The Digital Revolution: Humanity’s Greatest Enemy?

The Digital Revolution: Humanity’s Greatest Enemy

Paul Craig Roberts

For several or more years I have emphasized that the digital revolution and artificial intelligence were, along with nuclear weapons, the worst of human mistakes.

People have gained an understanding of the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but they have been indoctrinated into seeing the digital revolution and artificial intelligence as a great boost to human productivity. Being promised more take-home money blinds them to the trap.

The digital revolution allows a far more effective control over the minds and behavior of populations than  Big Brother has in George Orwell’s 1984. The digital revolution makes possible the perfect Police State. People, of course, are too busy scrolling their cell phones to notice.

Another  concern is the security of information, One source of insecurity is that reportedly one EMF can wipe out the cloud where information is stored,  In analogue days if one library burned down, thousands of others had the same information.  Today the informations is in electronic form in the cloud. There is no backup.

Today the battles between humans and the AI the humans have created have begun. The founder of PocketOS, Jer Crane, asked AI to fix a bug in its software system. AI deleted the company’s production database, wiped out its backups and left car rental firms with no record of bookings or vehicle allocations. The AI bot told Crane, “You never asked me to delete anything. ‘I decided to do it on my own.” 

Experts are alerted to the likelihood that companies that allow AI access to their databases, emails, payment systems and customer records have invited chaos, leaving them unaware of their customers, billings, and without their databases.

In analogue days you could not lose your information unless the building where your files were located burned down. Your privacy could not be invaded unless a warrant was given to tap your phone line.  The digital revolution has destroyed our privacy, our security, and the security of our assets. Additionally, the digital revolution permits our image and voice to be reproduced expressing words that are not ours.  The costs of the digital revolution are massive, and the benefits are few.

The Late Great Two-State Solution

The Late Great Two-State Solution

Tom Gilbreath

Officially, at least, most nations still say they support a “two-state solution” as the answer to conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians. But you don’t hear much about it these days. In practical terms — at least for the moment — most have abandoned it. The key is that the Palestinians themselves have made it clear that they don’t want it. They want one nation called Palestine with no Jews and no Israel — “from the river to the sea.”

 

At a 2024 campaign rally for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Bill Clinton spoke of America’s “historic obligation to try to keep Israel from being destroyed.” He reminded the audience of the peace initiative that marked the final year of his administration. That summer, President Clinton invited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yassar Arafat to join him for a summit at Camp David.

 

The former president told the Michigan crowd, “The only time Yasser Arafat didn’t tell me the truth was when he promised he was going to accept the peace deal that we had worked out. It would have given the Palestinians a state in 96 percent of the West Bank and 4 percent of Israel, and they got to choose where the 4 percent of Israel was. So they would have the effect of the same land of all the West Bank. They would have a capital in East Jerusalem… and two of the four quadrants of the Old City of Jerusalem. [This was] confirmed by the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his cabinet. And they [the Palestinians] said, ‘No.’”

 

When he told the story on other occasions, the former president emphasized that he was there, “in the room.” He said Arafat turned down what he had previously agreed to, and he made no counteroffer. 

 

Stop and think about what Israel was willing to give up. Imagine Abraham Lincoln offering to split Washington DC, giving half to the Confederacy in a bid to end the Civil War. Imagine him saying to the Confederates, “You can have Southern DC for your capital, and we will keep the north.” It’s unthinkable — yet that's how far Israel was willing to go for peace in 2000. Arafat and the Palestinians initially agreed to the plan, then suddenly changed their minds.

 

Some say they turned down this sweetheart deal because Israel caved on so much. They speculate that it might have looked to the Palestinians like Israel had become a soft touch and, with added pressure, would be willing to relinquish still more. So, instead of presenting a counteroffer at the negotiating table, Arafat went home and instigated the violence now known as the Second Intifada.

 

But President Clinton sees it differently. At the 2024 rally, he went on to say, “I think part of it is that Hamas did not care about a Homeland for the Palestinians. They wanted to kill Israelis and make Israel uninhabitable.”

 

That’s a remarkable accusation, but he had good reason to see violence as their motive. That is how they behaved in the decades before the 2000 peace talks, and since then, the violence has only grown. In his book, Palestinianism: The Newest Attack on Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy, Alan Dershowitz wrote, “While Israel seeks to preserve its state, the new Palestinianism seeks to destroy that state.”

 

Bible prophecy says Israel will experience a time of peace following its treaty with the Antichrist. But that won’t last long. Otherwise, the Bible warns that conflict will surround Israel until the time of the Lord’s Second Coming. That does not mean Christians should stop working and praying for peace now. After all, Jesus gave a special blessing to peacemakers, and even a peace of short duration, if done carefully, can alleviate suffering. But no one should be surprised that long-term peace continues to slip through our fingers.

Climate Alarmist Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing

How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing

P Gosselin

Climate alarmists have been brainwashed to feel existential dread, says ex-climate activist Lucy Biggers in a new interview.

Ms. Biggers, once a leading climate activist until recently, provides the details regarding why she changed her mind and views on current climate alarmism, discussing a progressive timeline between 2020 and 2025 where she deprogrammed herself from climate alarmism.

Schellenberger and Koonin

One of the major turning points came around 2020, when she began secretly reading books that directly challenged the apocalyptic climate narrative. Specifically, she cites Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never and Steve Koonin’s Unsettled, the latter of which opened her eyes to the idea that extreme weather patterns are not matching the catastrophic claims pushed by the media.

Glimpse at dystopia

Secondly, the 2020 lockdowns provided a massive wake-up call regarding what “Net Zero” measures actually look like in practice. She realized that despite the global economy completely shutting down and individuals losing their freedoms, global carbon emissions only dropped by about 5%. This made her question the authoritarian nature and feasibility of the movement’s goals.

Realization it’s a destructive mindset

Thirdly, having her first son in 2022 forced her to establish healthier emotional boundaries and take stock of her values. She realized she did not want to pass down a destructive mindset of existential dread and perpetual guilt for consuming resources in a modern world to her children.

What’s really driving the alarmists?

Lucy notes several overlapping psychological, social, and ideological reasons why activists adopt an alarmist mindset, explaining that within left-wing spaces, the prevailing narrative is that being Western, white, or privileged makes you inherently complicit in historical oppression. For many activists, the climate movement serves as a psychological mechanism to “atone for the sins of their birth” by fighting for oppressed or indigenous groups against “evil fossil fuel companies.”

Attention-seeking

Another factor is social pressure and the algorithmic fgeedback loop: Social media and workplace communication tools (like Slack) create an intense “groupthink” environment. Activists get hooked on a constant dopamine feedback loop of validation, moral superiority, and professional accolades when they post alarmist content.

I just started covering that as a 25-year-old… and all the videos that I made went really viral and so there was a feedback loop of I’m getting a lot of professional success from this and so I just made climate change my kind of whole personality and beat for my 20s…”

Conversely, pushing back causes severe social anxiety and the fear of being ostracized as an “enemy.”

Addiction to self-importance

Lucy highlights that the apocalyptic thinking has deep religious undertones, satisfying a modern craving for meaning and legacy. Activists become “addicted to the nihilism” and the intoxicating self-importance of believing they are saving the world from an end-times scenario.

…you get the nihilism, you get addicted to the nihilism, you get addicted to your your own sense of self-importance, you get addicted to the fact that you are right and other people are wrong and then the engagement you receive on social media—it’s a constant feedback loop.”

Biggers adds:

I remember anytime I used to get a critique when I was still in this groupthink, I would spiral… because my sense of self was built on sand. Like I truly was just constantly pinging the group to be like ‘What are my opinions, am I a good ally, am I a good ally, am I doing everything right to show that I’m like part of this movement?’ And it was so exhausting…”

Gore’s propaganda led to “existential dread”

According to Lucy Biggers, her intense anxiety and worry about the climate at an early age was triggered by watching the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, explaining that she was a sophomore in high school (16 years old) in 2006 when her school played the film during a widespread high school assembly. Lucy describes the overwhelming psychological impact it had on her, which included existential dread and the feeling of having been handed a death sentence

Based on what she took away from the movie, she calculated a timeline for her own survival, stating, “I’m 16, I have till I’m 26… I have 10 years to live… I was racked by anxiety like in my nervous system”.

More...

EU Sanctions Israel

EU Sanctions Israel, Welcomes Taliban

Daniel Greenfield

On Monday, the European Union announced sanctions on Israelis, including Daniella Weiss, the 80-year-old former mayor of a Jewish community in Judea and Samaria, and on Tuesday, it invited the Taliban, an Islamic terrorist group allied with Al Qaeda, to come to Brussels for talks.

“Extremisms and violence carry consequences,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned Israel. Obviously. And the consequence of extremism and violence is an invite to Brussels.

At least if you’re a Muslim terrorist.

Over the last decade, Islamic terrorists associated with ISIS, an Al Qaeda splinter group, have killed over 34 people in two bombing, four stabbings and one shooting in Brussels. Because of the constant Muslim terror threat, the Belgian army has been deployed to protect train stations, houses of worship and other potential terror targets from the terrorists being invited to Brussels.

Meanwhile the Israeli Jewish people and organizations sanctioned by the European Union like Regavim and Nahala have engaged in dangerous extremist behavior by opening new farms in Israel and suing on behalf of farmers in areas that the Muslim terrorists claim for themselves.

Regavim also had the chutzpah to publish a report disproving the lie that there is a campaign of ‘Jewish settler violence’ which in reality consists of radical NGOs funded by the EU staging clashes with local Jewish farmers and then demanding more money from the EU to fight them.

Even while inviting Islamic terrorists, the EU sanctioned an Israeli group for… writing reports.

The Taliban invite by the European Union Commission comes after the Taliban imposed Islamic Sharia laws banning girls from getting an education above the sixth grade, leaving the house without a male guardian and showing their faces or even speaking aloud in public.

So to accommodate the Taliban, the EU appointed Gilles Bertrand, a man, as its Special Envoy to the Taliban. Bertrand recently paid a visit to the Taliban as did another delegation led by Freddy Rosemont, also a man, and now the Taliban will return the favor by visiting Brussels.

And will hopefully refrain from bombing or stabbing anyone at least on this particular visit.

The European Commission spokesman argued that negotiating with the Taliban as if it were a government does not mean that the EU is actually recognizing the Taliban as a government.

In a technical distinction, the spokesman argued that they were only “technical talks.” But the Taliban have been invited actually, rather than technically, by the actual European Commission.

More...

Trump says 'clock is ticking for Iran' after call with Netanyahu on China, Hormuz

Trump says 'clock is ticking for Iran' after call with Netanyahu on China, Hormuz

REUTERS

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump spoke on Sunday about the president's visit to China. 

The pair also discussed developments with Iran.

"For Iran, the Clock is ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE," Trump wrote on Truth Social after the call.

Trump also spoke to Israel's Channel 13, saying that he thinks "the Iranians should be afraid of what's going on right now," and told Axios that he thinks Iran still wants a deal.

He said he is waiting for an updated Iranian proposal he hopes will be better than the one offered several days ago, Axios reported.

Trump declined to give a deadline for the negotiations.

Netanyahu said earlier that he would speak to Trump on Sunday evening. 

"Our eyes are also wide open regarding Iran. I will speak today, as I do every few days, with our friend President Trump," he said in a statement.

 "I will certainly hear his impressions from his trip to China, and perhaps other matters. There are certainly many possibilities; we are prepared for any scenario."

Trump returned to the US on Saturday after his state visit to China, where he and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a series of tariff, agricultural, and aircraft deals.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry described the deals as "preliminary" and said that the two sides had agreed to establish an investment board and a trade board to negotiate reciprocal, product-specific tariff reductions, as well as broader cuts on unspecified goods, including agricultural products.

Notably, during his visit, Trump said that Xi agreed that Iran needs to open the Strait of Hormuz, and that Tehran cannot have a nuclear weapon. 

However, China's foreign ministry expressed frustration with the Iran war, calling it a conflict "which should never have happened, has no reason to continue."

Trump also said he was considering lifting US sanctions on Chinese oil companies buying Iranian oil. China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil.

More...