Is it AGI or ASI if biological neurons do the processing? At what point will they claim they are God?

Who is the enemy of the United States government now? Here is a hint:

That is what empires do
when they start to decline.
They stop feeding their people.
They start eating them.

I am going to make one comment on the above tirade: why is Trump praising Allah?

From Grok:

2026 data confirms hyperscalers including Amazon have issued over $200 billion in bonds so far this year for AI infrastructure, with analysts linking the surge in long-dated supply to elevated Treasury yields and wider spreads over risk-free rates.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We should all be asking why? Why the data centers? Why do they want to make water and electricity scarce? Is this a coordinated effort or the consolidation of major corporations?

Looking at this from the outside, it appears that xAI and Amazon would be competing against each other. One major advancement by one company would make all of the other corporate bonds worthless. Who will win?

There are many questions but an AI network in space powered by the sun without the need for cooling would seem like the winning strategy. Couple that infrastructure with Musk’s existing AI, heavy launch capability and chip production and it seems obvious that $200 billion in corporate bonds so far this year are not a good investment if Musk dominates the market.

So what happens when the AI market is destroyed by one company with a major advancement? What happens to these bonds, our water supply, environment damage by heat and our electric grid? What happens to all of the information that they have already gathered about individual people?

The biggest question today is what happens when the world recognizes that US Treasuries are worthless? The cost to finance the national debt is unsustainable and hyperinflation will be the tool of choice to keep the government running. I think the question of “when” this happens is moot: Bessent’s actions at the Treasury have failed, the FED is trapped and the rates for USTs continue to rise.

The biggest question is their endgame. In a world that is bankrupt, fiat currencies are destroyed, water and power become scarce commodities and Big Brother is watching our every move, what will be our fate?

I had not considered this possibility. Imagine not having to be placed in an assisted living facility as your wealth is drained. Imagine not being at the mercy of low skilled workers.

Then again, we may end our lives fighting evil as the nation falls. If I get an Optimus, the first training requirement will be field dressings on the battlefield.

Roth Note: This post is for those who study Scripture deeply, not for the average church goer who will likely find it distasteful. After reading this I asked myself, what if Yahweh really is one of the sons of the Supreme God – Creator of All and only just the god of Israel, not the god of all nations? For me, that would explain a lot …

by Laurent Guyenot

I’ve heard about Russell Gmirkin’s work for a few years, but it is only very recently that I decided to give it a try. What I had heard of his theories sounded so extravagant that I had assumed it couldn’t possibly be serious scholarship. Well, I can report that it is serious scholarship. Cutting edge, and groundbreaking. I became so absorbed that I read his three books in a row, took notes, and will now try my very best to give you an overview. The material is so rich and the implications so vast that I will need two parts for his first book, and two parts for his other two books. Gmirkin’s work turns the spotlight on what has been, for two thousand years and some, the most successful of all Jewish adaptative strategies, and the mother of all others.

The original Deuteronomy 32:8–9 casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El, here called Elyôn. Each of El’s sons receives one nation, and Yahweh receives Israel. According to Old Testament scholar Mark S. Smith, author of The Early History of God (first published in 1990), this reflects an ancient conception that was not specific to Israel, but echoes an ancient theology of the Near East. Some of the Ugaritic texts written in northern Syria in the 13th and 12th centuries bc, and discovered in 1928, call the supreme god El, and the other gods “sons of El.”

Because the Abrahamic religions define themselves as monotheism, they define the religions they supplanted as polytheism. This is a polemical perspective that historians are now challenging. Two collections of essays have recently been devoted to “pagan monotheism”, published respectively by Oxford UP and Cambridge UP.[6] John North writes in One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire: “throughout the classical period and far earlier in the Near East, monotheistic assumptions are quite commonly found, without apparently raising any fears of weakening polytheistic practice.”[7] Such a concept of the divine realm as a “family of gods” (a cosmic god and his terrestrial offspring), or as one God in multiple forms, may be called “inclusive monotheism”, and contrasted with the Jewish “exclusive monotheism” that rejects the existence of any god but the supreme God. As we saw above, that exclusive monotheism is the result of promoting “Yahweh the god of Israel” to the throne of the supreme creator of heaven and earth. The jealous god ends up negating the very existence of all his competitors, thereby affirming that he is the only real god, and is therefore God. Yahweh’s promotion is an usurpation, however, in the sense that the supreme God is now regarded an a personal and rather crude entity with an exclusive love for one particular people. Jewish exclusive monotheism, therefore, is in reality a pathological form of polytheism: the cult of the ethnic god who thinks he is God.

My French Catholic Bible (published by the Dominicans of the École Biblique de Jérusalem) adds a footnote to that passage, saying that Rahab’s “profession of faith to the God of Israel … made Rahab, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.” I find this footnote, likening the Gentile Church to the whore of Jericho, emblematic of the true role of Christianity. For it is indeed the Church that, by acknowledging the god of Israel as the universal God, introduced the Jews into the heart of the Gentile city and, over the centuries, allowed them to seize power.

Read the entire Part 4 of the essay …

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.

The Foreign Ministers of the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of Qatar, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Arab Republic of Egypt express their unequivocal condemnation of Israel’s continued illegal settlement policies in the occupied Palestinian territory and their complete rejection of the E1 settlement plan and related settlement activities in occupied East Jerusalem. They also reiterate their condemnation of the violations and acts of violence perpetrated by settlers, with the support of the Israeli occupation authorities, against the Palestinian people and their property. They affirm that these practices in no way diminish the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, constitute violations of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, and represent a serious threat to regional and international peace and security.

The ministers warn that the E1 settlement plan constitutes a dangerous escalation that would further settlement expansion and annexation, undermining the territorial contiguity of the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly between the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This threatens the viability of an independent, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. These actions directly challenge international efforts to achieve peace, including President Donald Trump’s comprehensive peace plan, which explicitly rejects annexation and forced displacement, as well as the mechanisms envisaged for its implementation, including through the Peace Council. They also challenge President Trump’s firm commitment to preventing the annexation of the West Bank in order to achieve stability and end the conflict.

More…

Roth Note: This essay explains how our pre-Christian ancestors were ruled. In light of all the impassioned discussion regarding governments, I thought this might prove of interest. I would also point out that the same issue discussed here regarding Europe also applies to America and all the rest of Western Civilization. Don’t let the ‘pagan’ inferences put you off. If you take the time to read the essay you’ll learn something of history even if you don’t like some of the flavor of the content. Sometimes we can find historical truth distasteful, but its still truth.

The decline in Western civilisation is not just due to poor policies.

Poor policies are, of course, symptomatic of the decline, but the fundamental cause is something much deeper: a physical, psychological, and spiritual severance marking the last stage of a very, very long process of historical change.

Where political systems were once organic — arising from a natural order which bound rulers biologically and spiritually to their own people — society is now governed by soulless machinery, ruled from a position of total detachment.

Rule: A Historical Constant and a Biological Necessity

Firstly, we must understand the following phenomenon: a global and historical constant, the requirement of rulers. And by constant I don’t mean they cannot be usurped, but that at least one ruling class must exist at any given time within an organised society.

Throughout time, in all political systems — even under Communism, National Socialism and Liberal Democracy —popular sovereignty has never been present: power structures consistently manifest organized rule over the less organised, whether that’s through the state and its force, e.g., under Communism and National Socialism, or through financial and media tools, as under Liberal Democracy, or perhaps via asset, resource and labour ownership in feudal systems, or by other means.

Surely, if such a thing is constant, then it’s a manifestation of human nature, and exists independently of human will. If we observe closely, rule is discovered at the first minute of human life; while a chick breaks free from its shell and is immediately free, the human infant is born mute and devoid of liberty. Survival is only possible because the infant is received into a social order that provides guardianship. This can also be referred to as protective inequality. And so, authority is no symbol of oppression, but is a necessary condition for a people’s salvation.

And so the issue we face, I believe, is not simply that we are secretly ruled whilst under the false pretences of Democracy’s promise of self-rule (although that is a problem), but that the very nature of our rulers — despite their ideological iterations — has long since transformed from what it was in ancient times into something unfit.

In other words, it has transformed from the organic into the mechanical: an official-administrative facade where rule functions as a machine for doing evil, driven by brute causes rather than the reasoned judgement of an elite bound to its people.

If we are to grasp how organic politics across Europe (and by extension, America) came to be destroyed, then we must first understand a vital property inside these systems, especially relating to who their rulers were:

A group consisting of talented families deriving from the peasantry, physically and spiritually tied to the land, linked together by holy laws, and based on the belief in the reality of hereditary inequality.

Today, a mechanical rule takes its place: an elite abstracted from the nation, and so always at the mercy of outsiders and financial interests, and spiritually severed from the people they rule and the land they rule over.

The pagan Germanic king was someone appointed by the free community and held accountable, through the witenagemot or its non-English moot equivalents. The king remained an equal among equals, where his authority emerged from the self-government of the people rather than existing apart from it. When he failed in his responsibilities, the Germanic freemen did not hesitate at all to remove him instantly.

Continue reading the essay …

I asked Grok “What lessons were learned from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union that were incorporated into the Constitution”?

Grok:

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (ratified 1781) created a deliberately weak central government—a “firm league of friendship” among sovereign states—reflecting postwar fears of concentrated power. Experience under this system exposed critical flaws that nearly paralyzed the young nation economically, diplomatically, and in terms of internal order (most dramatically illustrated by Shays’ Rebellion in 1786–87). The Framers of the 1787 Constitution deliberately corrected these defects while retaining a federal structure that still protected state authority in many areas.

…

In short, the Constitution replaced a confederation of sovereign states with a compound federal republic possessing sufficient energy and authority to govern a continental nation, while still dispersing power through separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a written bill of rights (added shortly afterward). The experience under the Articles demonstrated that excessive fear of central authority could be as dangerous to liberty and prosperity as excessive centralization itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I then asked it for the differences between a confederation vs a federation:

The distinction between the two terms was sharpened in American political language precisely because of the shift from the Articles (confederation) to the Constitution (federation). The same contrast later appeared during the Civil War, when the seceding Southern states formed the Confederate States of America in deliberate opposition to the Federal Union.

In short: a confederation prioritizes state autonomy with a loose central bond; a federation creates a stronger national government while still preserving meaningful state powers under a constitutional framework.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your thought exercise: Did the founding fathers abandon their distrust of the government when writing the proposed Constitution or did they limit the power of the new Federal government as a solution to the problems of the AOC?

This will be discussed at the PATCON. What went wrong with the limitation of the Constitution over time. In other words, how did the box get opened and the State’s power become eroded?

Now that the lofty 250th-anniversary rhetoric about the greatness of our country has faded, it is time to face the reality of our country’s actual behavior. The U.S. fashions itself as a generous and benevolent world leader enforcing the “rules-based order”—a deceptive construct used by globalist elites to bully other countries. The rules are arbitrarily changed to suit the bullies and are regularly fashioned into pretexts for military action against uncooperative nations. In short, it is a hoax, untethered from the principles and ideals of our founders.

Almost daily we witness some spectacle illustrating the appalling corruption of our country’s leadership. The recent release of Anthony Fauci’s diary entries confirms long-held suspicions about the Covid-19 narrative, which we now know even Fauci himself did not fully believe. Think of the millions of lives ruined and harmed by that corruption. Yet this vain phony, when asked to testify before Congress, hid behind half a dozen lawyers and refused to answer any questions. What a fine example of transparency from one of our leading scientists and civil servants! What else are our leaders still hiding about the worldwide disaster caused by Covid-related deceptions and manipulations? There has not yet been any meaningful examination of our medical profession, which largely acted as cowards during the pandemic, adhering to the bogus official narrative at the expense of the welfare of their patients.

Our leadership has not even begun to scratch the surface of the horrors created by the many secret—and potentially illegal—biolabs scattered around the globe, supported by funds often hidden from voters under the guise of “national security.” The Fauci crowd appears to have been deeply involved in that dark world.

America’s Middle East policy remains a source of shame. The U.S. Treasury secretary brags about ruining the currency of the Iranian people, against whom we have waged a war of aggression. In Gaza, Washington has enabled a brutal assault on a vulnerable population. Not many years ago, most Americans considered standing up for the vulnerable and innocent an honorable act of a true American. Not our leaders. These days, opposing the harm of politically inconvenient innocents attracts name-calling, ostracism, and sanctions. What would our Founding Fathers have thought of that?

Our political leadership’s frenzied efforts to hide the Epstein files make it look as though the “national security” excuse is merely a convenient tool to obscure malfeasance, rape, blackmail, bribery, and plain old corruption. They clearly believe they are not subject to the same pesky and inconvenient laws as the rest of us who live in the country. So much for equal protection under the law and the “rules-based order.”

There is one positive development: The American people, especially the younger generation, are beginning to recognize the corruption at the top of our country and the magnitude of the war lies. They understand that the special interests driving these belligerent policies care nothing about the well-being of the general populace or of our nation. There has always been skepticism toward powerful special interests, but we are moving past skepticism into righteous fury.

Ours is not an “exceptional nation.” It is not the “shining city on a hill.” It is not “a thousand points of light.” Not anymore. It is a declining empire with a declining military—one unable to protect its allies, yet still seeking to bully and harm any country that angers its corrupt elites.

With a governing elite that serves foreign and special interests rather than the people and a sweeping surveillance state that stretches from sea to shining sea, Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned. A sobering question to consider: When the illusion finally shatters, who will be left willing to defend a government that wouldn’t defend its own?

Read the entire post…

Roth Note: For my Christian friends.

JDA has a new book out that addresses a very serious flaw in the modern Church:

Jon Del Arroz’s new book, The Wages of Sin, is out today. It follows Churchianity, for which I wrote the introduction and which hit #1 in Amazon’s religious philosophy category last year. Where Churchianity diagnosed the consumer-driven model reshaping American parishes, the new book turns to a word Del Arroz says most pulpits quietly retired: sin.

The Wages of Sin builds its structure on the Confiteor, the confession prayer Catholics have recited at every Mass since at least the tenth century. Del Arroz splits the book into four sections, one for each phrase of the prayer: thoughts, words, deeds, and omissions. Nine chapters work through the sins Augustine confessed in his Confessions, including pride dressed as worship, envy refined into schadenfreude, the spiritual torpor the Church Fathers called acedia, and the four sins Scripture names as crying out to heaven for vengeance. Each chapter closes with an examination of conscience, and the appendix adds a full one plus a vice-virtue table for daily use.

The book leans on Augustine’s framework of sin as disordered love: not a checklist of prohibitions, but the habit of loving the wrong things, or loving right things out of order. Del Arroz traces that idea into Romans 6:23 and the Catechism’s teaching on mortal sin, arguing that a Church which stopped naming sin also stopped being able to prescribe its cure.

The post-1960s idea of welcoming sinners into the church and refraining from judgment was correct in theory and flawed in application. The point is to welcome the sinner, not to accept and embrace the sin. And now we have “churches” featuring open satanists pretending to be priests and pastors, preaching blasphemy from the pulpits.

One hopes The Wages of Sin will help restore much-needed order to the Christian churches.

From Vox Popoli …

19. A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value will perish.

20. The White race has suffered invasions and brutality from Africa and Asia for thousands of years. For example, Attila and the Asiatic Huns who invaded Europe in the 5th century, raping, plundering and killing from the Alps to the Baltic and the Caspian Seas. This scenario was repeated by the Mongols of Genghis Khan 800 years later. (Note here that the American Indians are not Native Americans, but are racially Mongolians.) In the 8th century, hundreds of years before Negroes were brought to America, the North African Moors of mixed racial background invaded and conquered Portugal, Spain and part of France. So, the attempted guilt-trip placed on the White race by civilizations executioners is invalid under both historical circumstance and the Natural Law which denies inter-species compassion. The fact is, all races have benefited immeasurably from the creative genius of the Aryan People.

21. People who allow others not of their race to live among them will perish, because the inevitable result of a racial integration is racial inter-breeding which destroys the characteristics and existence of a race. Forced integration is deliberate and malicious genocide, particularly for a People like the White race, who are now a small minority in the world.

22. In the final analysis, a race or species is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive.

23. Political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected by men, but the death of a race is eternal.

24. No race of People can indefinitely continue their existence without territorial imperatives in which to propagate, protect, and promote their own kind.

25. A People without a culture exclusively their own will perish.

26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.

28. The concept of a multi-racial society violates every Natural Law for species preservation.

The solution to passing the SAVE Act is to ask Israel how much money they want to allow Congress to pass it.