Tuesday, December 23, 2025

Windows 11 Faces GLOBAL Backlash (Video x2)

  How would you like an operating system for which you have to pay every month forever? Which doesn't belong to you and certainly doesn't obey you? Doesn't even work for you full time, busy as it is spying on you (snapshot of your screen every few seconds), reselling the information and blanketing you with full page advertising? And all this controlled by AI to make it more efficient and far more difficult to escape! Welcome to Windows 12!

  If you enjoyed Windows 11 (few people do mind you) which tested all these ideas, you will be ecstatic with Windows 12. A dream of efficiency (for Microsoft) and nightmare (for you, the user) reborn on your computer. 

  That definitively will be a brand new computer since all this spying, control and AI will not work on your older machines, whatever the specs. Windows decide which machine you use. Remember, it is their OS, not yours. 

  I already moved to Linux, 10 years ago and have been using Ubuntu since. So what happens to Windows is not really my concern. And interestingly more and more people are following suit. Apple is an expensive alternative. Linux the reasonable and cheap option. It takes some time to get used to but eventually once you are comfortable with it, there is simply no difference. Your browser will work just the same and most software likewise, with slightly different names, Libreoffice Writer instead of Words, but otherwise no change except that it is free like Office used to be before Windows 11.  

  So, "Time to say goodbye?" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4JBmcO9Mgs

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJqL5sriHH8

Monday, December 22, 2025

Can The Dark Ages Return?

   Not only it can but it will. The 4th turning analyses medium term cycles which they link to "generations" but should more accurately be linked to credit cycles. In other words, every four generation or about 80 years you need to reset the system as it is going bankrupt. This has now been confirmed over countless cycles. This mark a time of crisis but not necessarily a time of decline.

  The long term cycles we are concerned with here are quite different. Civilizations are built on principles that people believe in. They start full of energy (credit) and new ideas to invest in. As return on investment necessarily dwindle, people stop believing and a mad rush for your own interest begins which of course accelerates the downfall of the social order. 

  This has happened countless times around the world, but only twice in the Western world. The first time was around 1177 BCE, the famous Bronze Age collapse and the following one, one thousand years later, was the Roman collapse around 476 CE. Both of these epochs followed prosperous then declining civilizations and resulted in about 500 years of grim and very hard times for people when society was completely restructured around new and different principles which finally gave rise to new civilizations.     

  Both Chinese and Indian civilizations" history are more complex although they also had their times of prosperity interrupted by shorter times of anarchy which in the end may have followed similar rules. 

  In spite of my provocative initial answer, the real answer to the question above is unknowable. On the one hand, the perpetual answer to a bubble, in the short term, has always been: "This time is different!" But in the long term, in retrospect, it was never different. Always the bubble burst and the people were left high and dry. But these are well understood mechanism concerning financial markets.

  Societies are far more complex to analyze and the reason for their decline almost impossible to identify. There are too many factors making each decline unique. And still the cycle is there. Maybe AI soon will be able to analyze these factors more precisely and warn us in time that we are heading towards a crash, although there may not be much time left to issue this warning!   

Western civilization arose in the 8th century B.C. Greece. Some 1,500 city-states emerged from a murky, illiterate 400-year-old Dark Age. That chaos followed the utter collapse of the palatial culture of Mycenaean Greece.

But what reemerged were constitutional government, rationalism, liberty, freedom of expression, self-critique, and free markets—what we know now as the foundation of a unique Western civilization.

The Roman Republic inherited and enhanced the Greek model.

For a millennium, the Republic and subsequent Empire spread Western culture, eventually to be inseparable from Christianity.

From the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and from the Rhine and Danube to the Sahara, there were a million square miles of safety, prosperity, progress, and science—until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD.

What followed was a second European Dark Age, roughly from 500 to 1000 AD.

Populations declined. Cities eroded. Roman roads, aqueducts, and laws crumbled.

In place of the old Roman provinces arose tribal chieftains and fiefdoms.

Whereas once Roman law had protected even rural people in remote areas, during the Dark Ages, walls and stone were the only means of keeping safe.

Finally, at the end of the 11th century, the old values and know-how of the complex world of Graeco-Roman civilization gradually reemerged.

The slow rebirth was later energized by the humanists and scientists of the Renaissance, Reformation, and eventually the 200-year European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Contemporary Americans do not believe that our current civilization could self-destruct a third time in the West, followed by an impoverished and brutal Dark Age.

But what caused these prior returns to tribalism and loss of science, technology, and the rule of law?

Historians cite several causes of societal collapse—and today they are hauntingly familiar.

Like people, societies age. Complacency sets in.

The hard work and sacrifice that built the West also creates wealth and leisure. Such affluence is taken for granted by later generations. What created success is eventually ignored—or even mocked.

Expenditures and consumption outpace income, production, and investment.

Child-rearing, traditional values, strong defense, love of country, religiosity, meritocracy, and empirical education fade away.

The middle class of autonomous citizens disappear. Society bifurcates between a few lords and many peasants.

Tribalism—the pre-civilizational bonds based on race, religion, or shared appearance—remerge.

National government fragments into regional and ethnic enclaves.

Borders disappear. Mass migrations are unchecked. The age-old bane of anti-Semitism reappears.

The currency inflates, losing its value and confidence. General crassness in behavior, speech, dress, and ethics replaces prior norms.

Transportation, communications, and infrastructure all decline.

The end is near when the necessary medicine is seen as worse than the disease.

Such was life around 450 AD in Western Europe.

The contemporary West might raise similar red flags.

Fertility has dived well below 2.0 in almost every Western country.

Public debt is nearing unsustainable levels. The dollar and euro have lost much of their purchasing power.

It is more common in universities to damn than honor the gifts of the Western intellectual past.

Yet, the reading and analytical skills of average Westerners, and Americans in particular, steadily decline.

Can the general population even operate or comprehend the ever-more sophisticated machines and infrastructure that an elite group of engineers and scientists creates?

The citizen loses confidence in an often corrupt elite, who neither will protect their nations’ borders nor spend sufficient money on collective defense.

The cures are scorned.

Do we dare address spiraling deficits, unsustainable debt, and corrupt bureaucracies and entitlements?

Even mention of reform is smeared as “greedy,” “racist,” “cruel,” or even “fascist” and “Nazi.”

In our times, relativism replaces absolute values in the eerie replay of the latter Roman Empire.

Critical legal theory claims crimes are not really crimes.

Critical race theory postulates that all of society is guilty of insidious bias, demanding reparations in cash and preferences in admission and hiring.

Salad-bowl tribalism replaces assimilation, acculturation, and integration of the old melting pot.

Despite a far wealthier, far more leisured, and far more scientific contemporary America, was it safer to walk in New York or take the subway in 1960 than now?

Are high school students better at math now or 70 years ago?

Are movies and television more entertaining and ennobling in 1940 or now?

Are nuclear, two-parent families the norm currently or in 1955?

We are blessed to live longer and healthier lives than ever—even as the larger society around us seems to teeter.

Yet, the West historically is uniquely self-introspective and self-critical.

Reform and Renaissance historically are more common than descents back into the Dark Ages.

But the medicine for decline requires unity, honesty, courage, and action—virtues now in short supply on social media, amid popular culture, and among the political class.

Sunday, December 21, 2025

An AI Campaign War Is Coming: Boomers Vs. Doomers

  As a data and AI specialist, I happen to straddle both camps in a perfect Schrodinger superposition. AI must be supervised as much as possible but likewise it must be encouraged. It is in fact a very complex discussion where nuances are everything.  

  No, legislation cannot be left to the industry otherwise like for smart TVs you end up with products spying on you full time. It isn't a catastrophe for TVs, it would be for AI since the capabilities are so much more potent and granular.   

 Very soon, our AIs will be smarter than us. They will still lack "common sense" so no AGI on the horizon but their logical capabilities will be flawless and their practical outcome consequently optimum. This means that in reality, who controls the AIs will control the mindset of most people. AI as such becomes a weapon so powerful that any other concern quickly recedes in the background.  

 Imagine a world where the news are AI generated, what you have access to is AI controlled, what you see is AI curated, communication between people, less and less frequent, is AI filtered. Quickly, within a year or two, reality becomes so distorted that nothing can be trusted anymore. This is the world we are mindlessly barreling towards at high speed. Soon, fentanyl will be little more than a footnote to how we lost our collective mind.   

An AI Campaign War Is Coming: Boomers Vs. Doomers

The battle over artificial intelligence policy is moving from Washington hearing rooms to the campaign trail, where two rival political efforts are preparing to spend at least $150 million to shape the outcome of federal and state elections.

The clash pits industry-backed advocates for rapid AI development against a bipartisan group of former lawmakers calling for stronger regulation and tighter export controls. The scale of the planned spending exceeds the roughly $100 million deployed by crypto-aligned political groups during the 2024 election cycle, Punchbowl News reports.

Unlike the crypto push, however, the emerging AI fight features two organized camps preparing to go head-to-head: pro-industry “AI boomers” and regulation-minded “AI doomers,” each seeking to influence lawmakers and voters ahead of the 2026 midterms.

BOOMERS: AI To The Moon Under One National Framework

On the pro-AI side is Leading the Future, a group of industry-backed super PACs seeded with money from technology leaders and venture capital interests. The effort has received early backing from OpenAI President Greg Brockman, venture capital firm a16z, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and is preparing to spend up to $100 million.

Josh Vlasto, who is co-leading the group’s political strategy, said the goal is to elect candidates supportive of a national, federal-led approach to AI regulation.

"You will see a broad consensus in Congress to have the federal government lead on creating a national, pro-AI, pro-America regulatory framework," Vlasto said.

That approach reflects industry concerns that a patchwork of state-level AI laws could hinder U.S. competitiveness, particularly in the race with China. While Vlasto said his group supports the idea of a federal AI standard, he indicated that policy specifics would be handled by a related advocacy organization.

Leading the Future is expected to support candidates who favor federal preemption of state AI regulations. Vlasto, who also served as a spokesperson for Fairshake - the crypto-aligned super PAC that backed more than 50 candidates in 2024 - declined to set a limit on how many races the AI-focused group might enter.

The group has already signaled its willingness to play offense, announcing plans to spend against New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat who has supported state-level AI regulation and is running for Congress.

Vlasto said the organization is designed to move quickly as policy debates evolve and has leaned heavily into digital advertising, though it has also purchased television spots.

This is a highly dynamic moment in this policy debate,” he said. “We are built… to use our resources and bring the AI sector together to advocate for this agenda.”

In short, AI Boomers want:

  1. Federal preemption of state AI laws: one national AI framework, not 50 state regimes. States like New York or California passing their own AI rules are seen as a threat to innovation.

  2. Light-touch federal regulation: Support a “federal standard,” but generally oppose detailed, prescriptive rules. Policy specifics are often deferred to industry-friendly agencies or advisory bodies.

  3. Speed over precaution: The belief is that slowing deployment risks losing the global AI race, especially to China. Safety, bias, and misuse concerns are viewed as manageable after deployment.

  4. Industry-driven governance: AI companies should have a major role in shaping the rules that govern them. Regulatory capture is not how they describe it; they frame it as “technical expertise.”

DOOMERS: Control AI before it reshapes society

On the opposing side, former Reps. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Brad Carson (D-Okla.) are launching two separate super PACs aimed at boosting candidates who favor stronger AI regulation and export controls.

Together, the PACs aim to raise $50 million for the 2026 cycle - roughly half the amount promised by Leading the Future, but enough, organizers say, to compete with tech industry spending.

Most people are anxious about AI. They’re not opposed to it, they’re anxious,” Carson said, arguing that public concern about the pace of AI development is being underestimated.

Carson criticized what he described as tech companies’ “accelerationist YOLO agenda” and said his PACs would disclose their donors in the coming months.

The groups plan to support candidates for the House and Senate and are also considering investments in state legislative races and gubernatorial contests. Carson said spending decisions will be made across television, digital platforms, and other media as appropriate, with endorsements coming from both political parties.

Two policy issues are central to the effort: AI regulation and export controls on advanced AI chips bound for China.

Carson said the PACs will support candidates “who favor strong export controls,” and he reiterated opposition to President Trump’s decision to allow Nvidia to sell advanced AI chips to China. Carson, who serves as president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, has argued that export restrictions are critical to national security.

The PACs will also back candidates who believe government has a role in regulating AI, including allowing states to act in the absence of a federal framework.

Doomer priorities:

  1. Meaningful regulation, not just federal symbolism: They want enforceable rules on: Model deployment. Safety testing, Transparency, Accountability for harm. 

  2. State authority as a backstop - not a takeover: States should be allowed to regulate AI if Congress fails to act.

    • This mirrors how states regulate: Consumer protection, Data privacy, Product safety, State involvement is seen as a pressure mechanism, not the ideal endpoint.

  3. Export controls and national security: They strongly support restricting advanced AI chips to China. They view unfettered exports as a strategic and military risk.

  4. Public trust as a strategic asset: Their argument is that if voters lose confidence in AI, politicians will overcorrect. Early guardrails are framed as pro-innovation, not anti-innovation.

Competing visions for AI’s future

While Carson and Stewart reject the label “anti-AI,” they argue that guardrails are necessary to maintain public trust in the technology.

“Big tech has lost the confidence of the American people,” Carson said. “And if the American people don’t believe in [AI], you’re going to see politicians turn against it in a very severe way.”

CIA is Broken... Can It Be Fixed

   If what Larry Johnson is explaining below is what's truly going on at the CIA, imagine how much worse it must be in Europe since all the lines with Russia have been cut. No information, no accounting, no nothing and defeat staring you in the face while you are convinced of the opposite. 

  Same in the economic domain. Factories closing, know how degraded but the West will catch up with China. How? There is a dynamic to growth and decline. A virtuous circle in the first case, a vicious one in the second. To really understand macro data for large countries is a complex exercise which requires experience and knowledge, and especially as little subjective ideology as possible. All this is now in short supply so whatever reform you implement, the same incompetent people will remain in charge and little progress can be expected.  

  Short of actual facts, the narrative has taken over and the CIA happens to be in charge of the "narrative". But eventually, gravity, i.e. reality, reasserts itself. Then the system must re-balance. Just like a financial bubble, the higher you float, the harder the fall.   

by Larry Johnson via Sonar21.com.

Sy Hersh's latest Substack article on the prospects a successful outcome of the US attempt to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is important because it reveals the pathetic incompetence of the CIA. It appears that Sy reported what senior Trump officials told him about the on going negotiations with the Russians and Ukrainians, and that those officials were sharing their understanding of the capabilities of Russia and Ukraine based on intelligence reports and intelligence analysis provided principally by CIA analysts.

Here are some of the more egregious claims by these officials:

Both nations are on the verge of economic and military collapse…

Putin is facing economic, political, military, and public pressure...

Putin is facing increasing political, economic, and military opposition in Moscow—mortgage rates are soaring and the Russian military is in serious disarray—has realized that he must end the war…

Ongoing warfare is not going to change the balance of forces. Putin is under pressure to end the war from his military and from a public staggered by its continuing costs, and inflation is at 8.4 percent…

Some of the most senior Russian generals, while still loyal to Putin, urgently want the depleted Russian Army to get out.

Putin is staying afloat by borrowing money from Russian banks that are not permitted to lend to the population.

Rather than debunk each of these claims, I will focus on the last two.

Regarding the claim that Russian banks “are not permitted to lend to the population.” Wrong! Russian banks are fully allowed—and actively do—make loans to Russian citizens . According to Russia's Central Bank and news reports from Reuters , Bloomberg , and The Moscow Times , there are no prohibitions on domestic lending to Russian individuals under current regulations (as of December 2025). Consumer lending (unsecured loans, mortgages, car loans, credit cards) is a major part of the Russian banking sector, with retail loan portfolios growing continuously because Russian wages have increased more than the rate of inflation — 20% — and are greater than the high interest rates. How could the Trump intelligence community get such an easy fact to verify so wrong?

Then there is the assertion that the Russian army is “depleted.” Russia's active-duty military personnel strength as of December 2025 is approximately 1.32 million. This figure comes from the 2025 Global Firepower Index (reviewed January 2025) and cross-verified sources like Statista , which cites ~1.32 million active troops (part of a total force of ~3.57 million including reserves and paramilitary). My sources in Russia put the number at greater than 1.5 million. In February 2022, according to IISS Military Balance 2022 and Global Firepower , Russia's active-duty military forces were 900,000.

In terms of Russia's ground forces, they have grown from 300,000 in February 2022 to 623,000 in just the Ukrainian theater, according to Ukraine's General Syrsky. Total Russian ground forces now exceed 1 million men. Does that sound like depletion to you?

So why does the CIA persist in peddling provably false information. I blame former CIA Director John Brennan. John Brennan, as CIA Director (2013–2017), initiated a major reorganization in March 2015 that integrated analysts (from the Directorate of Analysis) and operations officers (from the Directorate of Operations) into hybrid mission centers.

This “modernization plan” aimed to break down traditional silos — ie, previously analysts and operations officers worked in separate units — by creating 10 new mission centers (focused on regions/threats like counterterrorism and cyber), where analysts, operators, digital experts, and support staff would work side-by-side under unified leadership. Brennan announced the overhaul on March 6, 2015 , with implementation beginning shortly after (eg, assistant directors named April 30, 2015). The ostensible goal was better integration for modern threats like cyber warfare, modeled partly on the existing Counterterrorism Center, but the actual effect subordinated independent analysis to the covert programs directed and managed by the operations officers.

When I started working as an analyst in the fall of 1986, the Directorate of Intelligence occupied the north wing of the CIA headquarters and the Directorate of Operations occupied the south wing… We were in our respective silos. I was the Honduras analyst when the war in Central America was a top priority for the Reagan administration. Funding the Contras and fighting the Sandinista was a major covert action program of the Director of Operations… The Central American Task Force (CATF) to be precise. The case officers in the CATF had every incentive to make the program look like it was being successful.

I vividly recall a briefing that I, along with the Nicaragua branch military analyst, gave to members of Congress on March 12, 1988 about a developing situation on the border of Honduras and Nicaragua. We were accompanied by the Chief of military operations for the CATF. We had intelligence that the Sandinistas were prepared to launch military operations against Contra forces in the Las Vegas salient of southern Honduras. During the course of that briefing we received news from headquarters that the Sandinistas had allegedly overrun a Contra base and were killing the CIA-backed Contras. What a disaster!

As we filed out of that briefing got into the van to take us back to headquarters, the CATF military chief began berating me and the military analyst for the Nicaraguan branch as having contributed to this alleged disaster for the Contras because our analysis did not enthusiastically support the CATF covert program. When I arrived back at headquarters and had a chance to look at the actual intelligence, I discovered that we had been told a lie. Instead of the Sandinistas swarming a Contra camp like Mexican troops attacking the Alamo, the intel report simply stated that a Contra patrol had skirmished with a Sandinista patrol 15 km south of the Contra base. The point of telling this anecdote is to illustrate the kind of pressure that we as analysts faced from the operations side of the house to spin a narrative that portrayed the Contra's in the best possible light while downplaying the competence of the Sandinista forces.

I think a similar phenomena has been at play since the start of Russia's Special Military Operation in February 2022. I believe that the analysts responsible for reporting on the Ukrainians and Russians are fully embedded in a Mission Center , something akin to the CATF, and that analysts face daily pressures from operations officers to paint the Ukrainians as victors and the Russians as losers who are on the verge of economic and political collapse.

It is simple human nature… If you want to get promoted, don't tell the truth, just go along with the program.

I also have learned that the primary source material the analysts are using is generated by the Ukrainians, who are working in concert with CIA officers deployed in Ukraine. I believe that the combination of peer pressure from operations officers to support a covert mission and a steady supply of tainted information from biased Ukrainian sources explains why the US officials who spoke to Sy Hersh are painting such a false and distorted picture of the war in Ukraine and are describing the Russians as incompetent, depleted and on the verge of crumbling. Garbage in, garbage out .

If the CIA has any hope of being able to provide something approaching objective, truthful analysis, the Mission Centers created by Brennan must be dismantled. There was a press report last February that current CIA director Ratcliffe was reviewing whether to reverse Brennan's changes due to perceived negative impacts on human intelligence (HUMINT) and core missions. Let me assure you that the negative impacts are real, not perceived.

So far, Ratcliffe has not acted to reverse Brennan. Maybe the defeat of Ukraine by Russia will finally convince Ratcliffe to take action to rescue analysts from the clutches of the operations officers.

Saturday, December 20, 2025

Russia's Response Shocks Europe as the EU's $105 Billion Asset Seizure Backfires by Yanis Varoufakis (Video - 25mn)

   Another AI generated video! But I must say it took me some time listening and checking to find out. (typical recent blog with no history and no followers.)

  And still, the quality of what is being said is stunning. Extracted from thousands of video by Yanis Faroufakis is sounds genuine and to some extent is original and recent. If we get that level of quality from AI at this stage, imagine what this will be in a year or two. I do not think we will be able to tell the difference at all by then.  

  PS: The unnatural shoulder movements tell you immediately that this is AI generated but this will be corrected soon. Then what?  Unlike the video itself, I couldn't find any flaws in what was being said. It is financially and logically correct without mentioning a perfect syntax. Great AI job! Within a year or less, fake pictures and fake information will swamp the Internet leaving reality behind.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZnPfOh3y8

DOJ Won’t Release Full Epstein Files to Congress by Friday Deadline

   This disclosure in fact could well resume the Trump administration: Communication and narrative above facts and truth. 

  Come on, what were we expecting? A timeline of how Epstein became a Mossad asset, specialist in embezzlement and blackmail? Names and charts? Chain of command of an army of shadows with addresses and titles? 

  60 years latter, we still haven't got a full disclosure of the JFK files which likewise implicate the CIA and maybe again the Mossad. The chance that the far more recent hot story of Epstein would be published just because we asked nicely was close to zero to start with. Who's in charge in the US, the President or the CIA? 

  Well, now of course we know. Contrary to what we are made to believe, the story has nothing to do with pedophiles and a few famous people and everything to do with how politicians are controlled behind the curtain. Our democracy is a sham, an illusion for the converted who want to believe. Money votes, not people. Unlike Stalin who famously said, "It is not the people who vote that count but the people who count the votes!" In the West, everything is decided beforehand not a-posteriory. You must go kiss the ring before being anointed by the powerful who pay for your campaign before having a campaign at all. 

  This is what cannot be disclosed: How compromising pictures are taken and used discretely to discredit when necessary and eliminate those who do not serve as expected. That's what is at stake here. The rest is tabloid junk.       


Via: The Hill:

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not be releasing the full Epstein files to Congress on Friday as required under new legislation, instead sending over a partial batch.

Blanche told Fox News the Justice Department would release “several hundred thousand” documents on Friday, “and then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more.”

Blanche attributed the delay to the need to redact any names or identifying information about witnesses, but failing to turn over the full unclassified files could run afoul of the law, which gave the department 30 days to share the files with Congress.

“So today is the 30 days when I expect that we’re going to release several hundred thousand documents today. And those documents will come in in all different forms, photographs and other materials associated with, with all of the investigations into, into Mr. Epstein,” Blanche said.

“What we’re doing is we are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity, their story, to the extent it needs to be protected, is completely protected. And so I expect that we’re going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks.”

DOJ was compelled to turn over the files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by a bill that got near-unanimous support in Congress, signed into law after President Trump reversed his earlier stance opposing their release.

While the bill does allow for redactions related to victims and for DOJ to withhold some information about the investigation, it does not provide a rolling deadline to turn over the documents.

Under the law, the DOJ has 15 days to turn over its rationale for any documents withheld.

Censorship at the BBC (Video - 2mn)

 Listen carefully to the short speech below. This is all you need to understand about the West at this stage:  https://www.youtube.com/sho...