Our Latest

▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

Once again humanity is being threatened by an artificial existential crisis, this one actually containing the word artificial in it - presented to us in the form of artificial intelligence (AI).

As AI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy expressed it to Patrick Bet-David last week, there is "a 99.999% chance that humanity will be destroyed by AI" and that government should be called in to control it. In these claims he is not alone, and is supported by the likes of AI researcher and founder of the AI safety company Conjecture, Connor Leahy.

Their calls for government controls are highly suspicious in light of their insistence that AI cannot possibly be controlled. However, upon reviewing the AI industry's poor returns on investment, British tech critic Ed Zitron offers us an insight to the true nature of the latest crisis.

In light of the bigger picture, one cannot help but notice how these and other AI experts are promoting the same agenda as did all of the Covid experts during the last existential crisis. In both cases it appears that the crisis is not existential, but financial.

To distract us from the real fiscal nature of the crisis, they have anthropomorphized the concept of AI into a human foe, using terms that cannot possibly be applicable to computer programs, no matter how sophisticated.

These computer experts speak about "AI agents" as entities that "don't care" about humanity, that can "lie, cheat, and steal," and that have "minds" as yet not understood by the experts themselves. The experts claim that AI agents can "want" to do things and are capable of being "convinced" by their own conclusions.

And perhaps the real stupidity underlying all of these artificial attributes is the argument that AI is capable of possessing them "...because the only thing (AI agents) care about is the reward."

One can only imagine what a "reward" might mean to a mechanical device or process, let alone how it could possibly "care" about getting this reward. The very idea is an absurdity.

"Artificial" can refer to something man-made or to something that is not real. When it comes to artificial intelligence it means both: man made and not real.

Until both terms - artificial and intelligence - are defined in a proper relevant context, the term artificial intelligence (or AI) will continue to enable those with sinister intentions to terrorize the populace - while forcing taxpayers to subsidize their financial misadventures.

Remember, just as big pharma was suffering declining revenues and returns on investment, an existential crisis threatening all of humanity via a novel virus requiring vaccines was created. And who bought all of the "vaccines" that weren't even vaccines? Why, governments of course. And thus their financial crisis was averted.

It seems to us that the AI industry is attempting the same strategy. Calling for governments to put "external pressure" on them to control AI, what they are really after is an external subsidy of taxpayer money to save them from their own existential financial crisis.

While we would like to believe otherwise, it's looking more and more as if there is a 99.999% probability that we could be Just Right.

▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

Moderated by Patrick Bet David, the four-hour-long August 14 debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson has been viewed and heard by hundreds of millions of people.

For his argument, 'master debater' Andrew Wilson asserted that the evidence proving that Tyler Robinson was the lone gunman responsible for shooting Charlie Kirk, was "overwhelming."

In contrast, blogger and YouTuber Candace Owens argued that the probability of Robinson having shot Kirk was "zero," and that the evidence she had accumulated led her to infer that Robinson may have been a "patsy."

While there were no issues resolved in the determination of Robinson's role, what made the debate worthy of note had little to do with the merits of the Kirk assassination, but a lot about the terms of the debate itself.

Insisting that Candace should be strictly limited to questioning the official narrative and to refrain from infering any other narrative, Wilson simply refused to accept any evidence presented by Owens, even when she herself was a first hand witness.

What was clear is that Candace Owens fully understood the context, legal issues, and relevant facts underlying the Utah preliminary hearings, while Wilson knew next to nothing. Most embarrassingly, he insisted that Candace remove evidence from her own investigative time line because it created a narrative that would refute the official one.

As YouTuber Lionel Nation framed it: "We have to realize that Candace is sort of a journalist. (Wilson) wants her to release what's on her time line because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand or grasp the essence of what this is all about."

In the absence of any knowledge regarding the subject, Wilson turned the debate into an argument over the nature of inferences, what constitutes hearsay, the use of intuition, the legitimacy of sources, and of course, his objection to Candace's timeline on the grounds that it isn't 'official.'

For Wilson, the debate was an exercise in what could be called 'masterdebation.' In this context, he certainly proved himself to be a Master Debater - the kind who doesn't really need an opponent.

To add insult to injury, the self-identified 'libertarian Christian ethicist' Wilson saw himself as a defender of the Right: "I was willing to pay three hundred thousand dollars for this debate to finally demand that Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigations are indistinguishable from a Leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the Right if she were trying."

Sadly, throughout the entire debate, Andrew Wilson did not say a single thing or debate in a manner that could be considered Just Right in any sense of that term.

▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

"It is written."

With those words, both the authority and permanence of the written word was established.

This authority was based on the principle that whatever is written does not change with the passage of time, thanks primarily to the function of paper.

In an age where things are written or recorded in digitized formats, it is always easy to change or alter the original, and this has become a point of great concern. Changing, deleting, or altering documents and recordings of the past amounts to creating a false history.

In the digital virtual world, this process is made relatively effortless and can be used to advance current agendas incompatible with history's reality. We can see this clearly in the on-line 'fake news' narratives of the Left.

Of course, this is nothing new to our era. Even in the past when paper was the predominant medium on which records, stories, and other historical events were recorded, accounts of royalty, governments, and religious authorities destroying such records and re-writing the histories of their time are surprisingly common.

There are many on-line voices now emerging who are warning against today's destruction of historical records - from what 'is written' to what has been produced and recorded by other technologies, like music, movies, documentaries, television shows, films, videos, etc.

Together, they are urging the public to buy and preserve physical copies of paper books, and to own physical copies of other media, such as DVD discs, video tapes, audio tapes, vinyl recordings, hard drives, etc., even though dependent on older and changing technologies.

"Books are civilization's memories and once printed on paper cannot be changed," observes Glenn Beck, while King Trout expresses the same sentiment towards other technologies in physical form: "Physical media is not just about plastic discs, it's an archive of human history."

Like computers and other various technologies capable of recording or transmitting information, paper too is an advanced technology, one that happens to possess a significant advantage over the other technologies. What is written on paper cannot simply be changed or altered at the push of a button, or made obsolete due to changing technologies, or rendered inaccessible due to power outages.

That's what continues to make paper the medium that is Just Right for the establishment of any objective authority and physical permanence on which "it is written."

▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

Now retired, Dave Annis was a teacher and vice-principal over a period of 25 years at the London Board of Education in London Ontario Canada. Coincidentally, Robert Vaughan was an elected education trustee for the same board.

Freed from the constraints of his past profession, Dave was able to compare notes with Robert on their experiences there, and some of their discoveries and revelations are both surprising and sinister.

While Dave reveals an education system captured by the ideology of the Left, from 'DEI' hiring practices to gender identity policies compelling teachers and administrators to acknowledge and reinforce 'non binary' sexual identities reported by students, Robert recounts how he was the only trustee who saw his task as one of ensuring "the best education at the lowest cost." Without exception, when asked, every other trustee saw their responsibility as a mission to "protect the education system."

Protecting a system that is incapable of even producing literate graduates able to read and write, and which dispenses diplomas to 100% of students regardless of their academic performance, is clearly a system that is using the students, not serving them.

When the pursuit of knowledge has been turned into a boring and repetitive exercise of memorizing useless and false information, it should not be surprising that more people than ever are abandoning so-called 'public' education. Alternatives abound. All that is necessary is to choose those that are Just Right for the individual students involved.

Retired vice-principal Dave Annis joins Robert Vaughan to describe what he could not say while employed: Ontario’s public schools are captured by an identity-focused equity ideology that overrides individual assessment and parental authority.

Staff must affirm any student’s declared gender identity and are forbidden to inform parents. Dual report cards hide pronoun changes from families. Hiring uses a DEI “marginalized” tiebreaker that prioritizes self-identified candidates over pure merit. Special-education resources are cut while a $600,000 DEI team and senior-admin junkets continue. Every student is promoted; diplomas mean nothing. Older teachers who reject the collectivist agenda stay silent under the “golden handcuffs” of pay, pension, and the College of Teachers’ blue pages.

Annis’s solution is direct: remove children from the public system. Ontario law does not require school attendance or even registration. Homeschool, Catholic or private schools, and the per-pupil funding that follows the student are the only levers that force boards to listen. Centralized education cannot be fixed from within.

▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

With 111 'respectful declinations' to answer even a single simple question during the Senate hearing on July 29, Dr. Anthony Fauci certainly appeared to be in a severe state of panic.

He had every reason to decline testifying since he is involved in a criminal conspiracy that extends far beyond his own narrow role in that conspiracy. Nor do his declinations protect him from further legal consequences.

With validated documentation now released that demonstrates Fauci was knowingly lying and spreading false information about the so-called Covid 'vaccines' and prohibited 'gain of function' bio-weapon development, others connected to his activities may soon find themselves similarly compromised.

Worse, from the conspirators' point of view, the released information reveals direct connections between the fake Covid pandemic, the rigging of the 2020 election, the World Health Organization's singular mission of population control, the creation of bio-weapons, a system of criminal racketeering and money laundering, and an explicit conspiratorial strategy to overthrow the United States government.

As Dr. David Martin warned in his September 2025 address to the European parliament, "Until we treat this as a criminal conspiracy of criminal racketeers resulting in global terrorism for the purpose of profiteering and murder - until we have that conversation - we're having the wrong conversation."

Given the repercussions of his now fully revealed criminal activities and connections, Fauci's state of panic may well become contagious as others in his direct line of co-conspirators are rounded up and given their own opportunities to decline making statements.

As far as we're concerned, if Fauci's viral panic pandemic proves to be contagious, that would be Just Right by us.