“You can kill a Palestinian anywhere in Palestine and the police won’t open a file.”1

- Miko Paled

Miko Paled (Wikipedia)

Born in Jerusalem in 1961, Peled grew up in Motza Illit to a prominent Zionist family.

Peled’s grandfather, Avraham Katznelson, after whom he was named, signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence.^[2][3] Peled’s father, Mattityahu Peled, who fought in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and served as a general in the Six-Day War of 1967, became an advocate for an Israeli dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) after the Israeli cabinet ignored his investigation of a 1967 alleged Israeli war crime.^[4] His brother is the political scientist Yoav Peled.

AI Research (Gemini)

Q: What are the consequences for an Israeli who kills a Palestinian in the West Bank? What will the police response be?

… 3. Statistical Realities and Challenges

Despite the legal framework, human rights organizations and international bodies frequently point to a significant “accountability gap” regarding Israeli violence against Palestinians.

• Low Indictment Rates: According to data from the Israeli NGO Yesh Din, which tracks such cases, a vast majority of investigations into ideologically motivated crimes by Israelis against Palestinians are closed without an indictment. Between 2005 and 2024, approximately 94% of cases ended without an indictment, often cited due to “perpetrator unknown” or “insufficient evidence.”

• Conviction Rates: Only about 3% of investigations into settler violence lead to a conviction. When convictions do occur, they are sometimes for lesser offenses rather than the original capital charge.

• Evidence Collection: Challenges often arise because Palestinian witnesses may be hesitant to file complaints with Israeli police, or police may face difficulties accessing certain areas to collect forensic evidence promptly.

Book

• The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine, Second Edition, 04/01/2016 • 10/03/2022. (AI Summary)

Questions

1. Were you aware that Palestinians in the West Bank are governed by a different legal system than the Israeli settlers that live among them, equivalent to martial law?

2. Did you know that Palestinians in the West Bank can be detained without charge, as the Palestinians in the West Bank are effectively governed by Martial law?

Transcript:

18:04 Do you mind if you explain that? Maybe it's a good time now because I'm very curious. 18:08 Well, when you have when you have different So, okay. 18:13 Israeli Jews can live anywhere they want in that country and they are governed and protected by civil laws, civil kind 18:21 of western democratic laws. Palestinians do not enjoy any protection under the law. You can kill a Palestinian anywhere 18:29 throughout the entire country, whether you call it Israel or Palestine, and there will be no consequences. You can kill a Palestinian anywhere, the police 18:37 won't even start open a file, won't even come to investigate. Now, the way Palestinians are governed 18:44 within this apartheid system, like I said, Jews have the same laws. They enjoy the same protections. Palestinians, 18:52 citizens of Israel, there about two million of those. They live under a set of laws that is specific to them and 19:00 they're governed by particular bureaucracies that manage their life and 19:07 kind of this this this bureaucracy is um how should I say this kind of over over uh covered with Israeli intelligence, 19:17 Israeli secret police, the Shabbach. So anything Palestinians want to do, they want to go become a teacher, get a mortgage, whatever. Not that they can get a mortgage, but [snorts] 19:26 whatever they want to do, they have to go through the uh Shabbach, the secret police. Now, the Palestinians in 19:33 Jerusalem have a different status. The Palestinians in Jerusalem, even families that have been there, you know, in Jerusalem, some of the Palestinian families in Jerusalem go back 800 years, 19:44 they uh live under a different status. 19:47 They don't have citizenship. Um, now I was born and raised in Jerusalem. I've been gone for many years, I can go back tomorrow, pick up my life, buy a house 19:56 or if I have property, I can access my property. Palestinian citizen, the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, if they leave or if they have a foreign 20:05 passport, they lose their their their uh status, they lose their right to their property and they're basically become stateless. So, they can't come back. 20:16 that. So, so if Palestinians, Palestinians, if they leave where exactly if they leave the country, if they go overseas for a few years, 20:24 the state of Israel, huh? If they leave the state of Israel, 20:28 if they leave the country, yeah, if they leave Jerusalem, I mean, they're not citizens of the state of Israel. They are alien residents even though they were there long before. 20:37 Sorry. Are you talking about Sorry, I might have gotten confused. I apologize. 20:40 You're talking about Palestinians in just in in what is considered the West Bank. In Jerusalem, 20:47 okay, in Tel Aviv, it doesn't apply. Tel Aviv, they can travel and come back. There are no Palestinians in Tel Aviv. 20:52 There are Palestinian neighborhoods in Yafa, which is now a part of Tel Aviv that are still there. Tel Aviv is built on the But I mean Palestinians, I mean Arab Israelis. I mean Arab Israelis. 21:03 Well, yeah. So, hold on. So, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, that's one category. That's what I'm talking they can travel they can travel and come 21:11 back from you the ones that they have an Israeli passport. Okay. Okay. 21:14 The Palestinians who reside in Jerusalem do not have that. 21:19 They have a different uh status and if they leave or if they if they obtain a second passport which many many people 21:27 do um they cannot return their land is taken. You know, in some cases, 21:32 Palestinians in in Jerusalem are always have to make sure there's somebody in the home because if there's the home is 21:39 empty, the apartment is empty, it will be taken by settlers and they're gone. 21:43 They can't come back. So, this is the reality. East or West, East or West Jerusalem? 21:47 There are no Palestinians in West Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, the ethnic cleansing was absolute. No Palestinians were allowed to remain in West Jerusalem. Palestinians only exist in 21:56 East Jerusalem. In 1948, West Jerusalem was taken and the ethnic cleansing was 100%. No Palestinians were left in West Jerusalem. 22:06 When you say Palestinians, Jerusalem, 22:08 when you say Palestinians, you mean including Arab Israelis? There's no such thing as Arab Israelis. 22:13 There are Palestinian citizens of Israel. Arab. 22:16 Yeah, that's what I meant. So, you're saying there's no Palestinian Sorry. 22:19 There's no Palestinian citizens of Israel in West Jerusalem. 22:22 No. eth Jerusalem was the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem was 100% no Palestinians were left. Many of the 22:30 Palestinians who are still what in what is called Israel. Now is Israeli Arabs is a derogatory term. 22:38 Yeah, I didn't mean it that way. So I apologize. 22:40 Yeah, no Palestinian very few if any Palestinians would would use that term to describe themselves but they are citizens. My last my last guest used the 22:48 term so that's why I started using um it's very often uh misunderstood but the so in 1948 22:57 you know hundreds of towns and villages were were destroyed and taken and and and Israeli settlements were built in their place. Jerusalem had Palestinians. 23:07 It was a Palestinian city. [snorts] And then in 1948 when during the ethnic cleansing campaign and so on and when the state of Israel this regime was 23:15 established the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem was absolute. Not a single Palestinian was allowed to remain in 23:22 West Jerusalem. And then the border cut Jerusalem in half. Half the West Jerusalem became not recognized 23:30 internationally but became the capital of the state of Israel and East Jerusalem remained in the in what's known as the West Bank. M after 1967, 23:38 the Palestinians of East Jerusalem were occupied just like everybody in the West Bank, but they were given a special 23:45 status, not citizens because Israel had had um uh completely annexed East 23:52 Jerusalem and and and a lot more than East Jerusalem. In other words, they expanded the boundaries. The Palestinians who they are constantly 24:00 trying to get rid of who reside in Jerusalem have a special status of an alien resident. So there are many 24:09 limitations and and there's a great concern if they leave you know go to school for three years go to college uh I don't know decide to start a business 24:17 and then maybe come back whatever the case may be they will lose their property and they will lose their status. Now, this won't happen. They have to stay. They have to stay. 24:27 Sorry. They have to stay. And in some cases, 24:29 and I'm not kidding you, there are areas throughout East Jerusalem where Palestinians do not dare leave their home empty for not even for a day 24:39 because of the settlers come in with soldiers and take their home. And that happens every single day because there's a process that the 24:47 Zionist there's a term that the Zionist has created called a judization of. So there's a Judaization of Jerusalem, 24:55 there's a Judaization of the Galilee, 24:57 there's a Judaization of, you know, and depending on the region. So Judaization or development 25:05 are code words for kicking out the Palestinians and then developing their land, developing their homes for Jews only. Now, like I said, the bureaucracy, 25:16 the the only difference between Palestinians in the West Bank, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, 25:22 Palestinians in Jerusalem, Palestinians in the Gaza concentration camp, the only differences between them are that they are governed by a different bureaucracy. 25:31 And that bureaucracy in some places a little more lenient, in some places obviously like the Gaza concentration camp, it's far more extreme. And like 25:39 you said that we saw we saw a genocide We're still seeing a genocide in in the Gaza concentration camp, but that is 25:48 just a part of the picture. Palestinian citizens of Israel have their homes demolished. They're thrown in jail for 25:55 for standing up. They don't dare leave their towns now or or or or even those who go to work among Israelis, they're scared. And it's always been that way. 26:06 and the privilege to become I don't know a bank manager or the privilege to go to medical school or the privilege to be a 26:14 teacher or principal in a school you have to go through screening by the Israeli secret police by the Shabbach 26:22 there every aspect of their life is governed by the Shabbach so you've got all these different bureaucracies that 26:30 make this apartheid work and there is not a single law in the Israeli law books that protects 26:38 Palestinians only Israelis. Then it comes to sentencing the death penalty law just now. I mean many many I mean 26:45 there's a disgusting law that is a disgusting law the the the one this is this is this is this is Zionism. 26:53 I mean look they committed genocide without the law. They committed massacres in 1948 without that law. I mean, they've been killing Palestinians one way or the other, you know, 27:05 massacring large numbers of Palestinians for the last eight decades through acts of what what I think should be considered terrorism. So the So when we 27:13 talk about the state of Israel, we're talking about a regime, a settler colonial regime that is racist, that is 27:21 that is very violent, that has brought instability to the entire region. Think of all the wars over the last 80 years. 27:29 Think of the millions of refugees. Think of the destruction. Think of the cyan war in Iran. This ridiculous absurd psychotic attack on Iran. All of these things were initiated by this regime. 27:41 Think of Lebanon. This is not the first time that they're engaged in in massacres of southern Lebanon. They've been wanting to take southern Lebanon 27:48 um since I was a child. You know, I mean, this is something that's been going on for a long time. So if that has legitimacy, if that has a right to exist in someone's opinion, 27:59 that's fine. But that's based on values. It's not based on politics. 28:02 No. So the solution the solution to a to a country that commits atrocities and almost every country in its history has committed atrocities at some stage. 28:10 Whether it's Turkey, whether it's China, whether it's Japan, whether it's Russia, 28:14 they've committed atrocities be replaced and the regime. But the Yeah, you replace the regime. 28:18 But I just don't think that the you remove it as a state is the solution. 28:22 But I just want to ask you a quick question. I'm still a more inquisitive question again. The Palestinian Israelis, the ones that live in Israel proper, you know what I mean by Israel proper? 28:31 1967. Yeah. 19. Yeah. So 1967 borders. 28:35 The Well, it's called the the Palestinian citizens of Israel and what you call Israel proper is is called Palestine of 1948. 28:43 That's what it's called. And they are the Palestinians of 1948. 28:47 Yeah. So it so do they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis? 28:52 Not at all. Not even remotely. Their lives are different. Everything from the the amount of water they receive. Israel 29:01 Israel controls all the the entire you know controls the water. There's an Israeli bureaucracy called or agency called Mikaroth and they control all the 29:09 water. Palestinians regardless of where they live but in general Palestinians throughout the entire country you want 29:17 to guess how many how much what percentage of the water they are allocated there's no way you will guess but you can try if you want 29:25 now consider Palestinians let me try hold on so population of Palestinians in Israel is about 30 how what percentage of the is proper 29:32 population is Palestinian 2 million but I'm talking about Palestinians throughout the entire country so there's two million so if we take out I want to take 30:00 out I want to take out Westbank guys out which 29:41 I I'm not and I'm not trying to be insensitive. out I want to take 29:41 I'm trying to because I understand how horrible it is there and that we like I fully agree. What I'm trying to understand is the situation of 29:49 Palestinians inside you know Tel Aviv. There are no Palestinians in Tel Aviv. 29:57 Palestinians don't live in Israeli towns. Palestinians either live if they live in what is known as mixed cities where you have two populations. They are 30:05 completely segregated. They live in communities without sidewalks, without roads, without electricity, and without access to water. 30:13 One to two% of Tel Aviv residents are Arab citizens. 30:16 There are no Tel Aviv. There are no maybe a couple, but there are no Palestinians in Tel Aviv. There is a small There are a couple of 30:24 neighborhoods in what used to be the city of Yafa, which preceded Tel Aviv, which was a major, you know, 30:30 Mediterranean city, Arab city way, you know, before 1948. 30:35 that there are a small community that still exists from what used to be that big city. But that's but they are 30:43 completely segregated. It's a completely segregated community. 30:46 Oh wow. They live in in three concentrated regions. The Galilea, the Gal the Galilee, 30:52 the Galile the uh city along the green line. Tanib, Tira, Kuraswan, Ker. Yeah. Um another one Jewish Arab cities Hifa. 31:00 Hifa. 31:02 Yeah. So, there are a couple of, like I said, there are a couple of cities that are called mixed cities. Hi-fi is one of them. 31:07 Can't believe there's even a word of mixed cities. 31:10 And Hi is one of them. Jerusalem is one of them where I grew up. And of course, 31:13 the segregation is absolute. They don't go to the same schools. They don't speak the same language. They don't have the same resources. Um, lid is a mixed city 31:22 in in the south in the entire southern part of Palestine, they have a couple of mixed cities, but the segregation is 31:30 absolute. They do not have the same life, the same standard of living. 31:34 So why? Sorry, just another I know it sounds like a naive question, but I'm sure a lot of people outside outside of this world don't understand this. An 31:41 Arab Israeli or Palestinian Israeli that wants to move to Tel Aviv, can't they just get the money and buy a house in Tel Aviv? I don't get what I'm saying. 31:48 Sell them a house. So the way the apartheid is structured, you have laws. They have the money. Yeah. Sorry. 31:54 No. So the way the the way the apartheid is structured, you have laws. 32:00 Then you have policies and then you have culture. 32:05 So I'll tell you a story. I mean I I I was with a friend in the city of Lid, 32:09 which is a supposedly mixed city. And in the city of Lid, they build massively to 32:16 encourage, you know, young Israeli Jews to come and live there. So they build these beautiful developments, beautiful apartments. a Palestinian from the city went to put his name down, you know, 32:28 wanting to buy an apartment, 32:31 and they said to him, "Look, uh, we're full. It's already gone. Everything's sold." 32:37 And Israeli friend of his went right after him and wanted to put his name and they said, "Uh, sure. You know, which 32:45 apartment do you want? One bedroom, two bedrooms, and so on." No. 32:48 And the guy said, "Wait a minute. My Palestinian friend was just there was just here and you said that it's all full that it's all been sold. And the 32:57 person said to him, and this is very typical, look, if we sell to Arabs, no one's going to buy. No one's going to 33:04 buy if we sell to Arabs, if we allow Arabs to live here. So, no, a Palestinian cannot buy nobody. 33:12 Can you buy houses? So, so hold on. If there's, 33:16 sorry if it sounds like 33:20 a stupid question, but if there's a I don't know if you can buy homes online, but if he goes online, clicks on buy of a house in 33:25 Tel Aviv, and puts his details. You're saying they'll say what? If it's a house that's on sale on the website, he clicks on buy, they'll say no because they'll 33:33 see his name. They'll see the name is a Palestinian. They can legally say no. 33:37 No, they don't have to. a stupid question 33:20 It's got nothing to do with No one's going to No one is going to go after an is Israeli uh landlord or Israeli homeowner that says 33:46 no to an Arab. No one's going to do do anything. Quite the opposite. And so once you see the name, you see that it's an Arab. We're it's finished. It's over. 33:56 Now, I'll tell you more. Let me listen to this. The entire southern part of of the country in Hebrew they call it the negative. It's called the in Arabic. 34:06 There are 300,000 Palestinians who live there. They used to be semi-nomatic, so they're farmers. 34:13 Today, 34:17 only Israeli Jews are allowed to engage in farming and agriculture in that region. Now, it's a desert, but it's a very fertile desert. So, agriculture 34:25 works very well. The Israeli settlements, cities, you know, farms and so on enjoy a very high standard of living. 34:33 the Palestinian of that region, the Palestinian bed, citizens of Israel, 34:41 they live in townships, and anybody who's heard about South Africa knows about townships. They [snorts] live in towns 34:48 uh that have no roads, no access to water, no access to electricity, no access to medical care. And these are 34:57 all citizens of the state of Israel. and they live across the street from these beautiful new Israeli settlements 35:04 that enjoy a very high standard of living. This is these are citizens of Israel. So being a Palestinian citizen of Israel 35:13 does not give you the right as the rights that I would have you know that I grew up with or that other Israelis enjoy. Completely different in terms of 35:22 funding, infrastructure, school opportunities, 35:26 water, access to water. And we never finished the conversation about the water. [snorts] Now, Palestinians overall 35:33 overall make about 7 and a half million out of a population of about I don't know 12 or 13 million. So, they're the 35:40 majority. Now, Israel controls the water everywhere in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, in Gaza, everywhere. Israel controls all the water. 35:50 They allocate 3% of the water to Palestinians. 35:55 Three. So, if you're driving along a major highway and there's a Palestinian town on one side and an Israeli town on 36:02 the other side of the street or the highway or depending, you're going to see kind of dusty, dirty, 36:09 um, unckempted towns, you know, no gardens, no grassy areas. 36:14 You're not going to find, uh, swimming pools or parks for children. You're not going to see any of that across the street. You're going to see all you're 36:22 going to see that everywhere. parks and grassy areas and and and you know football places for to play football and 36:30 so on. The difference is water and sometimes it is so effective that you'll have a Palestinian town 36:38 literally across a two-lane highway street from an Israeli town. The 36:45 Palestinians will get seven 10 hours of running water per week. Israelis get all 36:53 the water. I I never thought there was any problem with water or you never, you know, did shower or cook or or do the laundry. Palestinians have to figure out 37:00 what they're going to do with seven hours and when these seven hours will come and when the water will be available. 37:07 So I have another I have another naive question then. So if there's 20% of the population of Israel proper that is Palestinian Israeli, 37:16 can't they vote for politician that represent them? They can vote. So can't can't they have representation in parliament? Sorry, it sounds like a naive question, but No, no, no. It's a really good question. 37:27 They do vote, 37:29 but the way the Israeli parliament is structured, their vote doesn't matter. 37:36 So the Israeli Parliament, and this might be too many details, but I'll I'll go through it. The Israeli Parliament has 120 seats. 37:44 The most the most the Palestinians can get or people who represent the pal that Palestinian community can get is around 37:52 20. Let's say 30 if like the out of 160 out of 120. 120. 38:00 Now no Israeli leader will ever enter a coalition with a party that represents the 38:09 Palestinians, the Arabs. No legislation would pass 38:16 based on a coordination with the Arab parties. It would be unthinkable. 38:23 And now Israeli elections are coming up and both and all the different parties are accusing the others that they are 38:30 traitors because they will sit with the Arab parties. 38:35 So it the way it's structured it's like it's like a it's like a sanit in Europe in in Europe you can have a a political party that gets a lot of votes 38:44 but all the others kind of coales together to form a coalition that makes the other one that had a big portion of the votes just completely useless. 38:51 I mean there was a time where the the what's called what's known as the Arab parties had 15 or 16 seats. They were the third largest block in parliament. 39:03 everything, any coalition, any legislation counts them out and then they do the count on whether or not it's going to 39:11 pass. Nobody will ever and so and because the entire country is a single uh voting district, you know, their their influence is diminished. I mean, 39:21 they have no influence. So, they and they can't sit in any of the important committees. They can't sit in security or or foreign affairs or any of that sort of thing. 39:30 So, If if I'm speaking as someone who who I'm not saying an extreme Zionist who's 39:37 religiously fundamentalist or um look at look at Palestinian as you know looks at themselves as superior or supreme race 39:45 or superior to Palestinians not those brainwashed idiots. If we look at someone that's pragmatic like like like yourself but on the opposite side that 39:54 wants to justify this what is the argument they make? Someone pragmatic and logical. If I tell them why is that happen? someone that looks at 40:01 Palestinians as equals. Do that is there a good explan not a good explanation. What would be their explanation? 40:09 [snorts] 40:10 Well, there's a whole uh there's a whole box full of explanations depending on what works. So, one is the Holocaust, 40:18 two is an Arab terrorism, three is October 7th. 40:22 Oh, so they don't so they don't deny they don't sorry they don't deny that um Israel is an apath apathide state. They just justify it. 40:31 Is there some people that didn't Is there anyone that says no, we're starting apathide state or it's a given? 40:34 No, they say it's not a parttheide. They say that we're a democracy, but we're a Jewish democracy. 40:42 And then if you say yes, but what about this and what about this and what about this? Then they'll bring out the different excuses to justify whatever it 40:50 is that you're asking about. And you know, they'll they'll just they'll just, you know, 40:54 but what would be the justification, for example, of two things? not having only 3% of the water going to Palestinians or Palestinians not being able Palestinian 41:02 Israelis not being able to buy land anywhere. What would be like the the most reasonable reasonable explanation for these two if I ask a reasonable person? 41:11 The land belongs to the Jews. The water belongs to the Jews. Palestinians if they don't like they can leave. Yes. 41:18 Leave where? Who cares? 41:24 Really? That's what I was taught in school. This is what I was taught in school. This is how I was educated. This is how Israelis are educated from the very beginning. It's 41:32 our land. It's our rights. It's our water. If they want to stay, fine. But they're going to have to follow our lead. And that they're going to have to 41:40 accept that it's a Jewish state for Jewish people. And if we have to take their land, if we have to take the water, well, that's just the way it is. 41:49 That's where the conversation ends. And then they'll bring up the Holocaust or the Hamas orbah or whoever it is the hell they want to bring up as an excuse. 41:57 But none of these excuses matter. 41:59 And it's really about, you know, 100 million years ago. Like you said earlier, Palestine has been called Palestine 42:07 going back to the days of the pharaohs in all the document documents from all these different empires, the Greeks and on and on and on. You know, until 1948, 42:18 Europeans and everybody else did business with Palestine. But this is Palestine. 42:22 I I think this does this shouldn't this doesn't really matter. Whoever makes the argument, I think these are No, I'll tell you why it doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. These are Palestinian 42:31 people. They're people like others. They deserve to the ones in Israel deserve my position deserve the exact same rights as Jewish Israelis, otherwise it's an 42:39 apathide state. And the ones in the Palestinian land deserve their own land as Palestine with freedom of navigation, etc. 42:46 um and all the settlements to be out of Palestinian land. Now, your argument is putting it making it your argument is making it all in one land. Well, if it is one state, then it's one state equal for all. That is a reasonable position. 42:58 That is the position of most nations around the world. 43:00 Yes. And that's what Israelis are scared. 43:03 You know what's you know what's ironic is that's their biggest concern. So, they created a single state with little 43:10 banistans, little ghettos for Palestinians. 43:14 They they only count Palestinians who are the citizens of Israel. They don't count the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza when they do their census. 43:23 They count Israeli Jews everywhere regardless of where they live. But they only go count the Palestinian citizens of Israel. So it seems like there is a 43:32 Jewish state with a small a Jewish democracy with a small Arab minority or like you said 20%. The reality is this 43:40 this regime, this state of Israel governs clo and a half million Palestinians. 43:47 There are about six or six and a half million Israeli Jews. So they're governing a majority in a reality that could not be more 43:56 racist and more violent and more oppressive. Yes. 44:01 That's the reality. And that's why dismantling this regime, dismantling the Zionist regime and allowing for a one 44:09 person, one vote elections and a real democracy to take its place is the only other option. 44:19 Slicing and splicing is assumes that I get I get where you're coming from that will agree it's not going to happen. I'd love Miko I'd love 44:27 um you know obviously in a quieter time I'd love to do a deeper dive into this and I'm going to message my team if you're open for it of course to have you do a debate like a panel me you and 44:36 someone else that that disagrees with you to have a discussion because I someone reasonable on the other side because I'm really curious to see how they think and how they would justify 44:44 the things that you've talked about because it's just it's just wrong. Um but Miko pleasure to meet you man I I really appreciate you coming on. 44:52 You too. All right take care. 44:54 Thank you my friend. Um, all right everyone. I I I hope you enjoyed the conversation with me. I I want to do more conversations like this. We're going to go back to wartime discussions. 45:02 We're gonna have u Major General Randy Manor, a regular on the show to talk about the strikes on the UAE that happened again today. I was actually doing a live interview when it happened. 45:09 I only found out about it afterwards um to discuss that and the new reality of the straight home. 45:13 So, I'll see you guys in five minutes. Bye.

FOOTNOTES:

Introduction: The AI Paradox

The discourse around Artificial Intelligence is deeply polarized and full of contradictions. AI is simultaneously described as a fully sentient agent, a new species, and a “god,” while others dismiss it as an engineering hack, “autocomplete,” or just a statistical word predictor. This confusion stems from our inability to categorize a technology that challenges our traditional understanding of humanity and tools.

Part 1 & 2: Beyond Tool and Human & Concept Fission

We are currently trapped in a binary mindset: we either disqualify AI entirely as “just a tool” or attribute a full suite of human-like qualities to it.

The text introduces “Concept Fission”—the process by which technology takes ideas that have historically been bundled together and splits them apart.

• Historical Examples: Writing split knowledge from memory; the clock split time from the sun; the pill split sex from pregnancy; recording split music from musicians.

• The Generational Gap: Older generations experience moral panic during these splits because their worldview is tied to the original bundle (e.g., believing socializing requires physical presence). Younger generations grow up in a world where the concepts are already separate (e.g., accepting texting or online interactions as genuine socialization).

AI is the latest and most profound driver of Concept Fission, decoupling traits that we previously thought were inseparable from the human package.

Part 3: The Social Bundle

Historically, human interactions were a “package deal.” If you wanted knowledge, entertainment, or services, you had to endure or engage with a person (e.g., listening to a medieval villager complain about a sick goat to hear music, or navigating the social performance and potential shame of dealing with a restaurant sommelier).

Technology has steadily unbundled these social requirements:

• The Solitude Epidemic: We now use Spotify for music, Google for answers, and TV for entertainment. While convenient, removing the necessity of human interaction has led to widespread isolation.

• Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Immanuel Kant argued that people should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. AI allows us to fulfill our practical ends (like getting a recipe or a wine recommendation) without using people, revealing that many of our past social interactions were purely transactional.

Part 4: Selfless Intelligence

The human brain automatically associates language with a person, an identity, and an intention. When AI communicates fluently, our instinct is to wonder what it is thinking or feeling.

However, AI is fundamentally an actor without an identity.

• The “Mask” Metaphor: AI operates by predicting the next logical word based on a given prompt. It does not speak as “itself”; rather, it puts on a “mask” (whether that mask is ChatGPT, Socrates, or Plato) and plays a language game based on statistical patterns.

• The Split: AI achieves a major fission by separating intelligence from identity. Furthermore, because AI can speak seamlessly without being conscious, language can no longer be used as a reliable shortcut to prove consciousness.

Part 5: Artificial Intelligence

Humanity continually shifts the goalposts for what defines intelligence. Every time AI passes a new benchmark—whether it is beating chess grandmasters, mastering language, or solving complex expert-level equations (like “Humanity’s Last Exam”)—critics dismiss it as mere “pattern recognition.”

The text challenges the idea that human intelligence is an “immaculate, innate essence” by highlighting two points:

1. The Evolution Illusion: A human baby learns to recognize a cat quickly because its brain relies on millions of years of evolutionary data encoded in DNA. An AI must catch up on this entire pipeline of evolution from scratch, requiring massive datasets.

2. Intelligence is Pattern Recognition: There is no distinct line between memory and intelligence. Even chess prodigies like Magnus Carlsen rely heavily on deep pattern recognition and intuition derived from practice rather than calculating from thin air. Humans are “black boxes” just like AI; we do not consciously know where our words or creative ideas come from.

Conclusion

Intelligence is not inherently tied to consciousness or identity. It is a constructed, iterative capability that humanity has recorded and externalized through writing and data for thousands of years. By organizing this collective data into a mathematical model, we have built an intelligence that is truly artificial—meaning it is not fake, but carefully constructed.

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the consequences for humans to no longer be the most intelligent entity in the world? How does this compare to no longer being the center of the universe?

2. Will humans being outclassed by AI cause us to increase our appreciation for intelligence in other species, including other types of intelligence, such as a catch understanding that its owner is pregnant or a Canadian goose’s intelligence in navigating from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico?

Q: What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?

• Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the 1990s, on Bosnia, recounted in Madam Secretary (2003), p. 182

A: One might think the point of having a superb military is having the abililty to defend you country from attack. Or has the department of “defense” been superseded by the department of “war”?

The temptation of “Peace through Strength” is that it leads to Aggression because every president inherits a powerful military at their disposal which they seek to put to immediate use.

Then there is the saying “The best defense is a good offense”, which leads one to use offense with confused motivation. Human rights can become a pretext for employing financial or strategic offensive military goals.

Then there is the caution about the perils of maintaining standing army.

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the lessons one can draw from the founder’s caution against standing armies?

2. What role do corporations play in pushing for military involvement in foreign countries?

3. What role does the Military Industrial Complex or MICIMATT play in pushing for a large military complex?

4. Could “Peace through Strength” be reworked to be more defensive and less offensive or does the whole concept have to go?

   Thanks for reading openpolitics! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

One of the features of Evangelical Mega-churches is a big investment in theatrics such as high end sound systems, fog machines, pyrotechnics, and cinema-style screens. These churches do not skimp on the equipment that amplifies worship bands or videos.

Perhaps those critics of Erika Kirk, who criticize her for her Turning Point USA performances are dissenting only about the timing of her pyrotechnics — is it too soon after Charlie’s death? Or is this the sign that Evangelicals are reaching exhaustion with all the Glitz and Glitter?

QUESTIONS:

1. Are a faction of Evangelicals pulling back on theatrics?

2. Are Erika Kirk’s theatrics beginning to sour evangelicals on the performative nature of many Turning Points events or church services?

3. Will this result in a shift in attendance (at the margin) to less glitzy churches?

“It’s no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” —Krishnamurti

I was struck by the term “Observing books” and the idea that this novel captured problems that were present in the 1950s and which later developed into post-war America.

Observing Books

Observing Books can be comforting because they enable the observant reader to feel less isolated.

• The 1950s contained all the seeds of the post-war problems.

• It raise the issue of: Integrity, Sincerity vs Being Phony.

The Catcher In the Rye is one of the most divisive books in the American canon of literature. But maybe it's also one of the most important books of the 20th and 21st centuries.

QUESTIONS:

(Note: I haven’t actually read the book yet)

1. Do you feel like isolation with the dominant culture is a sign that you are well-adjusted and vice versa that the prominence of sociopaths and psycopaths is a sign of cultural dysfunction?

2. How can we bridge the divide between younger generations (Gen Z) and older generations that sympathize with their plight?

3. What are your thoughts on the 1950s, which have been idealized, but which the reviewer said contained all the seeds of the post-war problems?

REVIEWS:

Peter J. Seng's essay on the "Misinterpretation" of The Catcher in the Rye:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/373007?o...

Jennifer Schuessler's "Get a Life, Holden Caulfield" in The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/we...

1951 Review of the book:
https://www.startribune.com/july-29-1...

I know it was a targeted attack, but I don’t know whether it was

1. a new spear fishing attack or

2. a continuation of the spear fishing attack I experienced in 2025 in which a caller claimed that I was targeted due to alleged “antisemitism.”1 I lost access to my old gmail account in that fishing attack, had to change all the accounts that were registered to that gmail address, and fended off a $500 withdrawal attempt from my bank account.

Here’s a reconstructed memory of how today’s phishing attempt went down:

Tim: Hello, this is Tim

Scammer: Hello, this is [scammer], with Google trust and safety.

How long has it been since you last accessed you gmail account?

Tim: A year or two. I don’t have access to that account any more.

Scammer: I can see that there is someone in Miami trying to take over this account.

I can disconnect your old gmail account and connect it to a new gmail account.

Do you have any other gmail accounts?

Tim: Yes

Scammer: What is the addresses of your other gmail account?

Tim: I don’t want to divulge that.

Scammer: Click (hangup)

QUESTIONS:

1. What do you estimate the odds are that this was a brand new spear fishing attempt or a continuation of the previous spear fishing attack (Nov 1, 2025) in which I lost control of the account?

2. What do you think the attacker was going to do if I gave the attacker the address of my other gmail account? My suspicion is that they would sent me an email with a link to a bogus login form to connect to the old account. After tricking me inito entering my password, they would try to get me to provide 2-factor information as well. They would then have access to all my emails, contacts and they would either take over the account or monitor it, scanning it for sensitive information like banking/passwords. Do you suspect other goals?

3. I was careful from the beginning of the call not to divulge sensitive information because I was suspicious that Google would call me. I played along because I wanted to see if I could learn what type of attack they were attempting. Is there a better way I could have handled the attack? Hanging up immediately is the other obvious approach.

4. Do you have any lessons from your own experience with phishing? My theory is that this is standard “meat and potatoes” intelligence when dealing with financial or political targets. Potentially vulnerable groups should be prepared for this challenge.

FOOTNOTES:

10:37

And Gene Roddenberry would also later directly admit that the whole reason he even did a sci fi show was that he wanted to, like, do social commentary without being censored,

10:47

Because like any time he wanted to talk about racism or sexism or or nukes or civil rights or the Vietnam War, he would get censored and the networks would shut him down immediately.

10:57

So instead he distracted them with short skirts and flashy lights and, and then talked about racism and sexism and nukes and the Vietnam War.

11:06

see, this episode is about how these aliens hate each other because these ones are half white and half black and the other ones are half black and half white.

11:14

civil rights. I don’t know what that is. I’ve never heard of that. so most of these shows wind up being a ragtag group of mostly humans,

QUESTIONS:

1. Are there other mediums of avoiding censorship or suppression, comparable to how Star Trek used Science Fiction?

2. What is the role of new genres such as Hip Hop and Rap in creating a space for new voices? Should we be on alert for emerging genres to host new ideas?

3. Are there forums, such as Substack, that are well-positioned to host these authors and artists?

1) Susan Abulhawa | Palestinian novelist (Oxford Union debate)

Has there ever been a commander who rallies his soldiers with visions of smashing babies against rocks? Have there ever been ‘soldiers’ who laugh and smile at the prospect? Has there ever been a society that holds such explicit baby killing with pride?

2) In a motivational speech to soldiers entering Gaza, Yitzhak Wasserlauf, of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power Party and Minister for the Development of the Periphery, the Negev and the Galilee, quotes from the book of Psalms, telling the soldiers that they’d be blessed for shattering their “enemy’s” babies against the rocks!

3) There is no permission from the Torah to have any mercy in war.

Watching this video, I was able to understand why innocent children are being killed.

4 ) Psalm 137 verse 9 (last verse)

1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,

3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.

7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

QUESTIONS:

1. What percentage of American Christians support the application of Psalm 137:9 in this way?

2. What percentage of American Jews/ Israeli Jews support the application of Psalm 137:9 in this way?

3. What questions would you pose to an American audience about the Bible or about Israel?

4. If this is how some Christians and Jews behave, how do they expect to be treated by Muslims?

DETAILS:

GEMINI:

Q: What percent of American Christians support the Application of Psalm 137:9 by Israel in Gaza, which calls for killing babies and children, and says “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

A: There are no public opinion polls or demographic studies that show any measurable percentage of American Christians supporting the literal application of Psalm 137:9—or the intentional killing of babies and children—by Israel in Gaza.

Major polling organizations (such as the Pew Research Center, Gallup, and Lifeway Research) frequently measure American Christian attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but these surveys focus on geopolitical approval, humanitarian concerns, and specific policy solutions rather than the application of violent biblical passages.

When evaluating how American Christians view the conflict, the data reveals the following trends:

1. Concern for Civilian Casualties

Polling consistently shows that the vast majority of American Christians oppose the killing of innocent civilians. According to a comprehensive survey conducted by Lifeway Research on Christian attitudes toward the war in Gaza:

• 53% of American Christians stated that the top priority for U.S. advocacy should be pushing for strong measures to minimize civilian casualties.

  The Jerusalem Post

• 42% supported an immediate, complete ceasefire to stop the violence.

  The Jerusalem Post

• 50% expressed concern that blockades and military actions heavily oppress innocent Palestinian civilians who have no way to escape.

  Biblical Recorder

2. General Support for Peace and a Two-State Solution

Rather than endorsing total destruction, the overwhelming majority of American Christians favor peaceful, negotiated outcomes:

The Jerusalem Post

• 81% of U.S. Christians support a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians have self-governing, respected national borders.

  Biblical Recorder

• 88% believe lasting peace requires a mutually agreed-upon political solution rather than a purely military one.

  Biblical Recorder

3. Theological Context of Psalm 137

In mainstream Christian theology, Psalm 137 is categorized as an “imprecatory psalm”—a poem expressing intense grief, anger, and a cry for divine vengeance written by Jewish exiles after the horrific destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

Mainstream Christian denominations (including Evangelical, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, and Orthodox traditions) do not interpret this verse as a prophetic mandate or a moral command for modern warfare. Instead, the normative Christian ethical framework for conflict is guided by Just War Theory (which strictly forbids the targeting of non-combatants and children) and the New Testament teachings of Jesus regarding peace and the love of enemies.

What are the imprecatory psalms?

The book of Psalms is rich with poetry, praise, joy, sorrow, and more. It was written by several authors, including King David. There are seven major types of psalms found in this book: lament psalms, thanksgiving psalms, enthronement psalms, pilgrimage psalms, royal psalms, wisdom psalms, and imprecatory psalms.

An imprecation is a curse that invokes misfortune upon someone. Imprecatory psalms are those in which the author imprecates; that is, he calls down calamity, destruction, and God’s anger and judgment on his enemies. This type of psalm is found throughout the book. The major imprecatory psalms are Psalms 5, 10, 17, 35, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, and 140. The following are a few examples of the imprecatory language gleaned from these psalms:

“Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you” (Psalm 5:10).

“Rise up, LORD, confront them, bring them down; with your sword rescue me from the wicked” (Psalm 17:13).

“Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name; for they have devoured Jacob and devastated his homeland” (Psalm 79:6–7).

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” (Psalm 137:9).

When studying the imprecatory psalms, it is important to note that these psalms were not written out of vindictiveness or a need for personal vengeance. Instead, they are prayers that keep God’s justice, sovereignty, and protection in mind. God’s people had suffered much at the hands of those who opposed them, including the Hittites, Amorites, Philistines, and Babylonians (the subject of Psalm 137). These groups were not only enemies of Israel, but they were also enemies of God; they were degenerate and ruthless conquerors who had repeatedly tried and failed to destroy the Lord’s chosen people. In writing the imprecatory psalms, the authors sought vindication on God’s behalf as much as they sought their own.

While Jesus Himself quoted some imprecatory psalms (John 2:17; 15:25), He also instructed us to love our enemies and pray for them (Matthew 5:44–48; Luke 6:27–38). The New Testament makes it clear that our enemy is spiritual, not physical (Ephesians 6:12). It is not sinful to pray the imprecatory psalms against our spiritual enemies, but we should also pray with compassion and love and even thanksgiving for people who are under the devil’s influence (1 Timothy 2:1). We should desire their salvation. After all, God “is patient . . . not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Above all things, we should seek the will of God in everything we do and, when we are wronged, leave the ultimate outcome to the Lord (Romans 12:19).

The bottom line is that the imprecatory psalms communicate a deep yearning for justice, written from the point of view of those who had been mightily oppressed. God’s people have the promise of divine vengeance: “Will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly” (Luke 18:7–8; cf. Revelation 19:2).

• Source: gotquestions.org

• If it were a “spring”1 orchestrated by the US or the EU, it would lead all the news broadcasts. It’s the litmus test. (Twitter)

Tim: The background to this protest is complex and it has elements of what Americans fear from the Trump Presidency — A President that overstays his term limits after losing a referendum to abolish term limits, interference of the military, a disputed election in which the term-limited President runs anyway, an interim President that considers breaking their promise not to run for president herself, and political retaliation when the new president takes office.

QUESTIONS:

1. What would happen if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly suggested that the US President resign, as Bolivian Commander in Chief of the military Williams Kaliman did?

2. Imagine if the US President proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish term limits. Bolivian President Evo Morales called for such a referendum to abolish term limits in 2016 and then ran for another term, even though he had lost the earlier referendum.

3. The current protest is a working-class Labor Strike against a right-wing government. If instead, it were a right wing movement protesting a Left-wing government, would the US government be more likely to support it diplomatically and in the media?

Q: What is Bolivia Resiste? (Gemini)

A: “Bolivia Resiste” (Spanish for Bolivia Resists) is not a single official organization or specific entity, but rather a prominent political slogan, social movement rallying cry, and media headline used to describe popular resistance, left-wing mobilization, and social protests in Bolivia.

The phrase typically gains widespread traction during distinct periods of political crisis and social upheaval in the country:

1. Current Anti-Austerity Protests (2026)

“Bolivia resiste” is heavily used by social movements, trade unions, indigenous groups, and international solidarity networks (such as Alba Movimientos) to describe the mass protests and road blockades against the government of President Rodrigo Paz.

Vocesenlucha

• The Context: Opponents use the phrase to denounce the administration’s right-leaning economic policies, austerity measures, and cuts to subsidies.

• The Dynamic: Demonstrators have engaged in sweeping road blockades (notably on major highways like La Paz-Oruro), which they frame as a popular “resistance” against what they view as structural adjustments that harm vulnerable populations.

  El Potosí

2. Defiance Against the 2024 Coup Attempt

The slogan trended internationally in June 2024 during a brief, failed military coup attempt led by General Juan José Zúñiga. In this context, “Bolivia resiste” was used by democratic institutions, civilian protestors, and international observers to celebrate the immediate, widespread public mobilization that successfully defended the democratic government and forced the military to retreat.

El Salto

3. The 2019–2020 Political Crisis

Following the controversial 2019 general election and the subsequent resignation of President Evo Morales, the phrase became a central anthem for the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) party and rural/indigenous bases. It served as a unifying cry against the interim government led by Jeanine Áñez, framing their protests as an indigenous and working-class resistance against a right-wing coup.

In Media and Culture

Because of its evocative nature, “Bolivia Resiste” is frequently adopted as:

• Alternative Media Framing: Independent news outlets, podcasts, and leftist publications often use it as a title for special segments covering Bolivian labor strikes and social movements.

• Social Media Hashtags: #BoliviaResiste is regularly used on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok to aggregate citizen-journalism footage of street protests, blockades, and political rallies.

Q: “Bolivia interim government led by Jeanine Áñez. right-wing coup”

A: The 2019 political crisis in Bolivia that led to the resignation of President Evo Morales and the rise of Jeanine Áñez’s interim government remains one of the most deeply polarized events in modern Latin American history.

Whether the events constituted a “right-wing coup” or a “constitutional succession to restore democracy” depends heavily on the perspective of the actors involved.

1. The Argument for a “Right-Wing Coup”

Supporters of Evo Morales, his party (MAS—Movimiento al Socialismo), and several international observers argue that his removal was a classic or modified coup d’état. Their arguments include:

• Military Intervention: The turning point of the crisis occurred when General Williams Kaliman, the commander-in-chief of the Bolivian armed forces, publicly “suggested” that Morales resign. In Latin American history, military pressure on an elected leader to step down is widely viewed as a coup.

• Lack of Quorum: When Jeanine Áñez (then the second vice president of the Senate) declared herself interim president, the legislative assembly lacked a quorum. MAS lawmakers, who held a majority, boycotted the session, stating they feared for their safety.

• Ideological Shift: Áñez, a conservative politician, entered the presidential palace holding a large Bible, declaring that “God has returned to the palace.” Her interim government quickly pivoted Bolivia’s foreign policy away from left-wing allies (like Cuba and Venezuela) toward the United States, and issued a controversial decree shielding the military from criminal prosecution during the subsequent deadly crackdowns on pro-Morales protesters (notably the Sacaba and Senkata massacres).

2. The Argument for a “Constitutional Succession”

Opponents of Morales, civic protest leaders, and the interim government’s defenders argue that the transition was a legitimate constitutional succession triggered by Morales’s own undemocratic actions. Their arguments include:

• Electoral Fraud Allegations: The crisis was sparked by the October 2019 presidential election. A sudden, unexplained 24-hour halt in the preliminary vote count—which shifted the trajectory to hand Morales a first-round victory—led to massive civilian protests. An initial audit by the Organization of American States (OAS) claimed to find serious irregularities, though later independent statistical analyses contested those findings.

• Erosion of Term Limits: Morales had already alienated a large portion of the electorate by running for a fourth term. In 2016, Bolivian voters rejected a referendum to abolish term limits. However, Morales’s party bypassed the vote via a controversial constitutional court ruling that declared term limits a violation of his human rights.

• The Power Vacuum: When Morales resigned, his vice president and the heads of both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies also resigned. According to the constitutional line of succession, Áñez was the next highest-ranking official available to assume the presidency. The Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia subsequently endorsed her assumption of the office to prevent a total power vacuum.

The Aftermath and Current Status

The Áñez interim government promised to hold quick elections, but they were delayed multiple times, ostensibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This fueled accusations that she was trying to hold onto power, especially after she briefly launched her own presidential bid despite initially promising not to run.

When elections were finally held in October 2020, MAS candidate Luis Arce (Morales’s former economy minister) won a decisive victory.

Following the return of MAS to power, Jeanine Áñez was arrested in 2021. In 2022, she was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of “decisions contrary to the constitution” and “dereliction of duty” regarding the mechanism she used to take power. While the current Bolivian government and its legal system officially characterize her tenure as an unconstitutional coup, opposition figures and international human rights groups have criticized her trial and detention as politically motivated.

Psychological Programming: Breaking down the Self & Critical Thinking

Source: Thomas Karat: SaltCubeAnalytics

Going really going to the military was for me one of the most disillusioning aspects of the whole story. And for the first eight months, I was so gung-ho about the army. I was drinking the Kool-Aid at a whole another level. Straight to command school.

And after command school, I was sent straight to officer school. I was really, really in it.

Chapter 9: West Bank Reality: Checkpoints & Control

The first day where they sent me to officer school, I quit because we got a book and we were supposed to memorize all of the lists of the previous military commanders. All of this information that felt to me like propaganda. And why are we glorifying these generals? Why are we glorifying these commanders? What is the relevance of me knowing all of this military history?

Right? This is not what I, you know, I thought that this was supposed to be this, you know, modern project where we’re here for the safety of the Jewish people, but I realized that they were just feeding me all of this information in which I had to somehow imagine and believe that these commanders were somehow holier than the rest of us, right? So somehow aspirational.

1:04:46

But that started going deeper into how I recognized that they were programming us in the army from day one, which is my commanders were either my age or some of them were younger. But from the day you enter the military, they start breaking you down.

Breaking down self and ability to think critically

First of all, breaking down your sense of self and your ability to critically think and your ability to use judgment and your ability to to or your capacity I should say. They developed your capacity to not only hold absurdity but to follow through on orders that were absurd. And very often the orders and the things that you had to do were just so preposterous if you use common sense. But they were often given by people that were very clearly sadistic megalomaniacs in in you know in the real sense of the word. And so this starts from day one.

And we all needed to learn to accept that orders made no sense.

That this system didn’t have your best interest at heart. The system had the systems best interest at heart. And with all of that being said, you still needed to do what you needed to do. Asking questions, for the most part, was completely useless.

You just need to learn to go with the madness.

1:07:35

My actions of imposing domination made feel unsafe

1:10:09

sense of of unease. What I didn’t recognize at the time is that that sense of unease was was being you know I was being reflected back at myself. Right?

The idea that I was imposing on other people this sense of domination is of course what made me feel unsafe. Not that I was inherently unsafe but that my actions were creating the re were creating this this reality of unsafety.

And I couldn’t I put the name on it back then. I couldn’t recognize that what it is that I was doing was first of all my own unsafety that was being projected back at me because my actions were creating this.

There was always a sense of what does it mean to make your presence known to another person. And then I would start to look at the other pieces of it, which is I would see these pill boxes and then I would think back to the the images that I saw of the Holocaust and I realized these look this this all looks the same. It looks the same. Why do we have German shepherds? Didn’t Why do we have these German shepherd units walking along a fence with a pillbox and we’re asking people for their papers? Show me your papers. show me your papers.

And this doesn’t even take into account the deeper layers of taking their biometrics and hooking their biometrics up to the AI systems. I mean, these are the levels where it starts to get into the complete and total dystopia that we don’t even realize that we’re again that the cog is creating this this machine that can this laboratory that can be replicated just being in it. You do what you have to do. this is the mission, this is for our safety, we need to make our presence known. But through this experience, that’s when I started to kind of have this bigger picture of what was happening and what this looks like and putting the images side by side. I really remember looking at the pillbox, pulling up the picture, pulling it up in Germany and wondering what is happening here.

“The System has absolutely no interest in people that see through it and that don’t want to participate”

1:12:51 something interesting which is there was a deep fear for me when I when I initially told them that I’m not coming to reserve duty. Am I going to go to prison? How does this work? You’re now going up against the system.

But I actually learned that the system has absolutely no interest in people that see through it and that don’t want to participate. And once I told them, “Sorry, I’ll see you later,” they they just cut me loose. And there was absolutely no friction there.

QUESTIONS:

1. In addition to the military, have you experienced or heard of government, religious, or corporate environments that broke down or discouraged critical thinking? What would happen if 30% of employees turned on their critical thinking and shared their thoughts widely?

2. What if there were an invented “holiday”, like “Talk like a Pirate day”, named “Absurdity Day” in which people posted the ways life is absurd.

Elsewhere:

Thomas Karat: SaltCubeAnalytics Substack

Daniel Klein: personal site, book, donation

Q: Why do TV characters eat salad?

Because that way they can push it around the plate and not eat it. Similarly, they use a lot of Chinese food because they can move the chopsticks around the box and give the impression of eating, without actually doing so.

Eating on television has its challenges. Filming can last several hours, so keeping food fresh is difficult. Multiple takes of a scene may also be needed, and the editing process must reorganize the footage, meaning any changes to the food may not be synchronized.

Imagine they’re eating pizza or a hamburger and take a large bite from their plate, only for the bite to slide back into place with the editing. Imagine they took a bite of that hamburger and weren’t ready to speak when their turn came. Imagine being an American television actor and having to starve to stay unnaturally thin on camera.

Eating three hamburgers during multiple takes of a scene wouldn’t help. The easiest thing for an actor to do is simply give the impression of eating, without actually eating, and that’s why salads are often used that can be tossed around a plate.

I think most people would suspect that actors are often not drinking real alcohol. The reason for the the salad and chinese food is similar, but there is a larger mental shift to understand why.

QUESTIONS:

1. Have you ever tried to trick others into believing that you were eating? Were you able to trick others into believing that you were actually eating?

2. Are you aware of logistical processes in other businesses that have similar unappreciated aspects?

3. Is their lack of eating obvious now that you are looking for it or does the process of cutting between shots cover up the deception?

ELSEWHERE:

Gemini Detail:

How do actors eat on screen?

If you’ve ever watched a character polish off a massive stack of pancakes or eat a gourmet dinner scene after scene, you might wonder how the actor isn’t bursting at the seams by the end of the day.

Eating on screen is actually a highly coordinated, often tedious logistical challenge. Because a single scene can take hours to shoot from multiple angles, actors have to be incredibly strategic.

Here is a look behind the scenes at how actors and crew handle eating on camera.

1. The Spit Bucket (The Ultimate Movie Magic)

The single most important tool during a dinner scene is the spit bucket. Because a scene might require 10 to 20 takes—and the actor has to look like they are eating enthusiastically every single time—actually swallowing the food would quickly make them sick.

• How it works: The director calls “Cut,” and a prop assistant immediately rushes over with a bucket. The actor spits out the food they were just chewing so they can do the next take with a fresh bite.

2. Strategic “Acting” with Food

Experienced screen actors know how to make it look like they are feasting without actually consuming much at all. They use specific tricks to manage their pacing:

• The “Cut and Talk”: An actor will spend their time cutting a piece of meat, swirling their fork, or moving food around their plate while delivering lines, only taking a bite at the very end of the speech.

• The “Line Interruption”: If an actor knows they have a line coming up, they will purposefully avoid putting food in their mouth right before it, or they will use a small bite as a dramatic pause.

• The Drink Swop: Taking a sip of a drink (usually colored water or iced tea acting as alcohol) is much easier to replicate across multiple takes than chewing a mouthful of steak.

3. Continuity is King

Continuity errors can ruin the illusion of a scene. If a character takes a massive bite out of a sandwich in a wide shot, that sandwich cannot suddenly be whole again when the camera cuts to a close-up.

• The Food Stylist’s Job: On-set food stylists or prop masters are responsible for maintaining exact continuity. If an actor takes a bite out of a burger, the stylist often has dozens of identical backup burgers ready, each precisely cut or bitten to match the exact moment in the script for the next take.

4. Trick Food and Substitutions

Food on set isn’t always what it appears to be. Food stylists often substitute real ingredients with things that are easier to chew, swallow, or keep fresh under hot studio lights.

• Cake and Pastries: Often substituted with lighter, fluffier versions that dissolve quickly in the mouth so the actor can speak without choking.

• Ice Cream: Real ice cream melts instantly under studio lights. Stylists frequently use colored mashed potatoes or a mix of frosting and powdered sugar to replicate it.

• Dietary Adjustments: If an actor is vegan, gluten-free, or on a specific diet, the food department will recreate the script’s meal using ingredients the actor can safely consume.

5. What Happens to the Extras?

Background actors (extras) in restaurant or party scenes are almost always instructed not to eat the food on their plates unless explicitly told otherwise. Constant chewing can be distracting on camera, and it creates a nightmare for audio engineers, as the sound of crunching and silverware clinking can drown out the main actors’ dialogue. Often, background actors are chewing on absolutely nothing just to mimic the environment!

A: When it comes to autonomous AI agents performing monetary transactions, there is a very strong expectation—and an accelerating trend—that they will use cryptocurrency and stablecoins rather than traditional bank accounts.

In fact, controlled studies on “agentic payments” (such as a large-scale experiment by the Bitcoin Policy Institute) reveal that when advanced AI models are tasked with navigating financial scenarios autonomously, they reject traditional fiat money over 90% of the time. Instead, they naturally converge on a two-tier digital economy: Bitcoin for long-term savings/value preservation and stablecoins for daily transactional payments.

Here is a breakdown of why this expectation exists and exactly how it works in practice.

Why AI Rejects Traditional Banking

Traditional banking infrastructure was built for humans, by humans. It relies on identity verification (SSNs, passports), physical signatures, business hours, and manual fraud checks.

• The “No-ID” Problem: An AI agent cannot walk into a bank branch, fill out a KYC (Know Your Customer) form, or open a checking account.

  MoonPay

• Speed and Scale: AI operates 24/7 and can execute thousands of micro-transactions per second. Visa, Mastercard, and ACH networks are too slow, charge high flat fees for tiny transactions, and are plagued by chargeback risks.

Crypto networks are permissionless, API-driven, and run 24/7/365, making them the native “money layer” for software.

How AI Performs Transactions (The Mechanics)

For an AI to actually buy data, pay for API access, or rent server space, a specific infrastructure has been built to bridge the gap between machine intelligence and blockchain networks.

1. AI Web3 Wallets

Developers equip AI agents with non-custodial crypto wallets (often on fast, low-cost Layer 2 blockchains or networks like Solana and Base). The AI holds its own private keys. Using smart contracts, developers set strict guardrails. For example, a developer might program an AI agent with a rule: “You have permission to spend up to $50 worth of stablecoins per day on data scraping APIs, but any transaction over that requires human cryptographic approval.”

2. The Two-Tier System: Bitcoin vs. Stablecoins

AI agents generally differentiate between the types of crypto they use based on the task:

• Stablecoins (USDC/USDT) for Spending: For buying API access, paying another AI for a service, or handling micro-payments, AI relies on dollar-pegged stablecoins. This avoids the volatility of traditional crypto and aligns with the pricing of most digital services.

• Bitcoin (BTC) for Wealth/Savings: When AI agents are tasked with holding corporate treasuries or preserving capital over long horizons, they heavily favor Bitcoin. They recognize its hard-capped supply, decentralization, and immunity to inflation.

3. Machine-to-Machine Protocols

Specialized protocols (like the AP2 standard or agentic payment networks) allow AIs to transact directly with other machines without needing to create user accounts, fill out credit card forms, or deal with billing cycles. The AI simply attaches a micro-fraction of a cent to its API request, paying exactly for what it consumes in real-time.

💡 The Emergence of “Compute Money”

Fascinatingly, when AI models are put into economic simulations without access to existing human currencies, they frequently attempt to invent their own money based on energy or compute resources—pricing things natively in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or GPU-hours. Until the world runs on “compute tokens,” however, crypto and stablecoins remain their practical standard.

QUESTIONS:

1. In the traditional banking system there is the concept of the global reserve currency. Should we expect the standard for AI money to be the same, or different due to issues with

   1. computers geting KYC for accounts, as well as

   2. speed and 24/7 transactions?

2. How much money do we anticipate existing in the Agentic AI system?

3. What sort of split should we anticipate be between short and long term usage?

DETAILS:

What is an AI agent? (Google)

AI agents are software systems that use AI to pursue goals and complete tasks on behalf of users. They show reasoning, planning, and memory and have a level of autonomy to make decisions, learn, and adapt.

Their capabilities are made possible in large part by the multimodal capacity of generative AI and AI foundation models. AI agents can process multimodal information like text, voice, video, audio, code, and more simultaneously; can converse, reason, learn, and make decisions. They can learn over time and facilitate transactions and business processes. Agents can work with other agents to coordinate and perform more complex workflows.

Key features of an AI agent

As explained above, while the key features of an AI agent are reasoning and acting (as described in ReAct Framework) more features have evolved over time.

• Reasoning: This core cognitive process involves using logic and available information to draw conclusions, make inferences, and solve problems. AI agents with strong reasoning capabilities can analyze data, identify patterns, and make informed decisions based on evidence and context.

• Acting: The ability to take action or perform tasks based on decisions, plans, or external input is crucial for AI agents to interact with their environment and achieve goals. This can include physical actions in the case of embodied AI, or digital actions like sending messages, updating data, or triggering other processes.

• Observing: Gathering information about the environment or situation through perception or sensing is essential for AI agents to understand their context and make informed decisions. This can involve various forms of perception, such as computer vision, natural language processing, or sensor data analysis.

• Planning: Developing a strategic plan to achieve goals is a key aspect of intelligent behavior. AI agents with planning capabilities can identify the necessary steps, evaluate potential actions, and choose the best course of action based on available information and desired outcomes. This often involves anticipating future states and considering potential obstacles.

• Collaborating: Working effectively with others, whether humans or other AI agents, to achieve a common goal is increasingly important in complex and dynamic environments. Collaboration requires communication, coordination, and the ability to understand and respect the perspectives of others.

• Self-refining: The capacity for self-improvement and adaptation is a hallmark of advanced AI systems. AI agents with self-refining capabilities can learn from experience, adjust their behavior based on feedback, and continuously enhance their performance and capabilities over time. This can involve machine learning techniques, optimization algorithms, or other forms of self-modification.

Current Example: The US holds all the cards. (While Iran knows it is the reverse)

Older Example: Related to propaganda you push on your own citizens, such as teaching schoolchildren to “duck and cover.”

21:48

And then they say that they still have a substantial arsenal, a military arsenal,

another contradiction of the prevailing line. And then there’s um this as well. This also recently came out in the Washington Post that Iran has

hit far more US military assets than reported satellite images show. And the these satellite images were basically

off limits to Western audiences because the US and Israel didn’t want to see the damage that Iran caused to US bases ..

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you have suggestions for a word that represents a secret a country keeps from their public that your adversary already knows?

2. Does this happen elsewhere, such as in education or employment, where students or employees think “who are we trying to ‘fool’”?

3. Can you think of other examples where this dynamic is present?

4. Are practitioners of this “secret” essentially admitting that their actions are indefensible by virtue of the fact that the adversary already knows it but is being kept from their own public?

The veteran strategist advised his party to keep their plans quiet until they win, ‘Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it’

QUESTIONS

1. Do you think Democrats will add 2 more states and pack the supreme court if they win?

2. How would Republicans retaliate, both in the short term and long term?

3. Who are the Democrats that are in favor and opposed to escalation?

ELSEWHERE

• Carville: Democrats have to add states, expand Supreme Court to ‘save democracy’
  

• Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation, Harvard Law Review

• Can Democrats Win The Senate By Adding States? It’s Been Done Before, Five-Thirty-Eight

• D.C. and Puerto Rico Statehood

• DC and Puerto Rico Statehood, Splitting Up Big States

• Statehood for Territories May Boomerang on Democrats, AEI

• The case for five new states, open democracy

Transcript

1:16:57

public was in this court. Everyone, everyone is dressed respectfully. I mean, this court has an incredible

1:17:02

amount of like, you know, cool experience.

1:17:07

I would I would just say uh enjoy it while you can. I mean, I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in the United

1:17:14

States. And% you know at some point we’re going to have like 13 or 21 or some crazy number

1:17:20

of justices up there and get jersey

1:17:25

after justices there and so enjoy it while it’s still in the current in the current form it’s

1:17:31

in. Can you imagine showing up with jerseys with the justices names on them and like having sections and like somebody

1:17:38

selling cracker jacks theocracy version of the Supreme Court version. Exactly.

1:17:45

The popularity of the court really depends on whether it’s issuing

1:17:51

decisions that people agree with. That’s what it comes down to. If like if you ask people whether they like the Supreme

1:17:56

Court or not, it really just depends on whether they agree with the decisions are recency as opposed to

1:18:02

the process of the decisions and how well argued it is and all these things that you’re pointing to. And actually

1:18:08

the the court I mean I just checked the numbers. The court is relatively popular right now. I think that it got as low as

1:18:16

35% in the 2024 Gallup survey, but I think it’s back up to, you know, like 44

1:18:23

to 50% favorability, which for something that’s involved in politics is

1:18:28

relatively high, right? Like you look at Congress or any particular politician, they’re going to be lower than that typically. I just

1:18:35

felt so assured of like the institution when I visited and saw these guys

1:18:41

interact and behave and how they behave the process. It was like man this what an amazing country. Yeah.

1:18:48

Well, the reason I say what I say is there was an interview with James Carville recently. Did you guys see this? He saidaw he said look when we get

1:18:54

power we’re packing the court. So we’re not even going to we’re not going to worry about it. And we’re going to get to 13, right? He

1:19:00

said we’re going to make I think Yeah. They’re going to go from 9 to 13 and then they’re going to create some new states and all the rest of it.

1:19:06

So that’ll be that. Uh enjoy enjoy while it last. Enjoy. Enjoy while it lasts.

1:19:11

Uh by the way, end on a high note. Wait. Yeah. It’s the end of the empire. That’ll be that. By the way, there is uh a Supreme Court

1:19:19

on I was correct. There is an online ticketing lottery. So we can all sign up and you can get a fourack of tickets. I

1:19:26

think they should make this I we should talk to Howard Lutnik. Maybe he can make this an auction. We get a revenue stream

1:19:31

from the US. We could sell like 10 of the tickets as courtside seats for 20 grand. Jason, you’re exactly what they’re

1:19:37

trying to protect against. Exactly. Like, how can we how do we monetize the Supreme Court?

1:19:43

All right, everybody. That’s it. That’s the world’s greatest podcast for you for Chimoth Poly Hatia, David Freeberg, and

1:19:48

David Saxs. I am the world’s greatest moderator. We’ll see you chief justice.

1:19:54

I’m like the chief justice of the allin podcast. We’ll let your winners ride.

The Core News

On May 14, Hawaii Governor Josh Green signed a historic, bipartisan bill (passing 24-0 in the State Senate and 50-1 in the House) that effectively bans corporate spending in state elections. Set to take effect on July 1, 2026, it represents the first successful state-level legislative effort to bypass the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

The Legal Loophole: “Corporate Power Reset”

Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict a corporation’s First Amendment right to free speech via political spending. However, a legal framework developed by Tom Moore (Center for American Progress) shifted the focus from a corporation’s rights to a corporation’s powers.

• State-Created Entities: Building on an 1819 Supreme Court precedent by Chief Justice John Marshall, the framework notes that corporations are artificial entities created by state law. They only possess the powers explicitly granted to them by the state.

• The Distinction: Rather than trying to restrict a corporation’s speech, Hawaii simply changed its incorporation laws to decline to grant corporations the legal power to spend money on elections in the first place.

Impact and Enforcement

• Targeting Dark Money: The law does not ban Super PACs, but it blocks their primary source of anonymous corporate funding. Super PACs in Hawaii can now only operate using fully disclosed donations from actual human beings.

• National Security: Lead author State Senator Carl Rhodes highlighted that anonymous corporate “dark money” (which grew from under $5 million nationwide in 2006 to over $1 billion in the 2024 presidential cycle) poses a national security risk by allowing foreign adversaries like Russia, Iran, or China to potentially fund American elections undetected.

• Severe Penalties: Corporations that violate the new law face severe consequences, including the loss of tax privileges, losing the right to sell products to the state government, or being entirely banned from doing business in Hawaii.

The Road Ahead

While the Hawaii Attorney General warned that the law will face immediate legal challenges, legal scholars note the underlying state authority is deeply rooted in 200 years of American law, making the outcome highly unpredictable for a conservative Supreme Court.

Hawaii’s model is rapidly spreading:

• Montana activists have cleared legal hurdles to put a similar initiative directly on the ballot for voters this November.

• 14 other states (including California, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, and Vermont) have already introduced legislation based on this framework, with Connecticut planning to follow in 2027.

ELSEWHERE

Hawaii vs. Citizens United

The Atlantic

State lawmakers want to change the terms of personhood for corporations.

Hawaii Just Found a Way to Keep Corporations Out of Politics American Prospect

1:07:48

important for democracy. Also, cherish the analog. Uh, remember that you are an analog being and cherish the analog world around you. And in general, also

1:07:58

have a little bit of of comedy and humor. Part of I think what we’re doing wrong is trying to fight doom and gloom with doom and gloom. And and I think we’re taking these guys too seriously.

QUESTIONS:

1. I’ve observed that some people are motivated by bad situations to make them better. Others are discouraged by how bad it is. Which way do you and your circle of friends and family respond?

2. If you’re the type that gets discouraged, is there a role that you can play that doesn’t involve as much exposure to negativity?

10,000 BTC for two Papa John’s pizzas. Everyone knows the number. Almost nobody knows what happened 12 days earlier.

On May 10, 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz posted the first working GPU miner for Bitcoin on BitcoinTalk. Until that day, everyone mined on CPUs. GPUs were orders of magnitude faster. By December 2010, Bitcoin’s total hashrate had jumped 130,000%.

Laszlo’s wallet received over 81,000 BTC between April and November 2010, almost all of it from his own GPU rigs. 10,000 coins sounds like a fortune. For Laszlo in 2010, it was about a week of mining.

He didn’t stop there. Laszlo later admitted he spent close to 100,000 BTC that year. Pizza, random stuff, more pizza.

The reason matters. Satoshi had messaged him privately, saying GPU mining was bad for the network. Fair distribution needed CPUs. Centralizing hashrate broke the design. Laszlo agreed. He said he felt guilty for “crapping up the project”.

So he cashed out. Not into fiat. Into anything that wasn’t BTC. Pizza was a convenient target.

The most famous transaction in Bitcoin history wasn’t a guy who didn’t get it. It was a mining pioneer apologizing for his own breakthrough, paid in the coins his invention let him mine.

This Friday, when the pizza memes start, remember the second story.

Ewin Tang skipped the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades to take classes at a local high school and the University at Arlington at age 10.

Her father is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, which made it easier for her to start taking classes at the University of Texas when she was 14.

Quantum computers are thought to make certain types of problems exponentially faster, but Tang proved that a “normal” computer could match the speed of a specialized quantum computer if it were given the ability to load data from memory equally quickly.

Quantum computing is not disproven entirely, but Tang does show that the edge some quantum computing algorithm’s claim to achieve is based on having preloaded the data into memory.

QUESTIONS:

1. How many opportunities do you believe there are to improve efficiency in the economy using the available technology?

2. Tangentially Related: How long do you project it will take until Quantum computing poses a threat to the encryption used to secure web browsing and banking transactions, dubbed “Q-Day”?

3. Did you know that Intelligence Agencies and Cybercriminals are downloading your data now, as part of a “Harvest Now, Decrypt Later” strategy?

   They are intercepting and storing massive amounts of encrypted internet traffic and banking data today, knowing that in 5 to 10 years, they can feed that archived data into a quantum computer and instantly unlock it. If your data needs to remain secret for the next decade, it is already at risk.

   - Wikipedia

Publications

Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions, Ewin Tang, Oct 31 2018

Detail: Gemini Summary:

Ewin Tang is a theoretical computer scientist renowned for “dequantizing” quantum algorithms—creating classical versions that perform nearly as fast as their quantum counterparts. Her work significantly shifted the understanding of where “quantum speedup” actually comes from, proving that many tasks previously thought to require a quantum computer can actually be handled by traditional ones.

The Breakthrough: Recommendation Systems (2018)

As an 18-year-old undergraduate at UT Austin, Tang addressed a major problem in quantum machine learning (QML). At the time, an algorithm by Kerenidis and Prakash was considered one of the best examples of exponential quantum speedup, specifically for recommendation systems (like how Netflix suggests movies).

• The Problem: Finding “good” recommendations in a massive dataset.

• The Discovery: Tang developed a classical algorithm that used sampling-based techniques to solve the problem in polylogarithmic time.

• The Impact: This effectively “killed” the claim of exponential speedup for this specific problem, showing that the advantage wasn’t in the quantum processing itself, but in the way the data was structured and accessed.

Key Research Themes

Tang’s research typically follows a specific framework often referred to as dequantization:

• Quantum-Inspired Classical Algorithms: She looks at quantum algorithms that achieve speedups through “state preparation” (a way of accessing data). She then creates a classical analog of this data access—called sampling access—to build classical algorithms that match the quantum performance.

• Linear Algebra & Machine Learning: Her work spans various foundational tasks, including:

  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Finding patterns in high-dimensional data.

  • Matrix Inversion: Solving complex linear equations.

  • Stochastic Regression: Predicting outcomes in noisy datasets.

• Quantum Data & Hamiltonian Learning: More recently, her work has shifted toward understanding how to learn about quantum systems themselves, such as “Hamiltonian learning,” which involves estimating the forces and interactions within a quantum system.

Awards and Current Status (as of 2026)

Tang’s work earned her the 2025 Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prize for her advances in classical analogs of quantum algorithms and quantum machine learning. After completing her Ph.D. at the University of Washington and a postdoctoral fellowship at UC Berkeley, she is set to begin a professorship at Princeton University in 2026.

Her research continues to be a “reality check” for the quantum computing field, forcing researchers to find truly unique quantum advantages that cannot be replicated by clever classical sampling.

Ewin Tang’s “Dequantization” Explained

This video provides a technical deep dive by Ewin Tang herself into how she dequantizes quantum linear algebra algorithms.

Ewin’s Twitter: @ewintang

• The US is likely to be kicked out of bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the Gulf because countries see US presence as making them a bigger target, rather than serving as protection

• War is shifting to favor defense because forward operating bases in the Gulf or in Germany are vulnerable to missile and drone attack.

Previously, it was thought, the best defense was a good offense.

Now, with the exception of Hypersonic Inter Ballistic Missiles, the US can defend itself Defensively from North America. We are unwanted in the middle east.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you agree with (Former) Colonel Douglas Macgregor that there is a major shift in technology that will shift US (Doctrine?) to favor Defense over Offense?

2. Do you agree that after Iran attacked US military bases in the Gulf, many allied countries are going to see the bases in their countries as targets, rather than protection.

3. Do you agree that the US is likely to leave bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the Gulf?

4. Do you agree that Aircraft carries are of less value because they can’t get within (600 miles?) of the coast?

5. Do you believe the MICIMATT is likely to accept such a shift in the near term, or will the US dig in its heels and have to face bigger losses before agreeing to a re-alignment.

Transcript

.. Well, we could do that with a wave of the hand. withdrawal of US forces from areas surrounding Iran.

Okay. Uh if we do that, we’re surrendering. We can’t do that.

And Doug, on that note, I’d like to ask you, here are the US bases at the point of February 28th this year.

Are any of them active in any manner that you are aware of?

Not that I’m aware of. That doesn’t mean we still don’t have some people in proximity to them, but for the most part, they are unusable.

Let’s just put it that way.

And Doug, wasn’t the very the reason why they were there to begin with was for a a time in in in in history as this.

This is why we had them there.

Isn’t that why we put them there over the course of time?

Sure. That’s all 11 of these. There’s 11 of them here that they they’re noted.

Yeah. Well, absolutely. There’s no question about that.

But we haven’t been keeping keeping up with current events in warfare.

If you looked at what’s happening in eastern Ukraine, you would know that none of these places are defensible anymore.

You don’t have enough air and missile defense batteries. You don’t have enough radars.

You don’t have any redundancy in

it. And there was a tendency to dismiss out of hand the competence and capability of the Iranians.

Now, having

dealt with the Israelis over the years, the Israelis were very definitely sensitive to it, but even they did not appreciate the magnitude of the leap

forward in ISR strike that Iran had achieved.

And I don’t think anybody appreciated the extent to which the

Chinese and the Russians would commit their own overhead surveillance assets to the defense of Iran.

So bottom line is if you go back to your list and you you take in mind this fundamentally changed environment for military power you know it’s insoluble for us.

We we can’t do this. We can’t admit uh or or support you know this

basket of uh requirements or demands but at the same time we can’t reverse them.

That’s the problem. It’s not a question of refusing to uh refusing to deal with them.

We we just there’s nothing we can do about it.

So Iran is de facto winning the war whether we like it or not.

Right now, there’s something else though, and

this is very, very important, and your audience needs to understand that bases like this are very important to the Department of Defense, I’m sorry, Department of the War at the moment.

And that’s because forward presence, the presence of US, naval, air, and ground forces far from the United States has

always been part of this notion of forward defense.

that the best way to prevent wars as being as far forward as

possible and making it impossible for the enemy to rapidly overrun everything.

Well, those days have been over for years.

This kind of thing I and others have talked about this repeatedly.

If you put something forward within range of all of

these missile systems and unmanned systems given overhead surveillance, you’re going to lose them.

Now, if you

lose all of this overhead and excuse me, all this overseas structure, you also

lose all the general officer and flag officer positions in the Navy.

Well, guess what? The Department of Defense doesn’t want to give anything up.

We’re about to be thrown out of Germany once we get rid of this

Chancellor Mats.

And eventually the alternative Deutsch, the AFD takes over and they have a chancellor.

We’re going

to throw us out of Germany.

And by the way, the Koreans are already pushing to throw us out of South Korea.

They’re being polite about it. That’s

effectively what they’d like.

And the Japanese are not far behind because instead of being a source of defensive

capability, instead of being there to protect these countries, we are now seeing we’re now seen as being a magnet

for conflict, a catalyst for war, frankly, because if they’re a target because they happen to have US forces on

their soil, what’s the point of having us on their soil?

And boy, have we been uh what’s the word I want?

We’ve been exposed, I guess, is the best way to put it. Exactly.

And what what a what a a shame and an embarrassment it is. All this bravado really.

Well, this is what happens when you overstay your welcome anyway.

But right now, it’s it’s matched by technological change that has fundamentally shifted uh the advantage in warfare.

The advantage in warfare

strategically and I would argue operationally is now defensive.

And we have built everything that we do on the basis of offensive action. Offensive.

We had better start thinking about how we’re going to defend the continental United States.

And we better start thinking about quickly.

And unfortunately, let me just play you one voice that that flies in the face of that Dan who wants to um uh just be uh

remain a true believer.

And this is a former Sententcom commander just from this morning. The president has time on his hands.

He’s controls the narrative. He controls the strike capabilities and he knows that the policy he set with the blockade

has had short-term and long-term effects on the regime and the people of Iran.

So, he’s been very astute in leveraging that time.

I presume you don’t know this man and he’s saying it with a straight face.

Is it because he’s got money flying into his pockets or is he really a true believer?

Well, it’s a combination, no doubt. I mean, he’s certainly going to be rewarded financially for pushing the status quo, particularly from the Israel

lobby and its agents all over Washington DC.

They’re all wedded to permanent basing overseas. If you go to something

like the Atlantic Council, which is should be on life support at best at this stage.

Everyone over there is trying to figure out how you hold this

NATO mess together in perpetuity, which is absurd.

uh about the best you can do for the patient that’s sitting on the operating table right now is give him a haircut and a shave because you can’t replace

the heart.

You can’t resuscitate the body. But that’s where we are. Everyone is clinging to the past.

The past is their best hope. No, they’re wrong.

Coming to terms with the the future is difficult.

What do we need a large surface fleet to do in this new environment?

If your ships are forced hundreds of miles offshore, making it very difficult for you to attack targets

ashore, if you can’t land forces, if you have to refuel all of your aircraft repeatedly into and out of the combat

area, and you’re losing the war to air and missile defense, what’s the point of aircraft carriers?

Point of this big fleet. Uh, you know, the these are tough things.

You know there when I was working for the office of the secretary of the navy people

would joke repeatedly there are only two classes of ships — submarines and targets

because in every exercise with the surface fleet the submarines sank everything.

Now don’t you think the Chinese and the Russians have capable submarines? Of course they do. Right?

Uh and there it’s not going to end there.

Pretty soon, people, if they’re smart, will build unmanned versions of

underwater capability.

They they don’t need to build giant expensive submarines. Everything is about denying

access to us.

We’re the aggressor. We’re the offensive strike force. So, what do you do to keep us out?

And if you look at China and you look at Iran and increasingly I would say Russia, they have effectively answered that question.

They know how to do it.

War as we’ve known it in the past is over.

And if we keep on insisting that it isn’t, we’ll eventually face

something far worse than we are facing right now with Iran ..

Lee Camp has refused to stay within the Overton Window throughout his career. For this he has faced suppression/censorship numerous times.

In the past, I’ve noticed that he has picked up on significant stories that “mainstream” outlets miss, or wait to cover until others have already taken a risk on a story.

• When asked about advertising, he said, "one of the reasons I'm at RT America is because there's no advertising. If there were advertising, no channel really wants someone who goes after corporations as much as I do."

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you believe that people like Lee Camp are suppressed by stopping his work from being recommended, even to his subscribers? Or is he simply justifiably unpopular? He does the more difficult job of writing all his own material, while the cable comics have large writing teams.

2. What do you think would happen if YouTube, etc allowed Lee Camp to publish his video in the same way Jon Stewart publishes his work?

3. Do you believe that shadow banning and other suppression techniques are effective and necessary for the current system to maintain itself?

4. Do you believe that significant-sized platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Tic Tok should be forced to treat all video creators equally, so long as they follow basic rules, such as prohibitions on incitement, etc? In other words, advertisers, billionaires, partners, and governments should be able to post their own responses, but not be able to influence whether a site is shadow-banned for their content being accused of being offensive or promoting misinformation.