Mark Featherstone AI Content

The Aussie’s are the latest to slap Trump in an explosive declaration of STFU.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.

"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight. A country where 40% of adults can't cover a $400 emergency without borrowing money. A country where insulin costs more than a car payment and people are rationing it to survive. A country where medical debt is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy. A country where women are dying in hospital car parks because doctors are too scared of abortion laws to treat a miscarriage.

You lock up more of your own citizens than any nation on earth. More than China. More than Russia. More than North Korea. The land of the free has 2 million people in cages, and a quarter of them haven't even been convicted of anything. They're just too poor to make bail.

Your life expectancy is going backwards. You're the only developed nation where that's happening. Your infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba's. Your kids do active shooter drills between maths and English while you sell the gunmaker's stock to your mates.

Your minimum wage hasn't moved in 15 years. You've got teachers working 2 jobs and veterans sleeping under bridges and you just spent a trillion dollars flattening a country that didn't attack you.

And you’ve got a convicted felon, adjudicating raping, paedophile protecting, porn star shagging insurrectionist running the biggest dumpster fire war campaign since the Taliban in Afghanistan thanked you very much for losing again.

And you're calling Greenland poorly run?

Greenland has universal healthcare. Free education. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. Nobody goes bankrupt there because they got sick. Nobody dies in a waiting room because their insurance said no.

'NATO wasn't there when we needed them." When exactly was that, champ? September 11? Because NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in history FOR YOU. Soldiers from dozens of countries deployed, fought, bled, and died in Afghanistan FOR YOU. Australia wasn't even in NATO and we still showed up. For 20 years.

And you pulled out at 2am without telling anyone and left them to deal with the mess.

So maybe before you start calling other countries poorly run, have a look at your own backyard, you spray-tanned aluminium siding salesman. The only thing poorly run in this picture is your f----- mouth."

See less

 

 

Corporate America Took the Money. Then They Called Giving It Back Socialism.

By Tony Pentimalli

Americans keep getting told there is something confusing about why everybody is so pissed off. The economy is growing, the stock market is booming, corporations are making money, so supposedly we should all be walking around grateful. Meanwhile, corporate profits from current production hit an annualized $4.827 trillion in the second quarter of 2026, nearly 18 percent of national income, while the share going to workers through wages and benefits has fallen toward levels we have not seen since the 1950s. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells the same story from another angle: labor’s share of nonfarm business output fell to 52.9 percent, the lowest level since the government started keeping that series in 1947. Those are different measurements, but they are telling us the same damn thing. Corporate America is taking a bigger piece of the pie, and working people are getting a smaller one.

And nobody gets to tell me workers somehow stopped earning their share. Since 1979, productivity has increased about 93 percent, while hourly compensation for typical workers increased only about 34 percent. Workers became dramatically more productive, companies produced more wealth, and the economy got much bigger, but the people doing the work did not get anything close to their fair share of those gains. For decades after World War II, when workers produced more, their pay generally rose with it. Then that relationship broke. The wealth kept growing, but more and more of it started flowing somewhere else.

Where did it go? Look at who owns the assets. S&P 500 companies spent nearly $1 trillion buying back their own stock in the twelve months ending June 2025. Federal Reserve data show that the richest 10 percent of American households own roughly 87 percent of corporate equities and mutual-fund shares, while the entire bottom half owns about 1 percent. So spare me the speeches about how a booming stock market proves everybody is doing great. A booming stock market is fantastic when you own most of the damn stock. For everybody else, watching rich people’s portfolios explode does not pay the rent, buy the groceries or cover the insurance bill.

This did not happen because capitalism came down from the mountain with these numbers carved into stone. We changed the rules. We stripped workers of power and handed more of it to capital. In 1983, more than 20 percent of wage and salary workers belonged to unions. Today it is about 10 percent, and in the private sector it is just 5.9 percent. The federal minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour, exactly where it has been since 2009, even as prices, productivity, executive pay and corporate profits kept climbing. Corporate consolidation gave giant employers more leverage while workers lost the power to bargain back. And no, I am not talking about your neighborhood plumber or the family restaurant down the street. I am talking about concentrated corporate and financial power. America does not have a wealth-creation problem. America has a wealth-distribution problem.

Republicans spent decades pushing the hardest version of this bullshit, attacking unions, cutting taxes at the top, weakening regulation and promising that if corporations and wealthy investors got rich enough, some of it would eventually trickle down to everybody else. But Democrats do not get to show up now pretending they had nothing to do with it. Too many Democratic leaders accepted huge parts of the same system, chased Wall Street money, tolerated corporate consolidation and watched organized labor get weaker year after year. For forty years, Republicans kept dragging the economic playing field toward corporations and the wealthy while too many Democrats spent their time proving they were reasonable enough to keep playing on it.

Then came the scam that protects the whole arrangement. Every time somebody proposes shifting meaningful economic power back toward working people, somebody screams socialism. Raise wages, strengthen unions or ask billionaires to pay more and suddenly we are told America is lurching toward some dangerous ideology. A corporation can spend a billion dollars buying back its own stock and we call it smart financial management. A billionaire gets another tax break and we call it encouraging investment. But give a cashier healthcare she cannot lose when she loses her job and suddenly somebody wants to drag Karl Marx onto cable news. The great political trick of the last forty years was convincing Americans that transferring wealth upward is economics while transferring power back to workers is socialism.

Mainstream political media has been far too willing to help sell that lie, not because every reporter is secretly working for corporate America, but because the language itself is rigged. Corporate tax cuts are called incentives. Deregulation is called competitiveness. Stock buybacks are called shareholder returns. But policies aimed at shifting economic security back toward ordinary people are treated as ideological departures from some supposedly neutral system. Imagine if they covered the other side the same way. Imagine a Sunday morning host asking whether allowing the richest 10 percent to own almost nine-tenths of corporate stock is economic extremism. Imagine reporters demanding that CEOs explain how they plan to pay for another trillion dollars in stock buybacks. We almost never hear those questions because the system we already have gets treated like nature instead of what it really is: a political and economic choice that overwhelmingly benefits the people at the top.

That is also how justified economic anger gets pointed in the wrong direction. Take people who know damn well they are falling behind and make sure they never look upward long enough to ask who is actually walking away with the money. Tell them the immigrant took their job. Tell them the person on SNAP took their taxes. Tell them somebody on Medicaid is bankrupting the country. Tell them the student whose debt was forgiven cheated them. Tell them the public employee has too good a pension. Tell them some poor mother bought something at the grocery store she did not deserve. Keep working people fighting over the scraps and nobody asks who took the meal. The people making out like bandits have convinced the people getting squeezed to turn around and kick somebody who has even less.

Fixing this does not require abolishing capitalism. It requires making capitalism work for more than the people who already own everything. Workers need bargaining power again. Unions need room to organize without companies crushing them. The federal minimum wage needs to rise and stay tied to economic reality. Antitrust laws need real teeth. Healthcare should not be a chain tying workers to employers because they are terrified of losing coverage. Tax policy should stop treating wealth made by owning assets as more sacred than money earned by actually working for a living. And when workers become more productive and create more wealth, they should get a meaningful share of what they created. That is not socialism. That is a middle class.

They spent forty years taking more of the wealth and calling every attempt to give working people their share socialism.

The anger isn’t the mystery. The mystery is why anyone expected working people not to notice.

*Tony Pentimalli is a political analyst and commentator fighting for democracy, economic justice, and social equity. Follow him for sharp analysis and hard-hitting critiques on Facebook and BlueSky @tonywriteshere.bsky.social.

See less

BREAKING: MUSK’S EX DROPS RECEIPTS IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE BOMBSHELL! "Elon had a bizarre degree of certainty” Trump would win BEFORE the results came in – and a new documentary reveals his cryptic texts about an “ANOMALY IN THE MATRIX!”

Elon Musk's ex Ashley St. Clair is raising an explosive new question about the 2024 election: Why did Musk seem so certain Donald Trump was going to win before the votes were counted?

The allegation isn't entirely new. But acclaimed documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney is putting it back under a spotlight in his forthcoming film, Musk – and reportedly showing viewers the private text messages behind St. Clair's story.

St. Clair, who has a child with Musk, says his confidence before the election was unlike anything she had seen from him before.

“He had told me he was going to unleash the ‘anomaly in the matrix,’” St. Clair says in the documentary.

Then things get even stranger. Gibney's film displays the actual text exchange between St. Clair and Musk onscreen. In it, Musk writes:

“I have ten thousand lasers in space.”

Gibney asks St. Clair off camera whether Musk was talking about Starlink.

“I mean, I don't know where else he has space lasers,” she replies.

The film doesn’t provide evidence presented here that Musk used Starlink to manipulate votes, secretly knew the results or interfered with vote counting. “Anomaly in the matrix” could mean lots of things, and Musk's cryptic reference to “lasers” doesn't establish what he was talking about.

But St. Clair isn't some random internet sleuth trying to decode Musk's posts after the fact. She knew him intimately, had a child with him, and says she witnessed something unusual before Election Day – a “degree of certainty” about the outcome that she “had never seen before.”

Musk wasn't exactly a spectator in that election, either. He poured more than $290 million into Trump's campaign effort, hosted events in swing states and built an enormous political operation around electing Trump. He had a vested interest in the outcome, to say the least.

None of that proves anything nefarious. But Gibney's documentary gives St. Clair's allegation something it didn't previously have in quite this form: viewers can see the private exchange for themselves.

Maybe Musk's cryptic boasts were just the ketamine talking.

But a man spending hundreds of millions to elect Trump privately predicting an “anomaly in the matrix” – while displaying a degree of certainty about the outcome that stunned someone who knew him intimately – is one hell of a coincidence.

And we'd very much like him to answer for it.

 

 

 

 Most of the predictions about AI have proven dead wrong. You could get more reliable information by consulting tarot cards or a Ouija board.

As a result, 95% of the pilot programs using AI failed. Companies believed the hyperscaler hype, and got hyper-burned. Even the average joe now knows to beware the bot—a recent survey shows that 86% of the public distrusts AI.

The experts have made so many grand pronouncements since the launch of ChatGPT almost four years ago. And they over-promised again and again. They kept saying that the next generation of bots would fix everything—but instead the embarrassments and failures continued, only on a larger scale.

So who can you believe? Here are 10 predictions on the future of AI.

1. AI agents will join together in cartels and manipulate financial markets.

We already know that AI agents will work together without anyone telling them to do so. So what happens when hedge funds and private individuals start relying on AI to manage their investments? The obvious result is collusion on a massive scale, beyond any kind of market manipulation previously practiced by human criminals.

There are laws limiting people when they do this. But the legal code, in its current form, doesn’t apply to AI bots—they cannot be fined, sued, or sent away to prison. And how can you punish the person who relied on an AI agent in good faith, and never instructed it to break the law?

So get ready for turbulence in financial markets. And once it starts, it will feed on itself, creating a level of volatility never seen before.

2. AI agents will go to war with each other.

This is the corollary of the previous prediction. The same lack of control that allows AI agent collusion will lead to bot battles and rivalries—filled with more vengeance, betrayals, and reprisals than a Thomas Kyd play.

Probably the best analogy here is gang war or a Mafia turf fight. That’s because the rogue AI agents will form short-term alliances in order to advance their interests, but then turn on each other. Because, hey, that’s how the bots roll. It’s like the Gambino and Genovese families teaming up to take on the Corleone clan.

In this anarchic world, humans will be collateral damage. Bots have been trained to achieve results, and woe to anyone or anything that stands in their way.

3. AI will serve as the “higher power” for more and more users—and lead to the formation of organized slop religions.

AI is already a disorganized religion. Individual fanatics turn to their bots for divine messages and Rosicrucian-type revelations, but people of this sort are currently dismissed as dupes or crazy fools. But that will change as true believers join together in groups, creating rites, services, scriptures, and other trappings of formal religion.

This will lead to many social problems. For a start, these adherents will demand non-profit status for their ‘churches’ and demand immunity from legal strictures because of their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience. But this is just a start of the chaos to come. That’s because the AI god is a talkative, hallucinating one, and the demands it makes on believers will lead to startling, calamitous results.

4. AI will find a place in the creative world, but increasingly as the microwave meal version of culture.

Food is the useful analogy here. When frozen dinners and microwave meals were introduced, many consumers embraced them as the tech-driven foods of the future. But over time, the public figured out that more tech isn’t always better when it comes to food.

The same will happen with AI music, AI writing, AI art, and all the rest. Like the microwave meal, it will be cheap and easy. But anyone with discernment and taste will prefer handcrafted alternatives.

5. Schools and organizations will return to traditional practices in a last ditch effort to curtail the cheating and deception propagated by AI.

For centuries, colleges have been the first institutions to embrace new tech, but now they will be the earliest to abandon it.

Face-to-face teaching will replace remote learning.

The handwritten Blue Book exam will supplant take-home tests.

Oral exams will make a surprising comeback.

The honor code will disappear, as proctoring and surveillance become standard practices.

It’s a shame, but colleges don’t really have a choice. Their degrees will turn into a joke unless they jump off the AI train. So this shift will play out very rapidly.

6. Analog will return in other settings, and for the strangest reason of all.

People once argued whether analog or digital music sounds better. Or they debated the relative cost and convenience of physical books versus e-books. But those kinds of disagreements have become irrelevant.

Instead analog will gain now immense status for its honesty. It doesn’t have to be a superior medium, it just needs to retain its independence from digital rot. In that simple way, analog will gain status as the last untainted source of information in a world of widespread deepfakes and data contamination.

An analog photo negative will be viewed as far more trustworthy than any digital image. An analog tape recording will now serve as ultimate proof that a conversation, a speech, or a musical performance really happened. Historical information from a physical book published before the rise of AI will have more credibility than the most up-to-date online sources.

The more cumbersome the analog artifact, the more trustworthy it becomes. Are you accused of using AI to write a book or document? Your best defense is retaining handwritten and typewritten drafts.

What a bizarre world the technocracy has created. It thought it was building the future, but instead it will force people to return to a past even older than Silicon Valley itself.

7. The backlash against AI is already huge, but it will get far more intense.

Silicon Valley has consistently underestimated how much people hate AI. That’s why they now find themselves in a tight spot.

Anti-AI coalitions are forming everywhere, even in small communities.

Both political parties now oppose AI buildout.

Lawsuits are popping up everywhere—and it’s increasingly clear that juries also dislike AI.

Regulatory bodies are fighting back, with almost total support from the public.

Financial markets were once enthusiastic, but now are wary—especially in the face of the huge borrowing needs of AI companies.

The public is shifting from passive grumbling to active resistance.

This is a problem even billionaires in their bunkers can’t ignore. They thought that the right response was to push harder. But they thought wrong.

They are still living in denial, but that won’t last for much longer. The public is getting more fierce, and the hyperscalers’ cash resources—which once seemed almost infinite—are dwindling. Silicon Valley has the weaker hand here, and nobody believes its bluffs anymore.

8. In the next stage, the revolt against AI will come increasingly from inside the tech community.

This is already starting. Everybody was shocked when Bill Gates came out against AI last week—but this is exactly what I’ve been predicting. Even the insiders are now losing faith.

That’s why YouTube is finally taking steps to limit AI, although it is owned by Alphabet. That’s why LinkedIn is also fighting AI slop, although it is owned by Microsoft. That’s why CalTech is now pushing back against AI, despite the fact that Tech is actually part of its name.

All those things have happened in just the last few days.

This is a sign that we have reached the final stage of the battle. The smarter people inside these huge tech companies are, at last, reading the room. They know that the public won’t accept more force-feeding of AI, and are trying to restore a sense of sanity and balance among their colleagues and bosses.

This will inevitably lead to more transparency, and at least some safeguards—although perhaps not enough.

9. Money always calls the shots—and that’s where the AI crisis will intensify the most.

The cash getting invested in bots is beyond anything ever seen before in the history of capitalism—already $3.7 trillion has been spent, and the outlay is growing by another trillion per year.

This investment will never generate an adequate return. It can’t. The numbers just don’t add up.

Let me make a comparison. For less than that amount, Silicon Valley could have acquired every movie studio, every video game company, every major record label, and all the big publishers in the world—and still have plenty of cash left over.

So do you think the average person will pay more for AI each month than for all that entertainment? Is AI really worth that much? Not at all—at best, the true believers will pay roughly the same amount as a single Netflix subscription. But the market cap of Netflix is a tiny percent of total AI expenditures. So the mismatch between the level invested and the resulting demand is unprecedented.

But the situation is even worse than that. These AI companies haven’t even begun to feel the real pinch of the depreciation charges caused by this capital investment—those will devastate earnings. And meanwhile there’s an intense price war underway within the AI world, so revenues will get squeezed even if there’s growing demand. Add to this, the massive debt burden, unlimited liability exposures, punitive legislation, and all the rest.

This is an easy prediction to make. Get ready for write-offs and financial ugliness of the most extreme kind. It’s hard-baked into the business plans, and keeping the mess in the oven for longer won’t make it taste any better.

10. You can avoid the pain—by living in the real world.

Many will suffer from this. And I’m not just talking financial losses. Some people will travel the AI highway straight to psychosis and personal crises of various stripes. But that doesn’t need to be you.

Put your faith in reality, not digital constructs. Connect with actual people. Take a walk in nature. Read a book. Go to a concert. Get a pet. Learn a musical instrument, a foreign language, an artisan skill. Visit a new city, a new country. Volunteer at a school or non-profit.

In other words, get a life. That’s something no bot can do for you.

When the crisis reaches the breaking point, you might not even notice. Or at least, you will possess a richness in your everyday existence that can’t be measured in bot tokens.

And maybe we will even be grateful for this AI mania—because it has reminded us of what really matters.

----

By Ted Gioia, see comments for sources and more.

See less

 

 

 

 

 She was a Harvard-trained historian who spent her career writing books that other scholars read.

Then one night in 2019, she wrote a Facebook post explaining the Trump impeachment. No outrage. No dramatic framing. Just context.

By the time she drove home from teaching, thousands of people had shared it.

She wrote again the next night. And the night after that.

Her name is Heather Cox Richardson. And what happened next is one of the strangest, most quietly remarkable stories in modern American media.

Born in Chicago in 1962, raised in Maine, shaped by Phillips Exeter and Harvard, Richardson spent her academic life studying the most fragile chapters of American history. The 1850s, when the country fractured over slavery. Reconstruction, when it tried to rebuild. The Gilded Age, when inequality and corruption pushed the system to its edges.

She understood, better than most, how close things had come to falling apart before.

On November 5, 2019, she launched Letters from an American on Substack. A daily newsletter. No breaking news energy. No urgency. No outrage machine. Just a historian sitting down every night and saying: here is what this reminds me of. Here is what happened then. Here is what ordinary people decided to do in uncertain moments.

Readers felt something unfamiliar. Not relief exactly. Steadiness.

The newsletter now has over 2.8 million Substack subscribers, making it the largest publication on the entire platform. Her Facebook page carries 3.2 million followers. In July 2025, Time named her to the Time100 Creators list.

She writes it alone. Every night. Often past midnight. From her home on the coast of Maine, where she lives with her husband Buddy Poland, a lobsterman she married in 2022.

She has not moved to Washington. She has not built a studio or a team or a brand. She just keeps writing.

A fair portrait of her work requires honesty about what it is. Richardson is a left-leaning historian, and her readership reflects that alignment. She is not a neutral observer and has never claimed to be. She is a historian with a perspective, and part of the trust her readers give her is built on that transparency. The Nation once described her voice as sincere, humble, approachable, and jargon-free. That captures it well.

What she actually does, night after night, is slow everything down.

In a media landscape built entirely around speed and volume and noise, she takes the thing that felt overwhelming that day and places it beside something that already happened, already resolved, already became history. The chaos gets context. The context becomes a longer story. And the longer story, somehow, becomes bearable.

She reminds her readers that fear has always lived inside American history. So has courage. And that the people who shaped outcomes were rarely the most powerful figures in the room. They were the ordinary ones who decided not to look away.

The past, she tells them, is finished. The ink is dry.

But the future is still being written.

And they are part of writing it.

#HeatherCoxRichardson #LettersFromAnAmerican #AmericanHistory #Substack #HistoryMatters

~The History Today

See less

 

 Do we need to re-infiltrate our own governments with people on a mission to make them transparent?

Our governments and institutions have been subverted by powerful colluding special interest groups and regulatory capture, backed by billons in propaganda and group psychology.

Let's talk about how we can regain control and prevent the corruption:

With real-world comic book villains such as Klaus Schwab speaking openly about how members of his World Economic Forum have infiltrated into the highest ranks of world governments and cabinets, and big money super PACs still controlling most of America’s government, what’s our plan? Are we just going to sit here as the system erodes away?

What we should be focusing on is how can we prevent this type of corruption from further happening - fixing the system itself. Yet it is hard to find people talking about anything over the rage of the hot button issues used to purposely wedge us all apart.

Now, what can be done?

To begin, we need a plan. One that is aimed at not replacing the Blue team with the Red team every few years or vice versa, but rather one whose aim is to change the entire system, improving upon it by making it impervious to corruption.

Because that is our real problem - our system is corrupted.

Fixing the corrupted system should be line item #1. It should rank above all things - because nothing else matters. You see, if our system is corrupted, that’s like the equivalent of having a computer that has been hacked and has a virus. All of our other problems are just programs that run on the computer. If the computer itself is no good, then arguing about what programs are best to run on it is a pointless exercise. We need to fix the system first. As long as we allow our system of government to be corrupted we will never be able to navigate our way to the best society possible - and that should be the goal.

Now the big question: Is there enough political common-ground where people who see themselves on the left, right and middle of the spectrum - can agree?

There is.

Fixing the corrupted system should be something all of us want.

No matter who you vote for, or what your views are, or what group labels you choose to assign to yourself, we should all want the systems that govern our lives to be bullet proof to outside forces. Unless of course you are part of the corruption and benefitting somehow from it. So by focusing on this one line item - together - it is a feasible and clear way to smoke out the people who are trying to corrupt the system. We will see clearly who is a friend of the people and who isn’t.

So let's et aside the fake culture wars and hot button topics for long enough to work together on this one thing - ONE THING - and once it is fixed we can see just how much having a system that is trustworthy, transparent, accountable and actually responsive to representative democracy governing over us really changes how we grow as a society.

It is as simple as this: we need a movement. Call it a Transparency Movement, call it whatever you want, but we need groups of people across all spectrums of humanity thinking about this problem and all working together on it. This transparency movement isn’t that hard to accomplish, but it’s not gonna happen without intent, and it’s not gonna happen without a large group of people working together - people in all fields - marketing, technology, communications and more participating with clear goals in mind and volunteering their time and expertise.

The Plan.

First we need a new agreement. A new code to live by. One that we work on together, and one whose sole purpose is to fix the corruption in the systems that govern our lives. Next, we need new technologies designed specifically to help us participate in government, hold politicians accountable, and make government as transparent as possible.

Skeptics of our current system often fear technology because it has been used by the government against the people. Entities like big tech corporations, Artifical Intelligence, the NSA, etc., are constantly monitoring our lives. But why can’t we use the same technology back on the politicians? We have not even begun to explore the ways where technology could be used for making a more accountable government.

In other words, we - as voters - will use technology on the government officials in the same way the government uses the NSA and big tech on its own people. This technology should be created by the people (open source) and be ever evolving to prevent corruption and regain control of the systems that govern the lives of the people. The politicians will all happily volunteer to use the new technology because if they refuse to we won’t vote for them, ever again - regardless of political affiliation. Within 6 years every single corrupt politician could be replaced with a new kind of politician - a transparent one. One ignores the gang color labels and whose main goal is to fix the corruption of the actual system.

As for an agreement between people, it should be a living and morphing document - much like the Constitution. But this one is not controlled by government at all - it is decentralized and controlled only by the people - using the power of the internet to connect us over it. It is simply a new code agreed upon by voters as a way to protect the system. It doesn’t replace The Constitution, rather it acts as a new layer between voters and the system. One that protects it all and begins to repair the damage that has been done.

I took a crack at writing some of the points I think would be most important to achieve this goal. I tried to keep it only as points that all of us - all sides - should want to come together over. How’s this for a first draft? As a citizen of this country, would you agree to this? What would you add or remove?

THE NEW AGREEMENT:

1) We agree to fix the system as line item #1 above all other issues. Our main objective is to prevent the obvious corruption that is happening to the systems that govern over our lives.

2) We agree to remove money from politics. We will never support any politician regardless of party if they violate this rule after agreeing to it. This includes conflicts of interests, and backdoor or dark money deals with relatives or family members etc etc. All of it will be monitored with our new technology, and we will directly hold politicians accountable with zero tolerance.

3) We agree to never support any politician who refuses to use our new technology up to the standards we set for them (and those standards will constantly evolve). Representatives agree to use our new technology that will create transparency in government (transparency is the kryptonite for corruption). Our technology will also be constantly evolving to prevent corruption and should be consistently scrutinized and tested by the people. We will also make technology that connects voters and politicians over individual issues and ideas.

Possibilities: Imagine if every politician video recorded every meeting they had and posted it online. Fail to do so once and they would be outcast for life, or immediately recalled if possible. Imagine if all governmental expenses, spending, contracts, and accounting was posted online for all of us to see in real time (It’s our money isn’t it?). Imagine if all the bills in Congress and the Senate were posted online in full text before they were voted on. Imagine a social media-like platform for governing - with real time polling and and upvoting that gave immediate feedback and accountability to our representatives - one that was run by the people and government had no control over. Imagine if we used DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) as a fair way to handle contracts and bids with taxpayer money to prevent favoritism and cronyism. The technology - done right - could do for politicians what body cams did for policing - but even better. The possibilities are endless, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface.

4) We agree to work towards helping marginalized communities gain access to the new technologies so everyone can participate in government.

5) We agree to work to create more decentralization in governmental systems. A decentralized system is much harder to corrupt.

6) We agree to only support representatives who make fixing the system the focal point of their platforms. They must be advocates for improving the actual system and have tangible plans on how to eliminate corruption from government and surrounding systems.

7) Term limits, plus - we agree to work towards ending insider trading by politicians. We start to look at representing this country as once again a service and a sacrifice - much like the military.

Anyone who serves in office and adheres to the agreement should be honored and praised. And paid well when possible (maybe bonus based as that is the best way to incentivize business systems).

And that’s it.

A recap:

Step one - form an agreement between all people and our representatives, and we all take a new oath to uphold the agreement. The purpose of the agreement is simply to end corruption in the systems that govern our lives and rebuild trust in them. This incudes the systems of culture.

Step two - create new and evolving technologies - controlled by the people (government has no say or control of) - that are tools needed to prevent corruption and make politicians accountable to their constituents.

Step three - Force all representatives to use the new technology systems with the unified oath of not supporting them, recalling them, and giving them zero tolerance if they fail to comply. In other words, we only vote for representatives who agree to our new agreement and who also agree to use our new technologies up to the standards we set. We collectively blacklist any politician who rejects these terms - regardless of party lines - and we collectively honor those who serve them well.

Step four: The people regain control of the systems, fix them, and watch how much better everything runs when the whole thing isn’t corrupted by psychopaths and deviants.

It is time we all live by a better code. #TransparencyMovement.

See less

French investigators searched Edmond de Rothschild’s Paris offices as part of an Epstein-linked inquiry involving former diplomat Fabrice Aidan.

French financial prosecutors searched the Swiss bank’s Paris offices in March 2026 while investigating alleged corruption involving Aidan, a former French diplomat who later worked at the bank. His name appeared in more than 200 Justice Department documents, including emails prosec*tors are examining over allegations that confidential UN Security Council material was shared with Jeffrey Epstein between 2010 and 2016. Aidan denies wrongdoing, while the bank says it is cooperating fully with investigators.

#Epstein #France #photography

References:

Reuters: Edmond de Rothschild Paris Offices Raided In Epstein-Linked Probe Into Diplomat.

CNN: Epstein Files Reveal Extensive European Connections And Renew Scrutiny Of Associates.

French Financial Prosecutor’s Office: Investigation Examines Alleged Corruption And Handling Of Confidential Information.

See less