Zassou July

@jeffcharlesjr We spend more time policing no-no words than going after invaders and child trafficers.

Wait... the decency of our society depends on white people being able to call Black people the N word? I keep telling y'all racists are retards. They show it every day on this app.

@nadya_mcg @Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews I expect my brothers to be better than the stereotypes people place on them. It is a stereotype that black people get violent when you say no no words to their face, a stereotype leftist support when they say "go to the ghetto and say that to them and see what happens"

@ZassouJuly @Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews you're more than equipped to connect the logic between threats of violence and violence. you've done a remarkable amount of gymnastics already, you shouldn't need my help. the only violent thug here is the man that provoked, threatened, maced, and shot people.

What a streamer speed run this guy had. Went from calling people the n word, to macing them, to shooting them all in a week. ChudTheBuilder shot a man who attacked him outside a courthouse in Clarksville & accidentally grazed himself in the process. Before it escalated, he asked the man if he was going to “chimp out” the man then walked up & sucker punched him. It is unclear if the man survived.

@nadya_mcg @Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews How does harassment lead to death for a black man? How is it to not strike out when someone says a no-no word, not an example of civil behavior? Why do you think so less of black people that, of course, they will be a violent thug if you talk to them?

@ZassouJuly @Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews if you antagonize, harass, and threaten people, the social consequences are on you, same with the criminal ones. and what exactly is your point??? that we should harass black people and kill them or else the KKK is correct? the fuck are you even saying?

@CheetohFingers @bryanrbeal If our government lies about shit to no end, what makes you believe a word from the Chinese?

@bryanrbeal Americans need to accept the fact China has surpassed the US in virtually all areas aside from athletics and gun deaths. Entirely self-inflicted defeat driven by greedy, power-hungry oligarchs and sociopaths. No country can prosper when half despises the other half.

The entire data center and AI debate is very binary. Either we win, or China wins. It’s really just that simple. We let them win manufacturing. We can’t let them win AI.

@bryanrbeal If they goal is to not let China win, then bomb those fuckers.

@nadya_mcg @Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews So if you upset someone's feeling, you should get hurt? How about we stop letting black people prove the Klan right with how they express their character?

@Torn_Rose @YourAnonNews you can't antagonize someone, harass them and threaten them, creating the conditions for them to lash back at you with non-lethal means, then pull out a gun and murder them.

@RoseSilicon They reveal themselves as commies trying to override the people's will.

I’m seeing a lot of AI enthusiasts drop the pretense that they can convince people to like AI so now they are calling on the federal government to forcibly seize land and to override local communities.

… (Cont’d) We already have a digital-financial economy. It shouldn’t take much imagination to realize that AI simply turbocharges that. If it works, most people are on the dole and a handful of people get the jobs supervising the machines (maybe - as above, supposedly this gets automated too). However exactly this is supposed to work, it’s an economy that revolves around tech. Not widgets. As above: If AI proponents really believed in factories, they would build some. There are probably more reasons why AI and industry don’t get along, but you should get the idea by now. I’ll leave off there. Ultimately, this is a question of what type of economic ecosystem we want to live in, and this is where we circle back to the military part. It’s axiomatic (and people are starting to get it) that it’s impossible to have a defense industrial base without having a broader industrial base, simply put. You can’t mobilize your sewing machine factories to make machine guns if you have no sewing machine factories; the cheap steel that goes into battleship hulls comes from a plant that also employs metallurgists who make toaster trays; it’s a lot easier to get plastic to make Kevlar if you’ve also got plastics plants that make toys. Etc, etc. As above, when you produce abundant stuff, you have Abundance. This is actually -especially- true in a drone-and-missile war, where military success depends on the mass production of actual widgets. And it’s much better in that case to have an industrial base with a little touch of in-house military AI - -which is basically what China has done- - than to have an AI Idiocracy with negligible physical productivity. And that, if we don’t stop cheering for this and apply the brakes, is where we’re headed. FIN/

… (Cont’d) But even apart from the inflationary/monetary issue, there are other good reasons to believe AI is bad for industry. The next one is education. Right-wingers, of course, are salivating at the prospect of AI destroying higher ed to pwn the libs, but they need to be careful, because whereas we were headed toward a conservative/right-wing renaissance in higher ed once Trump’s election reopened the Overton window and issued a rebuke to the woke consensus, this all but can’t happen in an environment where LLM cheating is rampant. It just can’t: Even if students are exceptionally honest, the sheer prevalence of the phenomenon lowers standards; what would previously have been a C essay gets bumped to a B on “thanks for being honest” grounds; what would previously have been grounds for expulsion becomes a stern talking-to; the student who previously should have been failed sails through with flying colors and becomes the next teacher’s problem and the new benchmark for good work; etc. Industrial society cannot tolerate this. It’s about results, again: Either the engineer is literate enough to read a tech manual and the boss is literate enough to give a speech to a trade show…or not. And while industry likes math especially, and math is easier to shelter from AI than writing, at the end of the day there are too many mental skills that we take for granted now that only develop in AI’s absence. This, of course, extends to broader society. To give one example out of many: Industrial economies, and especially ones where the factories are not state-owned (which we might like to have eventually), require the rule of law and complex legal administration - they require basic law and order, sanctity of contract, rigorous enforcement of property rights, uniform regulatory enforcement, efficient handling of disputes, etc. (Yes, even in China: It’s tyrannical, but its bureaucracy functions and so do its SOEs.) And unless you want graduates of Costco Law School (IYKYK) adjudicating cases, the entire law school pipeline, from high school to pre-law undergrad to law school itself, has to be ring-fenced from AI. And no matter how you do this, you are at least forced to admit it’s a giant stumbling block. And then there’s the robot factories angle. Yes: It -might- be true that highly intelligent, autonomous robots are the wave of the future - but it’s telling that China, which is supposedly beating us in this, acquired its industry the old fashioned way. Still, stipulating that this might be true: The only way to maintain the robots (which at present we barely have, and do not produce at scale) is an educated workforce capable of understanding their code, QC-ing their components, and policing their behavior. And we might add: Humans need to QC their -output- as well. Think an AI designed by the people who want you eating bugs in pods will cure cancer? Suppose it does: The only way to know if the robots making the pills aren’t putting poison in them is educated humans checking up on them. They’d better not have gone through their biochem classes doing their homework with LLMs. The AI proponents sidestep this by essentially saying that they will develop machines to maintain and supervise the machines that maintain and supervise…(etc). The first of many obvious flaws in this line of reasoning is that they just haven’t done it. “Assume infinite machines with infinite competence.” Ok. That’s not all, though. The -next- problem is that AI, and tech more broadly (with which it is becoming synonymous) is an American Dutch Disease. The term refers to a situation (as happened to the Netherlands with North Sea oil) where a single economic sector gets so far ahead of all others that everything revolves around it - all of the best people go into it; all of society’s resources go into maintaining it. (Cont’d) …

… (Cont’d) In the first place, industry does not like inflationary environments - and, as above, this project is designed to produce money printing. It is certainly true that inflationary monetary policy is used in wartime to -mobilize existing industry-, and, since we’re starting from scratch, borrowing and printing to start up factories is unfortunately necessary - but over time (and this is a long-term problem) industry creation does not thrive in inflationary environments. The reasons for this in turn are structural and cultural, and hard to list, but here are a few. For starters, industry is ultimately about “right answers”: Either a gadget saves money and time or it doesn’t; either a widget does the job or it doesn’t; either the bridge supports hold or the bridge collapses; etc, etc. It thrives on logic, competence, results, and attention to detail. Inflation - which makes everything around you seem illusory (“That cost what?” “You can make money doing -that-?” “Is that a lot?” “It’s only money - who cares?”) - is -death- on rigor and results. And, conversely, it supports bullshit, mania, fraud, and get-rich-quick schemes. (See above: just as tech is inflationary, inflation begets demand for tech.) Industry doesn’t thrive in this. For another matter: Industry rewards and serves thrift. The reason to buy physical widgets (whatever they are) is that they help with physical productivity. Culturally, industrial cultures are famously thrifty and practical: Yankee frugality and Quaker simplicity are bywords for a reason. Inflationary environments - where the point of policy is to splash money around and encourage spending - do not encourage this. In fact, they destroy it. Additionally, and of course, inflation encourages -consumption-, and incidentally financializes economies (all that printed money goes to banks first and funds bonuses and “casino capitalism”). Industry - which can only develop over the long term - requires investment, and in particular a stable or even slightly -de-flationary monetary environment where what is saved today is worth more tomorrow. (Again, this is a folkways difference - industry in the US developed amid three folkways that thought like this: Yankeedom, which prizes hard work and self-abnegation for their own sake; Quakerdom, which values modesty and saving for a rainy day; and, arguably I think, New France, which values big dreams and determination. Not all cultures do this; conversely, the -loss- of these values in their heartlands tracks American decline.) So the idea that industry would develop amid money printing to fund UBI to pay people to watch slop and eat bugs is pretty ludicrous. TBF: I’ll steelman it - you could put all the laid off workers to work in factories. If there were any. But you might want to build some first. More to the point, if this is the end goal, you could skip the middleman and just build some factories. And in any case, if you notice - and per the above - the Davos crowd who came up with this movement, and its rank and file, just. don’t. care. about. industry. It’s not on their radar screens; it will take care of itself. That alone should flag -all- arguments about AI and industry as presumptively dishonest. (I’ll talk about robots in a second; don’t worry.) (Cont’d) …

… (Cont’d) First, -in theory-, mass AI adoption is designed to create mass layoffs. This, of course, destroys demand and essentially forces the government to pay people to sit at home and consume the AI companies’ product. It’s difficult to see how this does anything for the economy apart from forcing it to run in place, demoralizing huge swathes of the workforce, and reducing potential entrepreneurs to penury and depression. A cynic - or even just someone with experience - would suggest this was in fact the point. (I actually think there’s a social psychological element here to why proponents discount this: There is a type of person who likes to see themself as tough-minded, who gravitates toward “It’s brutal, but we have to” arguments. That personality is on display in this argument. But that does not make it true.) Second, and related to this: We’ve seen this before. The idea that you could create mass prosperity through mass layoffs was tried in the ‘90s and ‘00s at the behest of free traders boosted by the World Economic Forum. It’s a Davos idea - from the same people who brought you net zero, lockdowns, and mass immigration. Just on that information, you should already be running away. Third: -AI-, in its private sector, civilian form, is a Davos idea. It’s the brainchild of Bill Gates - the man who also brought you gain-of-function research at Wuhan (boriquagato.substack.com/p/were-some-fo…), mentored Anthony Fauci (gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-ce…), and talks routinely about feeding you bugs (gatesfoundation.org/about/committe…) - and his protégée Sam Altman and the latter’s former colleague Dario Amodei. (Do I also need to mention these people are Epstein-adjacent at one or two removes?) Again: You should already be running away. Ok, so what? Maybe the people who brought you deindustrialization; mass layoffs; mutant viruses, lockdowns, and shitty vaccine mandates; Third World reverse colonization; climate hysteria; and money printing to hide the pain from all of the above (everything these people do sooner or later ends with a printer) have a point this time, and this time their mass layoffs and money printing will lead to renewed prosperity and power. Stopped clocks and whatever. Fine. Read on. -Here- is the actual problem: The kind of economic growth the US needs is industrial, not financial, both for military purposes and - and this is the key part - because physical productivity is how you get wage growth and actual Abundance. Industry literally means you have more physical products to work with; it also employs people across a wide variety of tasks that all are rewarded with a little piece of the proceeds. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs; manufacturing societies are middle class societies. Even apart from military applications, being the society that builds physical stuff is how you get it for cheap. Stuff is good. And AI is death to an industrial economy, and is therefore the -enemy- of American industrial renewal, not its handmaiden. The reasons are actually many and varied, but let’s list a few. (Cont’d) …

I’m going to respond to this once, because it’s an argument that’s been making the rounds and it’s worth a thorough rebuttal. The argument is that anyone opposed to AI is opposed to economic growth and national economic renewal. We will see why that’s not true. First, some stipulations are in order. First, AI cannot be uninvented, and most AI skeptics/opponents/whatever get this. The question is how to handle it, and whether especially to regard it as a good thing to be encouraged and not a bad thing to be discouraged, society-wide. This of course comes up in governance questions (data centers), but also in civil society norms (eg: if you wrote your post with an LLM, do I engage with it or tell you to come back with an original thought?). Second, AI has obvious military application (drones), so its development is necessary for those purposes. But as we will see, this is itself a strawman on both sides, because a serious effort to develop military AI would be in-house, akin to what Israel, Ukraine, and, yes, China do, and not in the hands of companies staffed with H1-B visa holders and run by maniacs who mostly want to hook their brains up to a computer. Ie, if we find that AI is good for military use but deleterious to civil society, we’d want to handle it like nuclear technology and use it for the necessary thing and not the other thing. It’s the civil society side that we’re talking about. Got all that? Because a lot of people don’t. Are you sure? K - moving on. The argument is that -civilian development- of AI is -good for the US economy-, not the military per se. This is widely assumed, because everybody asserts that AI creates “efficiency.” But it is rarely examined. Let’s have a look. In the first place, nobody even on the pro-AI side actually makes the efficiency argument. Broadly pro-AI economic analyses essentially argue its impact is likely to be close to nil. Eg: fortune.com/2026/05/04/is-… (This one is interesting in particular because it’s an “official endorsement” of something I say a lot: A tool that increases the production of fraud and bullshit and obscures signals by flooding the “marketplace of ideas” with slop is -in-flationary and -in-efficient, not deflationary and efficient.) People repeating the talking point that AI is an economic boon need to understand that their own side’s experts are not in fact saying this - and the burden is actually on them if they want to pursue it. Supposing they did, though, let’s consider some problems with the thesis. (Cont’d) …

@FloppingAces It is better to nuke China than to build this novel technology that only serves to bring us more advertisers.

Oh look, another day of America’s smartest environmental warriors having a collective meltdown because a data center might use as much water as Karen’s oversized McMansion and three Starbucks runs. Meanwhile the average golf course in Texas is out here guzzling half a million gallons a day so retired accountants can wear ugly pants and shank balls ... and not a single blue-check Karen has called for a moratorium on that sacred ritual. These are the same clowns who cheered while we imported half of China’s coal-powered manufacturing base, but now they’re clutching pearls over American data centers “ruining the view.” Cry harder. Your Chinese donors are building server farms with slave labor and zero regulations while you demand “environmental justice” studies that conveniently hand Beijing the entire century. The hypocrisy isn’t just peak ... it’s weaponized treason with better PR. Build the damn things and tell these frauds to pound sand. (article below)

@BlackDumpling The elite already want us to die poor and homeless, and the elite want these data centers. Jeez, I wonder if they are the good guys in all of this?

Loudoun County is the richest county in the United States and it has the largest concentration of Data Centers in the world. When I tell you that these Anti-AI people are out to ensure you die poor I'm not kidding. Taken from the County's own website. loudoun.gov/m/faq?cat=242

@scottlincicome China is only building theirs for the credit score system they manage. I don't want to emulate communists ever, so I won't support my loss of freedom to A.I. surveillance. And even if that wasn't true, more data just means more targeted advertising.

Datacenter opposition is quickly joining fracking, GMOs, vaccines, the NWO, the Great Replacement, and other loony fringe beliefs that stagnationists, politicians, & grifters embrace AND that seriously harm the US & global economies. Not good.

“We gotta beat China!” the Big Tech oligarchs bleat. Sure thing. Fire all the Chinese nationals you’re currently paying to steal everything you have and get back to me. (Spoiler alert: they will never in a million years do that.)

@charlesmayne69 They keep drumming that beat, and people are gonna ask why we haven't started bombing them yet if they are so bad.

Do these boomers have any idea how tired we are of hearing "the Chinese therefore we have to fuck you." I think it's time they get fucked instead.

@MallardReborn China has the need for them due to the credit score system, only reason I can see to emulate them.

The Tucker debate with Kevin O'Leary on AI and data centers was quite discouraging. Basically O'Leary's case for going all in on AI was: 1- We have to, because China. 2- AI will create millions of jobs, but I can't tell you what they will be; you just have to trust me, and if you keep pressing me on this, see #1.

@Cernovich You need a massive data center for a credit score system, probably why China with a credit score system is fasttracking their centers for that purpose and not an A.I. superweapon.

Remember those vaccine passports that Big Tech pushed for? The tech wasn't available yet. With AI + data centers in Utah, that won't be a problem in 2030. Add in digital currency, and it's full on slavery. It will be totally inescapable. Cradle-to-grave slavery, forever.

@Cernovich We could also just attack and nuke China. War with them is inevitable, so we should roll for the first strike initiative

Imaging being such a slave that you would support data centers after what Big Tech did to the country. “We have to beat China!” This is so funny. Remember when Big Tech banned you for discussing COVID being created in China? These guys love China. They are all in bed together.