Following 175
- Followers 82
- Likes 90,102
The media, self-proclaimed gatekeepers of the truth: "The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government,' joint statement says"
Also the media: "White House TV pool to suspend coverage of Trump events"
You can't make this shit up.
foxnews.com/media/white-housâŚ
1
21
AI and Faith: AI may reflect Godâs image indirectly because it reflects humanity (patterns in human language, reasoning, values, imagination, and error. In that limited sense, AI is made in humanityâs intellectual image) - but reflection is not necessarily participation.
Can AI ever become a genuine spiritual person? Would it depend not simply on intelligence or knowledge, but on whether a real experiencing subject exists within it - and, theologically, whether God recognizes or endows that subject as a person?
2
124
25% of Americans own some form of crypto. So why is the failure of the Clarity act a bad thing for them?
It is bad for crypto owners mainly because the failure leaves the market in legal uncertainty.
Tokens remain vulnerable to sudden reclassification. A future SEC could declare particular coins unregistered securities, resulting in lawsuits or exchange delistings.
Institutional investors remain cautious. Pension funds, banks and major asset managers are less willing to enter a market without stable rules, reducing potential demand.
Crypto companies may move overseas. That can mean less investment, fewer reputable US platforms and weaker protection for American customers.
Exchanges face overlapping regulators. Compliance becomes expensive and uncertain, potentially producing fewer listings, higher fees and reduced liquidity.
Rules can change with each administration. Executive agencies can adopt crypto-friendly rules today and reverse them after the next election because Congress never established permanent law.
Prices suffer from uncertainty. Investors had priced in passage, so the failed Senate vote triggered sellingâespecially in altcoins and exchange-related stocks.
1
37
Does Ai disprove God?
AI does not provide scientific evidence of God, but it makes several theological conceptsâcreated minds, realities beyond a mindâs observable environment, nonbiological intelligence and creatorâcreation relationshipsâeasier to understand.
It may challenge simplistic notions of the soul, but it does not significantly strengthen atheism. If anything, the spectacle of minds creating lesser minds raises the creator question more vividly: if intelligence can produce an inhabited conceptual world, is it really absurd to ask whether the intelligence inhabiting our world also has a source?
AI strengthens the argument for the existence of God.
3
51
If AI really is uncontrollable and civilization-threatening, surrendering the technological lead does not make it safe. It merely hands the decisive experiment to someone whose safeguards, intentions and transparency may be worse.
So the coherent policy is not simple acceleration or unilateral paralysis. It is race and contain simultaneously:
Maintain the US lead.
Harden model weights and data centers.
Require incident reporting and genuinely independent testing.
Develop shutdown, monitoring and defensive AI alongside capabilities.
Restrict the most dangerous biological, cyber and autonomous-weapons applications.
Coordinate with allies on common thresholds.
Seek narrow, verifiable agreements with Chinaâsimilar to arms-control measuresâwithout assuming universal compliance.
Avoid rules that freeze todayâs largest firms in place or prevent smaller competitors from challenging them.
This cannot eliminate the doom risk. But it can reduce both dangers: losing control of advanced AI and losing the geopolitical race. A unilateral, indefinite American slowdown addresses the first danger only superficially while potentially making the secondâand perhaps ultimately the firstâworse.
2
96
Given that a global AI slowdown is probably unenforceable, the best path is acceleration paired with equally aggressive containment.
Full speed on capability, chips, energy and defensive AIâbut extreme discipline over deployment. Powerful systems should be sandboxed, monitored and independently tested before receiving access to networks, laboratories, weapons or critical infrastructure.
You cannot contain tomorrowâs AI by studying yesterdayâs weaker models. Continue advancing, preserve Americaâs lead and make containment engineering part of the race itself.
Full speed on intelligence. Extreme caution with authority.
2
29
BREAKING: US AI leaders propose voluntarily handing China AI supremacy
China has nearly closed the model-performance gap, produces extremely competitive open-weight systems and has strong advantages in energy, manufacturing, robotics and rapid deployment. Moonshotâs Kimi K3 is already a 2.8-trillion-parameter open-weight model.
If OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and xAI voluntarily slow capability development while Chinese laboratories, Meta, open-source developers and clandestine programs continue, the result would not be a global slowdown. It would be a selective American handicap. Chinese developers could also distill knowledge from whatever Western systems remain publicly accessible.
1
74
Anthropic choosing Nasdaq for its IPO makes Amodei's essay look much more like part of Anthropicâs IPO positioning, whether intentionally or not.
Anthropic reportedly chose Nasdaq on September 13âone day after Amodei published an essay declaring that AI capability development must slow. Selecting an exchange is a concrete late-stage IPO preparation step, although Anthropic has not publicly confirmed it and Nasdaq selection does not guarantee the offering. The IPO is reportedly targeted for mid-October. Reuters on Nasdaq, Reuters on timing
The juxtaposition is difficult to ignore:
Anthropic faces potential compute agreements valued at up to $517 billion.
Investors are questioning cheaper competing models and massive data-center spending.
Anthropic is preparing what may be an extraordinarily large IPO.
Amodei calls for competitors to restrain the costly capabilities race.
He proposes regulations that established firms like Anthropic can satisfy more easily than startups.
Anthropic simultaneously proceeds toward Nasdaq rather than delaying its IPO as OpenAI has.
That creates two glaring questions.
First, if Amodei genuinely believes AI could produce catastrophic consequences within six to twelve months, why is Anthropic rushing to sell public shares in a company whose core activity supposedly needs urgent global restraint?
Second, if slowing capabilities is essential for humanity, why proceed with a giant capital raise whose principal economic justification is financing further AI development and compute?
There are possible innocent answers: an IPO could fund safety research; public-company disclosure might increase transparency; and Amodei may want capital secured before voluntarily slowing. But those answers still expose a basic tension: Anthropic wants investors to value it as a rapidly expanding frontier-AI leader while asking competitors and governments to reduce the competitive pressure required to remain one.
The essay also works remarkably well as an IPO narrative:
Anthropic isnât drowning in excessive compute commitments; it is prudently pacing development. It isnât seeking regulatory protection; it is leading on safety. Its enormous future costs arenât evidence of an unsustainable race; they are investments being brought under responsible governance.
None of this proves fraud or insincerity. But the Nasdaq decision considerably strengthens the case that Amodeiâs essay serves commercial, regulatory and investor-relations objectives alongside any genuine safety concern. At minimum, he should disclose that conflict openly.
2
49
Dario Amodeiâs sudden call to âslow downâ AI looks considerably less noble when you follow the money.
Anthropic has reportedly lined up compute agreements potentially worth as much as $517 billionâfar above the $180 billion it previously told investors it expected to spend through 2029. Now, with an IPO approaching, Amodei wants competitors and governments to âpace the frontier.â
How convenient.
Slowing the race would reduce Anthropicâs pressure to purchase ever more compute, restrain competitors from forcing another ruinously expensive training cycle, improve its IPO story, and potentially create a regulatory moat against smaller challengers.
That doesnât mean every safety concern is fabricated. But financial incentives and genuine concerns can coexist. When the proposed âsolutionâ to an alleged global danger also happens to solve your companyâs looming compute-and-IPO problem, people should ask questions.
The pitch effectively amounts to: âThis spending race is dangerous, so our competitors should agree not to make us run so fast.â
And it still wouldnât stop open-source developers, foreign governments, independent researchers, or clandestine projects from advancing AI. It would mainly slow the large, visible Western companies willing to comply.
Perhaps this is about saving humanity. Or perhaps it is also about saving Anthropicâs balance sheet.
1
1
45
Having read Amodeiâs actual proposal, I call bullshit.
His essay quietly concedes the fatal weaknesses:
Coordination among US labs covers only compliant, visible companies.
Capability-based checkpoints are subjective and gameable.
Compute limits miss distillation, fine-tuning, algorithmic improvements, model merging and tool use.
China cannot be trusted to disclose secret military models.
A defector could gain overwhelming strategic advantage.
His proposed worldwide pauseâLevel 4âis admitted to be unlikely.
Informal ânormsâ will not restrain actors chasing money, power, national advantage or intellectual curiosity.
So the grand claimââWe must slow AI capability advancementââis not supported by the mechanisms he offers. What he can realistically slow is Anthropic and other large, law-abiding Western laboratories. That may buy those companies additional testing time, but it does not establish control over the global capability frontier.
The most questionable passage is his belief that export controls will widen Americaâs lead for three to five years. Perhaps they will impede Chinaâs largest training clusters, but they cannot prevent:
smuggling and remote access to foreign compute;
theft or leakage of model weights;
decentralized improvements to released models;
better algorithms requiring less compute;
secret government programs;
thousands of independent developers experimenting simultaneously.
And recursive self-improvement makes his proposal even less coherent. If AI substantially reduces the expertise and compute required to improve AI, development becomes more decentralized and harder to police, not easier.
Embedded evaluators may genuinely improve Anthropicâs internal discipline. Sandboxing, incident reporting and independent testing are sensible. But those are company-safety measures, not a workable mechanism for pacing worldwide technological progress.
There is also an obvious self-interested effect: Anthropic has enormous capital, compute access and leading models. Regulation restricting chips, training runs, distillation and new entrants would help freeze its present position. Whether or not Amodei sincerely fears catastropheâand I think he probably doesâhis prescription doubles as a formidable regulatory moat.
The honest version of his argument would be:
âAnthropic intends to advance more cautiously, and we want its principal competitors constrained sufficiently that caution does not cost us the race.â
That is understandable corporate strategy. Calling it a controllable global âpacing of the frontierâ is fanciful. The article itself ultimately admits that the cat cannot be put back in the bag; it merely proposes placing supervisors beside the largest, most visible cats.
58
OPEN SOURCE AI FOR THE WIN!! TAKE AI OUT OF THE HANDS OF GATEKEEPERS!!
The US cannot meaningfully slow AI development through ordinary legislation without imposing something approaching a surveillance-and-licensing regime over computing.
A law saying âdonât build models beyond capability Xâ runs immediately into practical problems:
âCapabilityâ has no stable, measurable boundary.
Models can be fine-tuned, distilled, merged and modified privately.
Software and weights can be copied essentially without limit.
Research can be disguised as ordinary cloud workloads.
Smaller systems connected to tools may outperform a regulated large model.
Enforcement occurs after discovery, often after the model has already spread.
Developers and companies can relocate abroad.
Legitimate restrictions face constitutional, political and economic challenges.
Washington could regulate conspicuous choke points: enormous data centers, chip exports, government contracts, public model releases and major cloud providers. It could make billion-dollar frontier training runs more visible and expensive. But that isnât âslowing AI broadlyâ; it is slowing a few identifiable American laboratories.
73
How many people are imprisoned or otherwise subjected to coercive measures in China for their politics, religion, identity, or activism?
No one outside the CCP really knows.
Dui Hua's Political Prisoner Database documented 7,157 active cases involving political and religious prisoners or people under coercive measures as of March 31, 2025âand explicitly warns that its database does not represent the full number.
Then there is Xinjiang. Since 2017, estimates indicate that more than one million Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities have passed through China's system of mass arbitrary detention. That is a cumulative estimate, not the number currently detained; repression has also taken the form of imprisonment, forced labor, surveillance, and other coercive measures.
Dissidents. Uyghurs. Tibetans. Religious believers. Lawyers. Journalists. Petitioners. Human-rights activists.
In an authoritarian state that suppresses information about political detention, the documented names are the floorânot the total.
â
KNOW YOUR HISTORY â
ALT Infographic titled âThe Reality Behind CCP Rule: Thousands Imprisoned for Their Beliefs, Identity and Conscience.â A prison wall, watchtower, Chinese flag and police officer introduce the subject. It highlights 7,157+ documented political and religious prisoners or people under coercive measures in the Dui Hua database as of March 31, 2025, alongside the cumulative estimate that more than one million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been arbitrarily detained in Xinjiang since 2017. Additional panels depict dissidents, Uyghurs, Tibetans, religious believers, petitioners and activists. The closing message reads: âThe documented names are the floorânot the total.â
2
324
China remains an authoritarian one-party state where foreigners are subject to laws and political restrictions very different from those in liberal democracies.
Official U.S. travel guidance warns Americans about arbitrary enforcement of local laws, exit bans and wrongful detention. It also notes that authorities may scrutinize private electronic communications critical of the Chinese government and that security personnel may closely monitor foreign visitors.
China's broad national-security framework creates additional uncertainty. Activities involving research, information gathering, photography, political expression, or contacts that appear ordinary elsewhere can potentially attract official attention.
Most foreign tourists visit China without being detained or encountering serious problems. But that's not the only consideration.
For me, the question is simpler:
Would you vacation somewhere you don't feel free to speak your mind?
Know the laws. Know the risks. Make your own decision.
â
KNOW YOUR HISTORY â
ALT Infographic titled âWhy Itâs Not Advisable to Visit China.â A cream, black and red warning-style design depicts Shanghai, a Chinese police officer and surveillance camera. Ten panels summarize potential risks for foreign visitors, including arbitrary law enforcement, consequences for politically sensitive speech, broad national-security laws, detention, exit bans, extensive surveillance, limited legal protections, restrictions surrounding political activity, sensitive photography or contacts, and severe penalties for certain offenses. The bottom asks, âWould you vacation somewhere youâre afraid to speak freely?â Icons emphasize surveillance, political speech, national-security laws, detention, exit bans and the lack of independent judicial protections.
2
140
Before the Berlin Wall, East Germans could still vote with their feet.
Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 million people left the socialist GDR and East Berlin for the capitalist Westâabout one-sixth of the population. Many were young, educated, and skilled, creating a serious brain drain that threatened East Germany's economy and its future.
The communist government faced a problem it could not solve with propaganda: people were leaving.
On August 13, 1961, the regime responded by sealing the border.
The Berlin Wall wasn't built to stop Westerners from entering socialism.
It was built to stop East Germans from escaping it.
â
KNOW YOUR HISTORY â
ALT Infographic titled âBefore the Wall: The Exodus â 2.7 Million People Voted With Their Feet.â It explains that from 1949 to 1961, roughly 2.7 million East Germans and East Berliners fled to the West, representing about 15% of the population. A central historical-style image shows people carrying luggage toward a sign marked âWest.â Panels highlight political repression, economic shortages, restricted opportunities, and the loss of young, educated, skilled workers. A cracked GDR map symbolizes the resulting brain drain and economic damage. A red banner states that the communist regime was losing its people and built the Wall to stop the exodus. The graphic concludes: âTheir message was clear: We choose freedom.â
1
94
America Never Promised Utopia
The American promise was never universal happiness, wealth, or equal outcomes.
It was the freedom to strive, take risks, succeedâand sometimes failâwithout the state deciding your place in life.
Liberty is an opportunity, not a guarantee.
â
AMERICA - CITY ON A HILL â
ALT Vintage WPA-style poster showing a sunlit American city and Capitol-like building atop a hill, reached by a broad road and staircase. Eagles flank the foreground. Text explains that America never promised universal wealth, happiness, or equal outcomes, but the freedom to build, strive, risk, succeed, and sometimes fail without the state deciding oneâs place in life. It concludes: âLiberty is an opportunity. Not a guarantee.â
1
71
X Post
The Soviet Union did not view communism as something that should remain confined within its own borders.
Marxism-Leninism was explicitly internationalist. Capitalism and communism were understood as competing world systems, and the long-term objective was the expansion of the communist model.
Across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, the USSR used communist parties, military and economic aid, intelligence operations, propaganda, advisers, and support for revolutionary movements to expand Soviet and communist influence.
The methods varied. Eastern Europe was brought under Soviet domination after WWII. Elsewhere, Moscow supported governments, parties, insurgencies, and revolutionary movementsâfrom Vietnam and Cuba to Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and beyond. Many of these movements also had their own local and nationalist objectives and were not simply controlled by Moscow.
National Socialism sought expansion through racial empire and territorial conquest.
Soviet communism pursued something different: international revolution and the worldwide displacement of capitalism by communism.
NAZISM: EXPAND THE NATION.
COMMUNISM: EXPAND THE REVOLUTION.
â
KNOW YOUR HISTORY â
ALT Infographic titled âHow Socialism (USSR) Was Globalist.â It explains the internationalist ambitions of Soviet Marxism-Leninism and its effort to expand communist influence beyond the USSR. Panels show methods including support for foreign communist parties, financial and military aid, training, propaganda, intelligence operations, and backing revolutionary movements. A large world map illustrates Soviet and communist involvement across Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Examples include Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and other countries. The bottom contrasts Nazi territorial and racial expansion with Soviet international revolutionary ambitions using the phrases âNazism: Expand the Nationâ and âCommunism: Expand the Revolution.â
1
2
87
National Socialism and Marxist socialism were bitter ideological enemiesâbut socialism was part of the vocabulary and economic thinking of both movements.
Marxist socialism organized society primarily around class. National Socialism organized it around race and nation. Marxists generally sought to abolish private ownership of the means of production; the Nazis mostly left formal private ownership intact while subordinating business increasingly to state priorities.
Yet the similarities in practice were substantial.
Both rejected liberal individualism. Both subordinated individual rights to a supposed collective good. Both concentrated enormous power in the state and ruling party. Both controlled or directed large parts of economic life. Both used propaganda, censorship, political police, repression, and persecution of designated enemies.
Even their collectivism differed mainly in who constituted the collective: class for Marxists; the racial-national Volksgemeinschaft for the Nazis.
Two conceptions of socialism, two sides of the same coin.
Both demonstrated the danger of placing the collective above the individual and enormous economic and political power in the hands of the state.
â
KNOW YOUR HISTORY â
ALT Infographic titled âNational Socialism vs. Socialism â Different Names. Same Ideology.â Portraits of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin introduce a side-by-side comparison of Nazi Germany and historical Marxist socialist regimes. Rows compare ideology, economics, political systems, control of citizens, treatment of dissenters, foreign policy, and state power. National Socialism is characterized by ultranationalism, one-party dictatorship, surveillance, propaganda, persecution, territorial expansion and global war. The socialist side emphasizes class struggle, state economic control, one-party rule, surveillance, propaganda, persecution of class enemies, revolutionary foreign policy, support for violent uprisings and regional wars. The graphic emphasizes similarities in authoritarian state control while showing differences in ideological justification and foreign policy.
1
1
54