The past few days, I got my hands on thousands of new transcripts and hundreds of recordings, thanks to leads from @SKDoubleDub33 and @iamlisalogan . You've heard that the DSA is proposing structural reforms to America, including abolishing the Senate and imposing term limits. What you not have heard is - there is an operational plan to put it all into action. If the Democratic Party sweeps 2026, then DSA will become "foot soldiers" in constant clashes with the administration to cross a "red line" or invoke a "doomsday scenario" - meaning, President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, probably sometime in 2027. Then, a lot of coordinated responses kick off, including delegitimizing the federal government itself and handing that legitimacy to Democratic governors. 2028 then becomes a vote on whether to keep America governance as-is or to burn it all down to appease a "young and brown" demographic. The mysterious group who's been coordinating 50501, Indivisible, and coordinating the NoKings protests is called "United Democracy Alliance" and their intellectual leader is Erica Chenoweth who came up with the 3.5% rule of nonviolent regime change. Patience. I know I've hyped this more than anything else. It's genuinely the biggest discovery I've had. This is an enormous archive. This is only the beginning.

Real life, baby

My origin story of how I went from a “trust the science” RN to telling people to use alternative & natural medicine whenever possible. Before March 2020, I had never once seen a patient get intubated just because their oxygen number looked bad. We treated the person in front of us - if they were walking, talking, and not in distress, we didn’t sedate them and shove a tube down their throat to breathe for them. Numbers were one piece of the picture, not the whole thing. Then COVID hit and everything flipped overnight. Suddenly we were intubating people who walked into the ER on their own, could hold a conversation, and weren’t gasping for air. The doctors said their low sats meant they were about to crash. It went against everything I’d been taught- treat the patient, not the numbers. Visitors weren’t allowed, so we let them FaceTime their families right before we did it. I looked them in the eyes and told them it was temporary- we’d wake them in a few days and they’d be home in no time. Right after the tube went in, we started Remdesivir. For the first couple days it felt like we were doing something heroic. Then the patients started dying. Multi-organ failure. The same people I’d joked with and reassured hours or days earlier were gone. I kept thinking, “How is this virus killing relatively young, healthy people this fast even with the best treatment we have?” By day six I noticed something that made my stomach drop: the COVID patients who refused intubation, including elderly ones with a list of comorbidities, were doing fine. Not one of them died. I started pointing it out to every doctor and nurse I worked with. They looked at me like I was crazy. By day nine the picture got worse. Patients who refused the tube but still got Remdesivir were dying at roughly 50%. The explanation I kept hearing was “only the sickest get the drug.” But that didn’t match what I was watching, what I was trained to see. By day ten I was not so quietly telling every person I knew: if you end up in the hospital with COVID, do not consent to intubation or Remdesivir. Do not allow them to do that to your loved ones. My ER kept doing both anyway. Even after the pattern was obvious to anyone who was actually in the rooms. Later I found out hospitals were getting paid extra for COVID patients who were intubated, more if they got Remdesivir, and still more for every day spent in an ICU bed. Once you see the incentives, the refusal to change course stops looking like pure science. I still can’t fully wrap my head around how fast the rules changed and how hard it was to get anyone to look at the actual results in front of us. I went from “trust the experts” to “watch what happens to the patients and decide for yourself.” If you were on the front lines and saw something different, say so. If you weren’t, this is why a lot of us stopped automatically trusting the system and have dropped out of it. I’m the villain and the hero of my own story and it’s hard to reconcile with either.

Dear Secretary Bessent @SecScottBessent, My name is Everett Stern. In 2010 I was a compliance officer at @HSBC. From a back office in New Castle, Delaware, I watched billions of dollars move to drug cartels, sanctioned regimes, and terrorist organizations. The enemies of the United States. I documented it, I escalated it, and when the bank would not act, I took it to the @FBI, the @CIA, and eventually the @SECGov. The result was a $1.92 billion settlement. At the time, it was one of the largest in American history. It was also about five weeks of the bank’s profit. Not one banker was charged. Not one went to prison. I paid a different price. I lost my career, my savings, and my place in the industry I had trained for. I was blacklisted. Every door in American finance closed at once. I slept on a camping cot in a 300 square foot apartment because I could not afford a bed, and I waited tables at @PFChangs to eat. I tell you this not for sympathy, but so you understand that I know exactly what it costs to do the right thing in American finance, and exactly how little the system does in return. I made that sacrifice because I believed it would change something. Yesterday, your department fined @BankofAmerica $1.2 billion for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, some of it tied by your own findings to Chinese laundering networks, narcotics, and the southwest border, alongside 475 apparent sanctions violations touching Russia, Iran, and global terrorism. The bank admitted it willfully violated the Bank Secrecy Act. Fourteen years after HSBC. A bank with “America” in its name. And once again, not one individual charged. Secretary Bessent, I want to say plainly what I believe you already know. The fines are not working. A fine is paid by shareholders, absorbed by the balance sheet, and forgotten by the next earnings call. Bank of America reported earnings this morning. Nobody who set the alert thresholds, nobody who decided the 2024 cease and desist could wait, nobody who chose the backlog over the law will lose a single thing they value. Their lives are untouched. That is the entire reason the behavior repeats. This is money laundering. This is blood money. Money that reaches a cartel buys fentanyl that kills Americans. Money that reaches a terrorist organization buys the next attack. This country has fought a war on drugs and a war on terror for decades, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, and all the while we have allowed the financing to flow through institutions we charter and regulate. Cut off the money and we win. We have never seriously tried. There is also a question of equal justice that I cannot let go. Before I walked into the FBI building to report HSBC, I stopped in front of the Great Seal on the wall and read the words engraved beneath it: “Justice is the defense of our liberty.” I believed that. I still want to. But every day in this country, people go to prison for crimes that are nothing next to moving money for the people who want Americans dead. A suit, a title, and a corporate badge should not be a shield from the consequences that apply to everyone else. If a street dealer goes to prison for what he sells, the banker who moved the cartel’s money should be standing next to him. I also want to raise something that is rarely said in these conversations. Why has no one inside Bank of America come forward the way I did? The answer is that everyone in American banking knows what happened to me, and to the whistleblowers who came after. The last person who spoke up is the only policy anyone believes. That is a culture problem, and it starts with leadership, in the banks and in the agencies that regulate them. This is not a political issue. It has spanned administrations of both parties. It is a national security issue, and I am asking you to treat it as one. Three things would change the math overnight. Refer individuals for criminal prosecution. Not the analyst in the queue. The executives who set the thresholds and chose the risk. One banker in handcuffs would do more than every fine in Treasury’s history combined. End “too big to jail.” An institution cannot be too big to fail and too big to jail at the same time. If it is the first, it must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And if Bank of America will not act as America’s bank, review its charter. A national charter is a privilege granted on behalf of the American people. It should be conditioned on not moving money for the people trying to kill them. Secretary Bessent, you said yesterday that these actions send a clear message that even the biggest institutions are not above the law. With respect, the institution was never the problem. The people inside it are above the law, and they know it. Until that changes, I will keep writing letters like this one, and the next bank will keep paying the next fine. I gave up everything I had to stop this. I am asking you to use the power you have to finish it. Respectfully, Everett A. Stern HSBC Whistleblower Founder and Intelligence Director, Tactical Rabbit

Another great one 😄

Shocking unreleased footage of CCP violent crackdown on the peaceful student protesters in Tiananmen Square on 6/4, 1989, has finally been revealed. It was sealed by British ITN. Estimated 10k students were killed. @DSA should learn from this massacre!

One of the best I've seen so far 😜

Before you vote in the midterms -- and you'd better unless you're a Dem -- take a look at the crew we're up against. Enjoy this parody and help me make it mega viral so that America doesn't make a tragic mistake! XXX Greg Abbott (not the Tx guv)

Gods Don't Give Gifts Coming to theaters December 4th. On Niiro Cradle, where bodies are disposable and consciousness has been commoditized, four interconnected stories collide with the horrifying consequences of humanity’s attempt to transcend the flesh.

😂😂

This is the case against AI doom. Pass it on First we recaptulate standard x-risk argument: we build AI substantially smarter than humans → it becomes an autonomous optimizing agent → its goals are misaligned → instrumental convergence makes it seek power and resist correction → superintelligence lets it acquire decisive strategic advantage → humans lose control permanently. Here are the main counterarguments: * Intelligence does not imply agency: A system can be extraordinarily capable at prediction, theorem proving, engineering, programming, etc. without having persistent goals, self-preservation drives, or an independent desire to act. Present LLMs are much more naturally described as systems that produce outputs in response to inputs than as organisms pursuing long-term objectives. Doomers incorrectly ascribe to them drive to replicate and seize resources because they're smuggling in premises from observing biological systems. * Agency does not imply a single, stable utility function: Much alignment theory reasons about agents as expected-utility maximizers with coherent preferences. Actual AIs systems need not resemble that abstraction, and currently do not. They have context-dependent behavior, conflicting heuristics and corrigibility produced by training. Increasing competence doesn't necessarily turn such a system into a paperclip-maximizing von Neumann–Morgenstern agent. * Capability and motivation are being conflated: Being able to formulate a plan for escaping a sandbox doesn't entail wanting to escape it. Being able to manipulate humans doesn't imply spontaneously deciding to do so. Critics argue that some doom scenarios slide from “an AI could do X if instructed” to “therefore a sufficiently capable AI will do X.” In present reality, AIs don't do anything a human doesn't tell them to do. This seems unlikely to change. * Recursive self-improvement doesn't entail an intelligence explosion: “AI can improve AI” establishes a positive feedback loop, but positive feedback needn't be explosive. Semiconductor design software already helps design better computers; compilers can compile better compilers. Feedback loops encounter diminishing returns and external bottlenecks. * Intelligence may have sharply diminishing returns: There may be no meaningful scalar quantity corresponding to arbitrarily large “general intelligence.” Even if there is, going from IQ-equivalent 150 to 1,500 need not produce the sort of qualitative advantage that separates humans from chimpanzees. Human dominance may depend heavily on language, accumulated culture, institutions and cooperation rather than merely individual cognitive horsepower. * Superintelligence isn't omnipotence: Intelligence cannot repeal physics or eliminate uncertainty. A brilliant AI still needs processors, electricity, network access, money, factories, robots and people willing or tricked into doing things. The physical world has latency and friction. Recent criticism of biological-doom scenarios makes this point particularly clearly: designing a hypothetical pathogen digitally is very different from successfully producing and deploying one. * Humans retain numerous intervention points: The doom narrative sometimes jumps from “AI behaves dangerously” to “humanity is helpless.” In reality there may be many checkpoints: developers can notice anomalous behavior, revoke credentials, shut down servers, change architectures, restrict networks, regulate deployment, physically seize data centers, and learn from less-catastrophic failures. This has been formalized as the checkpoints-for-intervention argument. * Alignment may not get harder with intelligence: A smarter system might understand human intentions better. Much doom reasoning distinguishes knowing what humans want from wanting it, correctly, but this still leaves open the empirical question of whether training increasingly capable systems to behave as intended becomes harder or easier. Alignment might turn out to be an ordinary, albeit difficult, engineering discipline rather than an insoluble philosophical problem. * Current empirical evidence for the strongest mechanism is thin: We have abundant evidence for hallucination, specification gaming, reward hacking and undesirable model behavior. We don't yet have comparable public empirical evidence of an AI independently pursuing a sustained strategy of acquiring power against humanity. A 2023 evidence review characterized the evidence for extreme misaligned power-seeking as concerning but inconclusive and noted the absence, at that point, of public empirical examples of it. * The argument compounds uncertain premises: Suppose, illustratively, that five necessary steps each seem 50% likely. Their conjunction is only about 3%. One can't simply assign numbers this way when the premises are correlated, but the underlying criticism is important: “AGI seems plausible,” “superintelligence seems plausible,” and “misalignment seems plausible” do not by themselves imply a high P(doom). The entire causal chain has to work. Current attempts to quantify P(doom) consequently operate under severe epistemic uncertainty and little direct empirical evidence. * Anthropomorphic analogies probably mislead: Arguments like “an inferior species couldn't control a superior species” import assumptions from biological evolution. Humans and chimpanzees are autonomous organisms produced by competition for reproductive success. Software is engineered, copied, permissioned, sandboxed and run on hardware controlled by other agents. The analogy establishes that intelligence can confer power, not that artificial intelligence will reproduce interspecies competition. Summary: The doom case consists of a long chain of individually contestable extrapolations—scaling → AGI → superintelligence → agency → misalignment → power-seeking → uncontrollability → decisive strategic advantage → extinction—and present evidence doesn't establish the whole chain with enough confidence to justify a high P(doom). (ChatGPT 6 Astra assisted with the research for this post.)