Why they want to "control" AI

 

Krzysztof Szczawinski

@Kristof_Poland

When they say: Please, for the love of God, regulate us. Give us licences, audits, and bans before our digital God destroys us all. Here is what is actually being requested. Three things, in order. A regulatory body that they control, to prevent competition from catching up. Written with their people, staffed by their alumni, and calibrated to what they can already afford. Compliance is a fixed cost, which means it is trivial for the incumbent and fatal for the challenger. Not technology, but paperwork becomes their moat. Immunity from liability. This is the one nobody talks about and it is the most valuable of the three. Today, if your model causes harm, it is your fault. Once licensed, audited, and approved, it is the regulator’s fault – you followed the rules. The licence converts responsibility into a receipt. Too big to fail status, which means taxpayer funded bailouts in case of problems. Declare it critical infrastructure and the state now has an interest in your survival. Which means, when something goes wrong, the losses are public and the gains stay private. We have watched this film. Banking, 2008, same argument, same vocabulary. Note the pattern: every one of the three transfers something from them to the public – risk, competition, cost – while the language is entirely about protecting the public from them. The sincerity of the fear is beside the point. Sincere people can still ask for exactly what an insincere person would ask for, and the request should be judged by what it does rather than by what motivates it. The alternative is unglamorous and works: competition, adversarial testing between rivals who want to find each other’s flaws, and full liability after real harm. Nobody gets a licence. Nobody gets immunity. Nobody gets a bailout. You build, and you answer for what you built. That is the arrangement that made the West rich. It has never needed anyone’s permission to work.

https://x.com/Kristof_Poland/status/2100607547900039483?s=20

AI in schools

 

Shan Reddy

@rshanreddy

America is banning AI in schools. China is using AI to create geniuses. Introducing Aristotle: The AI tutor that solves America’s broken education system. https://heyaristotle.com

Franma

@davidson_f14299

POST 1 — Globalist Endgame Let me say this straight: America isn’t falling apart because of one cartoon villain sitting in a dark room pulling every string. It’s falling apart because a whole class of people — globalists, corporate boards, NGOs, university elites, Davos types — all benefit from a weaker, softer, more “manageable” America. They don’t even hide it. They talk openly about “global governance,” “post‑national identity,” and “shared international frameworks” like borders and nations are outdated toys. And here’s the part people miss: they don’t need a secret handshake or a master plan. They just need incentives. Big business wants cheap labor and one regulatory market. Nonprofits want endless clients. Politicians want problems that never get solved. Tech companies want addicted users. Universities want status and ideological purity. Every one of them gets paid when America’s edges get sanded down. That’s why the chaos feels coordinated even when it isn’t. Universities didn’t go woke because of a war room — they did it because hiring committees rewarded it. Media didn’t go partisan because of a conspiracy — they did it because outrage gets clicks. Families didn’t break down because of one villain — they broke down because welfare rules, housing costs, porn, no‑fault divorce, and jobs leaving town made the easy option the common option. But here’s the truth nobody wants to say: whether it’s intentional or accidental, the result is the same. America gets weaker. Culture gets softer. People get more dependent. And the globalist class gets exactly what it wants — a country that’s easier to fold into their system. So yeah, there’s an endgame. It’s just not a movie villain. It’s a thousand incentives all pushing in the same direction — and America is the one paying the price. This series has many parts but each can stand alone. I will post in order so you can follow . I hope it helps to but in perspective and clarify what is happening. I have spent days working on it and it will take a while to put it all out. Thank you, Post 2/follows

Franma

@davidson_f14299

Post 2/ Universities: Where Indoctrination Started People act like universities “suddenly” went crazy, but this didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t one mastermind pulling levers — it was a slow drift that rewarded the wrong people and punished the right ones. Universities didn’t become indoctrination factories because of a secret plot. They became indoctrination factories because every incentive inside the system pushed them in the same direction. And here’s the part nobody wants to admit: the political imbalance in universities is real, massive, and documented. In the humanities and social sciences, Democrat‑to‑Republican ratios aren’t 2:1 or 3:1 — they’re 8:1, 10:1, 13:1, and even higher in certain departments. STEM and economics are less skewed, but “studies” fields, sociology, anthropology, and parts of history are basically ideological monocultures. Once a department hits 90% one way, “fit” becomes a filter — and that’s how echo chambers form without a master plan. And yes, surveys show that a chunk of faculty openly admit they would discriminate against conservative or Trump‑supporting applicants. That’s not paranoia — that’s data. Self‑selection plays a role, but hostile climate and hiring bias amplify it. By the time someone even reaches the job market, the pipeline has already filtered out anyone who doesn’t speak the dominant moral language. But the biggest shift didn’t come from professors alone. It came from the explosion of administrators — DEI offices, Title IX staff, student‑affairs bureaucrats, compliance teams, communications departments. These people set speech rules, training requirements, hiring language, and what counts as “harm.” They can reshape a campus faster than a sociology department ever could. And the incentives didn’t stop there. Accreditation bodies, federal funding, grant agencies, and ranking systems all reward the same DEI language, the same risk‑avoidance, the same moral vocabulary. Students arrive already leaning left, then sort themselves into schools and majors that amplify it. Peers matter more than professors. Social media accelerates it. By the time a freshman sits down, the climate is already set. This didn’t start in 2015. The tilt existed in the 1950s and 60s. The big break was the mid‑1960s to mid‑1970s — Vietnam, civil rights, campus revolts. Activists entered graduate school, then the faculty. Governance changed. Curriculum changed. The idea that teaching is political took root. Then things stabilized for a while — until the late 1990s through the 2010s, when the snowball turned into an avalanche. Far‑left faculty tripled. DEI bureaucracies exploded. Speech codes hardened. Identity frameworks became institutional. Today isn’t the beginning — it’s the maintenance phase. The monoculture is already built. The incentives keep it running. So no, universities aren’t turning every student into a radical. Chemistry labs aren’t teaching grievance studies. Accounting majors aren’t chanting slogans. But the campus climate, the administrative layer, the prestige incentives, and the pipeline all push the same moral language: America is flawed, borders are suspect, identity is everything, and dissent is dangerous. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a drift — a drift that turned into a monoculture. And now we’re living with the consequences. Post 3 follows

https://x.com/davidson_f14299/status/2100485997284999539?s=20

Immigration asymmetry

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

@Ayaan

“And there is one final asymmetry, the one that ought to settle the matter once and for all.

There is no flight from Europe by anyone—no community, no religious minority, no ethnic group, no political tendency—as a consequence of European far-right violence.

No Muslims, no Jews, no atheists, no ex-Muslims, no gay men and women are packing suitcases in Frankfurt or Manchester or Marseille and applying for asylum in Cairo or Islamabad or Algiers because European far-right militants have made their lives untenable at home.

The traffic runs, on a massive scale, in the opposite direction, and it has run in the opposite direction for two generations. Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, Baha’is, Ahmadiyyas, ex-Muslims, secularists, feminists, gay men and women, and religious minorities of every description are leaving the Muslim-majority world in millions, and they are coming to Europe and the rest of the West. They come because Europe, whatever else it is, is not governed by the doctrinal architecture they are fleeing.

The presence of a European far right that occasionally shouts at them, or, at the violent extreme, produces a Breivik or a Tarrant, has not slowed the movement at all.

If the two extremisms were symmetrical, the flow would also be symmetrical. It is not even close.

The direction of migration by itself—that is, the votes of feet cast in their tens of millions by the very people who know both worlds—is a stronger empirical statement about the relative danger of the two phenomena than any Home Office report, academic study, or half-baked media essay will ever be.”

Anand

@anand88_uk

·

22h

The same evidence is apparent in India. How many Indian Muslims are fleeing to Pakistan or Bangladesh despite a Hindu nationalist government and its anti-Muslim policies? The pull to Europe is its generous social welfare and liberal laws. Islamists will thrive and pursue jihad.