Menu Icon

Debt Rattle February 15 2026

Feb 152026
 
 February 15, 2026  Posted by at 10:46 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  Add comments


Ito Shinsui Snowy night 1923


• Newsom Tells EU “Trump Is Temporary,” Doubles Down On Failing Green Agenda (ZH)
• Rubio on Fire! (Sarah Anderson)
• Vast Majority Of Americans Want Voter ID And Democrats Don’t Care (ZH)
• The Least Laid Generation in History: Gen Z Is Ghosting Sex (Pinsker)
• OH BABY! Couples Could Make Big Money on Trump Accounts (DS)
• Americans Could Be Silenced by EU Online Speech Laws (ET)
• More Nations Are Mulling Social Media Bans For Teens (ZH)
• The Unsettling Truths the Epstein Files Reveal About Power and Privilege (ET)
• California Democrats Trigger a Reverse Gold Rush with a Wealth Tax (Turley)
• FBI Opened 1,200 ‘Assessments’ Of Sensitive Figures (JTN)
• US Smuggled Starlinks Into Iran Amid Riots – WSJ (RT)
• Trump Makes A HUGE Promise About Voter ID
• American Workers Have Less Than A $1000 in Retirement Savings (Turley)
• Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy (ET)
• “Billion Dollar Movie In One Prompt” (ZH)

 


 

Make sure you take your time today for the Debt Rattle. I know it can seem overwhelming. Watch some videos. Use the time well. Everything goes faster than you think.

Then again, Elon Musk says we are In The Singularity. That means ALL predictions are off. Including Elon’s.

 


 

Miles Deutscher@milesdeutscher

Ok fine – maybe you don’t want to listen to me. I’m just a 25-year-old on the internet.

But maybe you’ll listen to them.

I documented every major warning from the people actually building AI.

Every CEO. Every founder. They’re all saying the same thing.

Read this slowly:

• Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI: “Being a lawyer, an accountant, a project manager, a marketing person – most of those tasks will be fully automated by AI within 12 to 18 months.”

• Elon Musk: “AI and robots will replace all jobs. Working will be optional.” Called AI his “biggest fear.”

• Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic: AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs. Unemployment could hit 20%. Called it “unusually painful.” Then said: “Most lawmakers are unaware this is about to happen.”

• Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: “Some areas, I think just like totally, totally gone.” Said changes that normally take 75 years will be compressed into a short period. Admitted he loses sleep over it.

• Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: “Every job will be affected, and immediately. It is unquestionable.”

• Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase: “It will eliminate jobs. People should stop sticking their head in the sand.” Warned mass AI layoffs without safeguards could trigger “civil unrest.” Said he’d welcome a government ban on mass-firing for AI.

• Stuart Russell (author of the most-used AI textbook in history): Political leaders are “staring 80% unemployment in the face”.

• Kai-Fu Lee, VC & former head of Google China: Called predictions of 50% job displacement by 2027 “uncannily accurate.”

These aren’t journalists. These aren’t influencers. These aren’t politicians trying to get elected.

These are the people building it. Funding it. Deploying it.
And not one of them is saying your job is safe.

 


 

Elon Musk just gave retirement planning the most radical advice possible:

“Don’t worry about squirreling money away for retirement in 10 or 20 years — it won’t matter.

You won’t need to save for retirement.” His reasoning (from the same conversation):

We’re already in the singularity — “the event horizon” where prediction breaks down.

The accelerating timeline makes long-term saving irrelevant.

Services, homes, healthcare, entertainment — abundance will be so extreme that the old rules vanish.

Peter Diamandis: “The way this unfolds is fundamentally impossible to predict because of self-improvement of the AI and the accelerating timeline.”

Elon: “We’re in this beautiful sweet spot… like being at the top of the roller coaster about to drop. I don’t just have courtside seats — I’m on the court.”

If saving for retirement becomes pointless in the next 10–20 years because we’re already past the event horizon…

what’s the first thing you’d change about how you live right now?

 


 

Software that rewrites itself. Huang GenZ 4 Hours? 18 hrs

 


 


Two -very- different futures for America, courtesy of Rubio and Newsom.

• Newsom Tells EU “Trump Is Temporary,” Doubles Down On Failing Green Agenda (ZH)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke at the Munich Security Conference earlier on Friday, telling European elites that President Trump is “temporary” and will be gone within three years. Newsom, noticeably angered by Trump’s push for deregulation and the rollback of climate policy, lashed out at the president, calling him “more destructive” than the current occupant of the White House. The issue for Newsom is that he still operates within the climate crisis framework promoted by globalists, even as the West is moving on from two decades of nation-killing green policy regime that hollowed out parts of the industrial base and fueled inflation.


On Thursday, President Trump rescinded the 2009 Obama-era “Endangerment Finding,” a determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, which he said has been used by the radical left to justify $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs that have hurt American households and sent consumer prices soaring, especially for automobiles. “The single largest deregulatory action in American history. That’s a big statement in American history, and I think we can add the words by far,” Trump told reporters. Also this week, there was considerable discussion among industry leaders in Europe about Brussels watering down carbon-pricing markets, which have made electricity outrageously expensive and crushed the industrial base (Goldman explained more here).

And it is not just Trump and European industry leaders pushing to unwind green policies that have financially crushed working-class families and hollowed out the industrial base; major companies are also dialing back EV production plans and softening green targets as the net-zero dream collides with reality. Here’s what Newsom said earlier at the MSC (courtesy of Real Clear Politics):

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: “Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid. California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Ronald Reagan. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan established the first tailpipe emissions standards in the United States of America and created the California Air Resources Board. Three years later, a president by the name of Richard Nixon — another Republican — codified California’s leadership under the Clean Air Act.

Never in the history of the United States of America has there been a more destructive president than the current occupant in the White House in Washington, D.C. He’s trying to recreate the 19th century. He’s a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil, gas, and coal. He’s quite literally reopening coal plants in the United States of America. He’s received close to half a billion dollars in campaign contributions. He asked for $1 billion — look it up — in return for basically eliminating all regulations in the United States of America. De facto, he just did that yesterday with federal regulations and the endangerment finding.

It is code red in terms of American leadership in this space — low-carbon, green growth — and I know a thing or two about this. I represent the fourth-largest economy, from a GDP perspective, in the world, and we ran the fourth-largest economy last year nine out of ten days on 100% clean energy — two-thirds renewable energy. We’ve seen our GDP grow by 81% since 2000, and we’ve reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 21%. Seven times more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs.

We’re proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, and we can dominate. But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock. And so we’re showing up, but we’re also showing what can be accomplished — the power of emulation. We are in the great implementation in my state. Final word. I hope, if there’s nothing else I can communicate today: Donald Trump is temporary. He’ll be gone in three years. California is a stable and reliable partner in this space, and it’s important for folks to understand the temporary nature of this current administration in relationship to the issue of climate change and climate policy.

MODERATOR]: Governor, many have called Joe Biden the climate president, but that didn’t help with his re-election. So how important do you think climate issues will be for the 2028 presidential election?

GAVIN NEWSOM: Well, you may not believe in science, but you’ve got to believe your own eyes. I mean, people are burning up, choking up, heating up. We have simultaneous droughts and floods. Historic wildfires. You may know little about California, but you’ve seen those images of these wildfires. Talk about being as dumb as we want to be — places, lifestyles, traditions being wiped off the map. Greenville. Paradise, California. And so this issue has been brought home in a very personal way, not a political way. Senator Whitehouse is here — he’s also someone who deeply understands that climate risk is financial risk. It’s becoming uninsurable.

This is an economic issue, not just a moral issue. It’s not just a competitiveness issue. And so it’s incredibly important that we talk in those terms to address some of the political dynamics. But it’s again something we’re on the other side of in California. It’s a big blue state, but it also has more Republicans than most Republican states. And we have long moved beyond the partisanship on this issue, because there is no Republican thermometer, there’s no Democratic thermometer — there’s just reality.And people in my state have been mugged by reality. Those that have been in denial understand that we’re on the other side of the debate.

Read more …

“And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny.”

We Won’t Be ‘Polite and Orderly Caretakers of the West’s Managed Decline’

• Rubio on Fire! (Sarah Anderson)

“The world is changing very fast right in front of us. The old world is gone… We live in a new era in geopolitics, and it’s going to require all of us to reexamine what that looks like and what our role is going to be.” That’s what Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the press before he boarded a plane to Munich, Germany on Thursday evening. Little did we know that this quote was setting the stage for what turned out to be a momentous speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning, a speech that framed the end of one major geopolitical era and the beginning of another. We may well look back on this speech in Munich as another defining moment in the secretary’s career.


Rubio told European leaders that the post–Cold War era is over, that the “euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion: that we had entered, quote, ‘the end of history;’ that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order – an overused term – would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.” He said that this idea was foolish and “ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history.”

While championing the Donald Trump administration’s America-First foreign policy, he also reaffirmed the bond between our nations, saying that the Western Hemisphere may be our home, but we’re a child of Europe, and we share history, culture, and heritage. “We belong together,” he said. But he also made it clear that the world has reached a turning point and course correction is required. Europe must save itself because, “we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” Rubio called on our European allies to revitalize their nations and reject policies leading to their decline.

That includes the embracing of “a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade” and shuttering our plants, which resulted “in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals.” He continued: “We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves. This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military buildup in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests.

To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.”n nAnd in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people. We made these mistakes together, and now, together, we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward, to rebuild.

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. But it wasn’t just a critique or warning about globalization. Rubio explained that it’s the fundamental part of national security. “The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending, because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life,” he said.

“And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny.” Rubio also spoke of how “we can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations,” and how we must reform global institutions. He used the United Nations as an example, explaining that it has potential to be a “tool for good” but right now, it’s basically useless. “But we cannot ignore that today, on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role.”

It could not solve the war in Gaza. Instead, it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce. It had not solved the war in Ukraine. It took American leadership and partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still-elusive peace. It was powerless to constrain the nuclear program of radical Shia clerics in Tehran. That required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers. And it was unable to address the threat to our security from a narco-terrorist dictator in Venezuela. Instead, it took American Special Forces to bring this fugitive to justice.

He concluded: “…America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity, and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends. We want to do it together with you, with a Europe that is proud of its heritage and of its history; with a Europe that has the spirit of creation of liberty that sent ships out into uncharted seas and birthed our civilization; with a Europe that has the means to defend itself and the will to survive.”

The speech, which ended with a long standing ovation, was similar to that of Vice President JD Vance’s Munich moment from last year but a bit softer, a bit more diplomatic. Rubio assured the Europeans that the United States is not abandoning them, but the old playbook is shelved. If the alliance is to continue, Europe must adapt and defend the true interests of its people and Western civilization unlike ever before. You could almost hear a sigh of a relief in the room, but how these European leaders will actually respons remains to be seen. I, for one, am not particularly hopeful.

Read more …

Democrats Don’t Care.

• Vast Majority Of Americans Want Voter ID And Democrats Don’t Care (ZH)

Are voter ID requirements considered a controversial idea in the eyes of US citizens? If you watch the establishment media or follow leaders in the Democratic Party then you might think bills like the SAVE Act are the end of freedom as we know it However, outside the echo chambers of DNC propaganda, the vast majority of Americans have no problem whatsoever with people proving their US citizenship before they vote in local and federal elections. The widespread support for voter ID is undeniable. Surveys from the past year including those from Pew and Gallup show that, regardless of party or ethnicity, Americans citizens want elections to be protected from manipulation through mass illegal immigration.


A Pew Research Center survey from August 2025 found that 83% of Americans favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote. This includes:
95% of Republicans
71% of Democrats
Only 16% of people oppose it.

A Gallup poll from 2024 shows 84% support for requiring photo ID to vote, with 98% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 67% of Democrats in approval.A recent CNN segment featuring number cruncher Harry Enten confirms that the backing for the SAVE Act is also dominant regardless of ethnicity: 85% of white voter, 82% of Latino voters and 76% of black voters all want voter ID. It’s difficult to find many issues which the American public universally supports at this level.

Democrat leaders, however, don’t care that the majority of their own base wants voter ID laws. Party officials and the left-wing media have engaged in a shameless propaganda campaign designed to frighten the public into opposing the SAVE Act, despite their previous platforms defending majority rule. They consistently compare the new laws to “Jim Crow” era restrictions, claiming that minorities (and rural Americans) are too dumb to figure out how to get access to state IDs and birth certificates.

In truth, every state that already has some form of election ID laws has seen a spike in voter participation, not a decline. Only 8 states have laws demanding proof of citizenship before voting (half of the states are in legal battles to implement them); the other 42 only require that you check a box that says you are a citizen. When Democrats are asked why they are ignoring their majority of their constituents when it comes to the SAVE Act, they launch into tirades about racism and fascism, but never seem to be able to answer the question.

It’s difficult to reconcile the rhetoric of Democrats from 2024 when they wailed and screamed about conservatives being a “threat to democracy” compared to their rhetoric today. At bottom, the political left only supports majority public decisions when those decisions work in the favor of leftist elites. The majority of Americans continue to support the Trump Administration’s deportations of all illegal migrants (not just migrants with violent criminal records), but Dem leaders and their NGO partners continue trying to thwart the will of the people. By extension, voter ID makes it far more difficult for non-citizens to vote and makes it easier for voting records to be checked for discrepancies.

It’s clear that ID requirements and tighter controls on mail-in ballots will work heavily against Democrats and, if passed, they are likely to see a sharp decline in votes across the board. They are fighting against the SAVE Act because they want oligarchy, not “democracy.” They want minority elitist control over government policy. Voter ID is perhaps the most important legal question of our era; it will determine the course of elections for many years to come. Most western countries have laws in place to prevent illegal migrant voting and foreign manipulation of elections. The US is the only country in which this type of law is treated as “racist”.

Read more …

Ask the one-child Chinese how fast this can get out off hand.

• The Least Laid Generation in History: Gen Z Is Ghosting Sex (Pinsker)

So, barmaid, bring a pitcher, another round of brew
Honey, why don’t we get drunk and screw?
—Jimmy Buffett, Why Don’t We Get Drunk (and Screw)


It’s not just sex: Alcohol consumption has dropped by 54%, with youth (18 to 34) drinking falling ANOTHER 9% just between 2023 and 2025. From TIME magazine’s article, “Why Gen Z is Drinking Less”: “[R]esearch from the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that lifetime drinking, past month drinking, and past year drinking among young people began to decline around the year 2000. That means that such declines have especially impacted Generation Z, defined as anyone born from 1997 to 2012, and some Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. […]

“It is becoming clear that, for whatever reasons, today’s younger generations are just less interested in alcohol and are more likely than older generations to see it as risky for their health and to participate in periods of abstinence like Dry January,” said National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism George F. Koob in a statement. Maybe that’s not coincidental. Perhaps there’s a causal link (as famed philosopher Jimmy Buffett suggested). Maybe, just like peanut butter and jelly are complementary products, sex and alcohol are, too. Koob seemed to agree with Buffett:

“Another contributing factor has to do with the changing socialization patterns of younger generations. “Alcohol tends to be a social drug, even for young people, so part of the decline in underage drinking could be related to less in-person socializing,” said Koob. On average, the amount of time people spent with friends in-person decreased from 30 hours a month in 2003 to 10 hours a month in 2020, according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the epidemic of loneliness. That decline was especially marked for people aged 15 to 24.

Back in 1991, more than half — 54.1% of all high school students — were sexually active. (The other 45.9% lied about it.) By 2007, the number fell to 47.8%. Four years later, it dropped again to 43%. By 2017, it was just 39.5%. As of 2023, it’s 31.6%. What’s going on with kids today, with their wild, out-of-control abstinence and crazy teetotalling?! It’s one of the strangest, most inexplicable cultural shifts in recent memory. I was certainly blindsided: I figured our sex drive was so biologically ingrained, it would never go away! But it has. And with it, so has the U.S. birthrate: It’s now at a 40-year low.

We need a birthrate of 2.1 babies per woman to maintain our population. We’re currently at 1.6.mnFor decades, our shrinking birthrate was masked by immigration growth. In 1991, the U.S. population was 253 million. By 2025, it grew to 343.6 million. = Since 2020, immigration has been the #1 driver of American population growth. With the new crackdown on illegal immigration, we’re flirting with our first-ever population decline. And it’s not just an American phenomenon — all over the world, birthrates have collapsed. At least one geopolitical strategist and demographic expert predicts it’ll lead to the end of China within the next 10 years:

“And three months ago, the Chinese government updated the data. They’re now reporting a 70% drop in the birthrate since 2017. That’s a faster decline than what was suffered by the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. And the Shanghai Academy of Sciences, which is kind of the Wiseman organization of statisticians in China that interprets all the data, says that this is still wrong. They estimate that the Chinese system has overestimated its population by over 100 million people. With all of the missing millions being people who would’ve been born during the one-child era, which is a rather sterile way of saying that all the missing millions are under age 40 suggesting that these yellow bars don’t even exist. China has, at most, 10 years before it faces national dissolution. They will not be a unified industrialized nation state 10 years from now. ”

—Peter Zeihan

Read more …

Prediction: “The Least Laid Generation in History” will start boinking for cash. Then again, Elon says they won’t need the cash.

• OH BABY! Couples Could Make Big Money on Trump Accounts (DS)

The Trump administration has created an incentive for Americans to have more children within the next three years. Any baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, is eligible for $1,000 of seed money in a tax-advantaged investment account known as a “Trump Account,” though any parent with a child under 18 can open an account for their son or daughter. The account operates similarly to an IRA, and parents, relatives, and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually, though they do not have to make regular contributions.


“Your child’s funds will automatically be invested in American companies,” according to the Trump Accounts website.mWhen the child turns 18, they can either allow the account to continue to grow, or they can withdraw the funds for education costs or to purchase a home. If the maximum amount is contributed to the account annually from the time the child is born, the account will have grown to over $270,000 by the child’s 18th birthday.

Between the rapid increase in the cost of living over the past 20 years and many young people in debt with student loans, true financial freedom is a distant dream for many in their 20s and 30s, but Trump Accounts could change that for the next generation. If Americans take advantage of the program to its full extent, Generation Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024, and Beta, born between 2025 and 2039, can hope to avoid the financial situation many Millennials and members of Gen Z find themselves in today.

Read more …

Trump will not accept this.

• Americans Could Be Silenced by EU Online Speech Laws (ET)

Europeans who face criminal charges for what they said or wrote warned that Europe’s speech laws can silence Americans as well, regardless of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections. While testifying before the House Judiciary Committee last week, Paivi Rasanen, a member of parliament in Finland, recounted how she has been prosecuted since 2021 for quoting Bible verses to church members and on social media that questioned her church’s participation in a Gay Pride march. Although she was acquitted, first by a local district court and then by an appellate court, prosecutors appealed the decision to Finland’s supreme court, where the case currently sits.


“My prosecution shows how quickly democratic societies can abandon free expression when the state decides which beliefs are acceptable,” Rasanen told The Epoch Times. “I never imagined that quoting the Bible in a Twitter post would lead to years of criminal charges, yet this is now the reality in Europe,” she said. “Americans should be concerned because once censorship is normalized, it never stays confined to one country.”

The trend among Western countries to restrict religious speech has spread beyond Europe, with the Canadian government currently advancing a bill that would remove a religious exemption from “hate speech” laws in the country’s Criminal Code. Similarly, newly proposed legislation in Queensland, Australia, would criminalize certain symbols and phrases, with penalties of up to two years in prison. While speaking before Congress, Rasanen was joined by Graham Linehan, an Irish writer and comedian who was arrested upon traveling through Heathrow Airport in 2025 for statements he had made in America on transgender issues. “For a decade, the British police have harassed me for expressing views that the majority of the public share,” Linehan stated. “We have simply been punished for objecting to fashionable yet incoherent orthodoxies.”

‘Foreign Censorship Threat’
Their testimony was underscored by the release of a Feb. 3 House report titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat,” which charged that “The European Commission, in a comprehensive decade-long effort, has successfully pressured social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules, thereby directly infringing on Americans’ online speech in the United States.” More specifically, the report states that “though ostensibly meant to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech,’ nonpublic documents produced to the Committee show that for the last 10 years, the European Commission has directly pressured platforms to censor lawful, political speech in the European Union and abroad.”

This included regular meetings between U.S. tech companies and European Union regulators to put “content moderation” policies and algorithms in place to conform to European laws regarding “hate speech” and “misinformation,” the report states. The EU claims these initiatives were voluntary, but subpoenaed emails from tech executives stated that “we don’t really have a choice.” Judicial Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told hearing attendees that, based on subpoenas issued to U.S. tech companies regarding their correspondence with EU officials, a pattern of compelled censorship emerged that included U.S. citizens.

“The European Commission successfully pressured social media companies to change their global content moderation rules, directly harming the speech of Americans in the United States,” Jordan stated. He also referenced an incident in which European commissioner Thierry Breton warned X owner Elon Musk that his company may face penalties for posting an interview with Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign. “The European Commission is trying to censor speech and meddle in elections worldwide,” Jordan said. “When the European Commission makes censorship demands, platforms have to listen.”

According to the European Commission’s website, the Digital Services Act (DSA) “empowers citizens by strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights online and giving them greater control and more choices when they navigate online platforms and search engines.” The DSA also requires platforms to “minimise the risks of exposing citizens, including children and young people, to illegal and harmful content.” nCritics of EU speech laws say they have become a tool to punish U.S. tech companies for allowing any content that a European country has deemed to be illegal. In countries such as Germany, that could include insulting government officials.

French member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron called the DSA a “Trojan horse for surveillance and control.” Joron accused government officials of having “seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.” And legal analysts say that the reach of the DSA extends beyond Europe. The DSA “creates a pathway for foreign governments to influence public debate inside the United States without ever passing a single American law,” Lorcan Price, an Irish barrister who defended Rasanen and testified at the House hearing, told The Epoch Times.

“The EU’s Digital Services Act gives European regulators unprecedented leverage over American tech companies, which means European speech rules can end up shaping what Americans are allowed to say online,” Price said. “Once U.S. platforms are forced to comply with European censorship demands to avoid massive fines, those restrictions don’t stop at Europe’s borders.”

Read more …

Maybe they should see if they can agree on something. 15, 16, 18, not at all?

• More Nations Are Mulling Social Media Bans For Teens (ZH)

After Australia’s first-of-its-kind social media ban for adolescents under the age of 16 came into effect in December, more countries in Europe and elsewhere are taking steps to implement their own restrictions. As Katharina Buchholz reports, according to Statista research, France and the United Kingdom have gotten furthest, with laws passing in one chamber each of the countries’ bicameral legislatures as of early February. While the latter country is also aiming to ban social media for kids under the age of 16, France’s proposed law targets only those under the age of 15.


.


Six more nations have seen country leaders announce initiatives aiming to ban social media access for adolescents. While Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Spain all have more restrictive regulations in mind, excluding those under the age of 16, Greece is aiming to exclude those under the age of 15 and Austria those under the age of 14 from social media.Social media, including personalized algorithms and the possibility to scroll endlessly, is receiving scrutiny for its effect on mental health, especially in younger people.

.


Social media addiction can affect any age group, but it is seen as especially harmful in adolescents which are still developing social behaviors, body image and time management skills. Two more planned bans announced in Europe, by Portuguese and Danish leadership, are reportedly willing to leave a back door open for parental consent, putting them in a different category that already exists in several nations like France, Italy and, since recently, Brazil, where children of the applicable ages can access social media sites if their parents are in agreement.

While outright bans like the Australian one often plan implementation via a strict official age-verification mechanism, parental consent regulation can work by linking parents accounts, for example. Instagram has meanwhile already rolled out this feature in Europe, the U.S., Australia and Canada, with teenagers between the ages of 13 to 15 only in the position to disable a special restricted account mode with the consent of their parent’s account. Like other platforms, Instagram accepts users from the age of 13, but this restriction is so far not tied to verification. In the EU, social media sites are since 2018 under further restrictions concerning the use of personalized ads for minors.

Read more …

“He functioned as a social broker among financiers, politicians, academics, royalty, and celebrities…”

• The Unsettling Truths the Epstein Files Reveal About Power and Privilege (ET)

The public fixation on the Epstein files has settled, predictably, on the most lurid elements of the story. This is understandable. Sexual exploitation, particularly of the young, is among the most corrosive of crimes, and the scale of Epstein’s abuse, as well as the apparent indifference of powerful institutions to it, demands moral outrage. But to focus exclusively on the sexual scandal is to miss the deeper and more unsettling lesson the affair reveals. What the Epstein files expose, above all, is the social and moral estrangement of American elites from the people they claim to govern.


Epstein was not merely a predator who gained access to power. He was a node within a closed world of wealth, influence, and immunity. The scandal is not that powerful people behaved badly in private—history shows many such examples—but that they did so with a confidence rooted in the belief they were insulated from the consequences of their behavior. They moved through a transnational elite culture that had largely severed itself from ordinary moral constraints, legal accountability, and civic obligation. That culture did not merely tolerate Epstein but normalized him.

This echoes the point Christopher Lasch made decades ago, long before private islands and hedge-fund philanthropy became familiar symbols of elite excess. In his 1994 book “The Revolt of the Elites,” Lasch argued that the modern American ruling classes had stopped seeing themselves as stewards of a shared national project. Instead, they increasingly saw themselves as a mobile, globalized caste, educated in the same institutions, moving through the same cities, governed by the same tastes, and primarily accountable only to each other. Citizenship was seen as a minor inconvenience. Nationhood and patriotism were just sentimental relics from less enlightened times.

The Epstein affair reads like a case study in Lasch’s thesis. Here was an individual whose wealth was opaque, whose sources of income were rarely scrutinized, and whose social standing seemed immune to ordinary reputational risk. He functioned as a social broker among financiers, politicians, academics, royalty, and celebrities, many of whom publicly advocated policies of moral uplift, social justice, and global responsibility. Yet in private, they inhabited a world defined by indulgence, entitlement, and a contempt for limits.

Elite detachment today is not only economic but also existential, and it is hardly confined to Americans. The governing classes of advanced democracies increasingly inhabit a world defined by mobility, abstraction, and insulation from consequence. Their loyalties are professional rather than civic, global rather than national, and managerial rather than moral. They experience society less as a shared inheritance than as a set of problems to be administered at a distance. In such a world, attachment to place, memory, and common fate appears parochial, even suspect, while belonging itself is quietly redefined as an obstacle to progress.

Those who create policies affecting immigration, policing, education, public health, and national security rarely face the consequences themselves. They do not send their children to failing schools, live in high-crime neighborhoods, compete for scarce housing, or navigate broken public institutions. Their lives are shielded by wealth, location, private services, and increasingly by law itself.

The Epstein files sharpen this reality because they reveal not just hypocrisy, but impunity. Despite extensive documentation, repeated warnings, and credible testimony, accountability arrived slowly and incompletely. This is not because the crimes were ambiguous, but because the accused moved within a protected sphere where consequences were negotiable and enforcement discretionary. Justice, like morality, was something applied elsewhere for other people.

What enrages the public is not prurience, but recognition. The scandal resonates because it confirms a growing suspicion among ordinary people that there is one moral universe for the governing class and another for everyone else. Elites preach restraint, sustainability, and responsibility while living lives of extraordinary consumption and indulgence. They urge social sacrifice while exempting themselves from its costs. They speak the language of progress while practicing a refined form of decadence.

Lasch warned that such a ruling class would eventually forfeit legitimacy, not because of ideology, but because of character. A society cannot be governed indefinitely by people who do not believe they belong to it. When elites become tourists in their own countries, financially global, culturally unrooted, and morally untethered, their authority rests on little more than coercion and spectacle. The Epstein files should therefore be read less as an aberration than as a symptom. They reveal a governing class that has lost the habits of self-restraint that once justified its power, and the sense of common fate that once bound leaders to citizens. For many, the salient point of the Epstein files is the scandal. I think it is more accurately seen as a disclosure.

The danger is not merely that such elites are corrupt, but that they are bored. Bored with limits, bored with norms, bored with accountability, and ultimately bored with democracy itself. That boredom, Lasch understood, is the precondition of revolt, not by the masses, but by those who no longer feel answerable to them. If the Epstein affair provokes lasting anger, it is because it crystallizes a truth many citizens already sense, that the people shaping the future live in a world apart, governed by different rules, and increasingly incapable of moral seriousness. No society can long endure that division without consequence. The question is not whether further revelations will emerge. It is whether the public will finally insist that elites once again live under the same moral and civic conditions as those they presume to lead.

Read more …

“.. you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.”

• California Democrats Trigger a Reverse Gold Rush with a Wealth Tax (Turley)

This month, the anniversary of the California Gold Rush came and passed with little mention … for good reason. When James W. Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, millions traveled great distances to seek their fortune in the “Golden State.” Now, 178 years later, California has engineered an inverse Gold Rush, virtually chasing wealth from the state. Rather than covered wagons going West, there is a line of U-Hauls going anywhere other than California.


From boondoggle projects to reparations, California politicians continue to rack up new spending projects despite a soaring deficit and shrinking tax base. Rather than exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint, Democrats are pushing through a tax that takes five percent of the wealth of any billionaires left in the state. I have long criticized the tax as perfectly moronic for a state with the highest tax burden and one of the highest flight rates of top taxpayers. In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the reversal of fortunes in California and other blue states as politicians unleash new “eat the rich” campaigns before the midterm elections.

The problem, of course, is that billionaires are mobile, as is their wealth. Liberals expect billionaires to stay put in a type of voluntary canned hunt. They are not. Billionaires are joining the growing exodus from the state, taking their companies, investments, and jobs with them. The latest billionaire to be chased off may be Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is reportedly heading for Florida. The growing departures have triggered outrage among many on the left, who are in disbelief that billionaires will just not stand still to be fleeced.

Former New York Magazine editor Kara Swisher captured that rage in a recent posting, declaring “you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.” By some estimates, California has already cost over a trillion dollars in lost investments and business. That is no small achievement. Here’s a mind teaser: How can you burn a trillion dollars (which would create a stack some 67,866 miles high) without taking years and destroying the environment? California politicians have a solution: Have people take it out of the state in a reverse gold rush.

In addition to saying that they want to grab 5 percent of the wealth of these billionaires, California Democrats are planning to base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, particularly with start-ups, entrepreneurs have greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, they will be taxed as if voting shares amounted to actual wealth. In other words, California is moving to nuke the entrepreneurs who created the Silicon Valley boom. Emmanuel Saez, the U.C. Berkeley economist who helped design the tax, insists that they may not want to stay, but they will still be tapped. They are planning to trap the wealthy fleeing the state retroactively: “The tax is based on residence as of Jan. 1, 2026, sharply limiting their ability to flee the state to avoid paying. Despite billionaires’ threats to leave, I think extremely few will have been able to change residence by Jan. 1, given the complexity of doing so.”

The effort to retroactively impose such a tax is legally controversial and will face years of challenges. In my view, this is unconstitutional, but admittedly it is a murky area. Regardless of the outcome, a wealth tax will affect a wide range of other wealthy taxpayers. If Democrats can get a retroactive wealth tax to be upheld, it is doubtful that they will stop with billionaires. Why should other top taxpayers stick around to find out where the next cull will fall in the tax brackets? Recently, Gavin Newsom boasted, “California isn’t just keeping pace with the world — we’re setting the pace.” That is undeniably true if the measure is the record number of U-Hauls fleeing the state — more than any other state. Indeed, the only thing harder to find than a wealthy taxpayer in California appears to be a U-Haul.

According to U-Haul’s data, the state is again leading blue states in the exodus. The Washington Post noted recently that “California came in last. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey rounded out the bottom five. Of the bottom 10, seven voted blue in the last election.” Conversely, “nine of the top 10 growth states voted red in the last presidential election,” with Texas again leading the growth states. The Post put it succinctly, “People want to live in pro-growth, low-tax states, while the biggest losers tend to be places with big governments and high taxes.” The problem is that, while the economics are horrific, the politics remain irresistible.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents part of Silicon Valley, recently mocked billionaires rushing to escape the state. Laughing at his own constituents, Khanna quipped, “I will miss them very much.” You will not be alone as California becomes known as the La Brea Tar Pit of taxation. They are on the verge of converting the state motto from “Eureka” to “Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

Read more …

I have questions.

• FBI Opened 1,200 ‘Assessments’ Of Sensitive Figures (JTN)

The FBI opened 1,200 probes related to politicians, journalists, religious leaders, academics and others tied to “sensitive investigative matters,” using a special investigative tool that requires no factual predicate to launch, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The GAO report, which was obtained by Just the News, was published last month but not made public, and it was titled FBI Investigative Activities: Oversight Efforts of Opening and Conducting Assessments Should be Strengthened.


The report, which assists in congressional oversight of the executive branch, provided details on the roughly 127,000 FBI “assessments” in all opened from 2018 to 2024, the vast majority of which were eventually closed without accusations of wrongdoing or criminal charges against those targets being scrutinized. The 57-page report did not include any names of those targeted for assessment. Among the total assessments, 1,200 were related to “sensitive investigative matters” that target public officials, news organizations, houses of worship or members of academia, which the bureau views as more sensitive in nature.

So-called “assessments” were established by Justice Department guidelines in 2008, providing the FBI with an investigative tool short of opening a full-fledged investigation requiring a factual predicate. The probes are used by the bureau to “address a potential threat to national security or potential violation of federal criminal law,” the congressional watchdog said. They allow FBI agents to open probes on authorized matters but without a factual basis and allow them to employ investigative such techniques as physical surveillance on subjects.

If sufficient basis is found, assessments can turn into preliminary investigations, full investigations or enterprise investigations. But most assessments are closed without meeting the standards for a full inquiry by the bureau, the GAO said. nn The revelations were detailed in the GAO’s January 2026 report, which was designated “For Official Use Only” because of the sensitive information it contains. GAO noted that the report should be “safeguarded when not being used and destroyed when no longer needed.”

Read more …

I don’t think Trump wants to attack Iran. But does he have a choice anymore?

• US Smuggled Starlinks Into Iran Amid Riots – WSJ (RT)

The Trump administration covertly smuggled approximately 6,000 Starlink satellite internet terminals into Iran amid a nationwide unrest earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal has reported, substantiating Tehran’s claims of foreign interference behind the deadly riots. The operation, which senior US officials said involved State Department funding, came after Iranian authorities imposed a sweeping internet blackout in January. President Donald Trump was aware of the deliveries, officials told the WSJ on Thursday, though it remains unclear whether he personally approved the plan.


Iranian officials have repeatedly blamed Washington and Tel Aviv for fueling the unrest, which began in December as peaceful demonstrations over economic hardship but escalated into widespread violence. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated last month that more than 3,000 people had been killed, including nearly 700 individuals he described as “terrorists,” alongside civilians and security personnel. President Masoud Pezeshkian has accused the US and Israel of embedding “foreign terrorists” within protest crowds, alleging they have employed what an Iranian diplomatic source described to RT as “ISIS-like” tactics – including beheadings of law enforcement officers and civilians being burned alive.

At the height of the unrest, Trump openly encouraged “peaceful” Iranian protesters, posting on Truth Social: “All Iranian patriots, keep protesting. Take over your institutions if possible.” He also promised that “help is on its way,” and deployed a “beautiful armada” to the region, raising speculation of an imminent military intervention. The State Department supports a range of so-called “internet freedom” tools, including virtual private network (VPN) service providers to Iran. To purchase Starlinks, the department reportedly redirected funds from US-supported VPNs, which had allowed an estimated 20-30 million Iranians to stay online during the previous 2022 riots and the Israeli-US bombing last year.

Washington seeks to pressure Iran into accepting a new nuclear deal, after Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 agreement (JCPOA) during his first term, reimposing sanctions against Tehran under a “maximum pressure” campaign. Decades of US economic pressure were the primary driver of the country’s economic deterioration, according to officials in Iran – the world’s second most sanctioned country after Russia. Despite the US administration’s public denials of involvement in fomenting anti-government riots, the reported Starlink operation reveals expanded covert support for what Moscow called an attempt to “destroy the Iranian state” through a “color revolution” playbook.

Read more …

“I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.” An executive order would not be ideal, but I’m hoping it won’t be necessary.”

• Trump Makes A HUGE Promise About Voter ID

They finally have the votes. Now the real fight begins. The SAVE Act already cleared the House in a tight 218–213 vote, with just one Democrat, Henry Cuellar, willing to break with his party and support basic election safeguards. That tells you everything you need to know about where Democrats really stand on election integrity. Senate Republicans also just locked down the 50 votes they need to move ahead on the SAVE Act, thanks to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) finally jumping off the fence and signing on as a cosponsor. With Vice President JD Vance ready to break a 50–50 tie, Republicans now have the votes to pass the bill if it ever reaches a final vote. That’s the good news.


The bad news is that Democrats still have one powerful weapon left: the filibuster. In the Senate, the math is brutally simple. Republicans have the votes to pass the bill, but they do not have the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster. Not even Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will support the SAVE Act — and he claims to support voter ID. So what’s the next move? Well, that’s up to the Senate GOP leadership. If they are serious about this bill, they have to force a real, old-school, stand-on-the-floor-and-talk-until-you-drop filibuster. Not the fake Cory Booker kind, either, but a real filibuster. It’s time for the Democrats’ abuse of the filibuster, effectively turning it into a de facto veto of the minority party, to be over.

Sen. Mike Lee laid out the path in a video message on X. “If senators want to debate this, if they want to filibuster it, make them work for it,” he said. “Make them stand up, make them speak. If we do it this way, we can continue this progress, and I think we can get this thing done.” The only problem is that even then, nothing is guaranteed. A talking filibuster is a tool, not a magic wand. It forces a showdown. It does not promise victory. “Look, there are no guarantees here,” Lee conceded. “But the only shot we’ve got at this is through the talking filibuster. Thanks for fighting. Keep going. We’ll get it done.”

There is, of course, a backup plan. On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that if the SAVE Act can’t pass the Senate, he plans to bypass Congress altogether and use executive action to require voter ID for the November midterms. “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” he wrote on Truth Social. “This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!” he wrote in a follow-up post. “If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.” An executive order would not be ideal, but I’m hoping it won’t be necessary.

Read more …

But Elon says in 10 years it won’t matter anymore.

• American Workers Have Less Than A $1000 in Retirement Savings (Turley)

There is a new, troubling study on the financial status of most American workers. The National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) found that the median American worker has just $955 saved for retirement through defined-contribution plans such as 401(k) accounts. Given the expected job losses from robotics and AI, the study only deepens concerns about the economic and political pressures facing this country in the years to come.


In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss those impacts from robotics and AI on our democracy. Using the most conservative estimates of job losses, the book explores how a large population of unemployed citizens will affect their relationship with the state. We cannot maintain a “kept citizenship” while preserving the essential elements of the American republic. A large population of static, unemployed citizens poses challenges for what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy,” an economy that affords citizens independence from the state.

This study magnifies those concerns. If accurate, it suggests that even a short displacement in employment will return state support. Many jurisdictions are already launching Universal Basic Income (UBI) pilot programs. If this republic is to survive in the 21st Century, it will require developing new areas of “homocentric” jobs while avoiding predictable measures to subsidize positions that will inevitably be lost to robotics. Notably, the study found that among those with positive retirement plans, median savings were much higher at $40,000. Those with a defined contribution (DC) plan are far better off with an average savings of $179,082.

The takeaway from the report, for me, is the need to instill greater private savings. Some workers are barely paid above subsistence. However, we also need to educate citizens about the importance of setting aside retirement funds to the extent possible. As I previously wrote, I am a great fan of the Trump Accounts. The $6.25 billion gift of Michael and Susan Dell (now augmented by dozens of corporations) could offer the single best hope for the survival of our system. Millions of young people will be able to experience the benefits of investments, savings and, most importantly, economic independence.

The study also shows the growing dangers of the collapse of the social security accounts. Despite assurances made when Congress established the system, Congress has continued to draw on Social Security funds to avoid reducing spending levels. The system could fail for these workers, who will not be able to draw upon money taken from their paychecks for the purpose of retirement. It is one of the most outrageous betrayals in United States history.

To this day, Democrats are opposing efforts to make major changes to guarantee the viability of the system for future generations, including the use of private investment accounts that could no longer be raided by Congress for easy money. All politicians express alarm at the potential failure, but they attack any efforts to address the underlying problems as an attack on social security. As a result, we just drift toward this cliff knowing that most citizens have practically no other source of retirement support.

Read more …

AI trumps groupthink too.

• Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy (ET)

Among the consolations of youth is the certainty with which one holds beliefs about the world. There is comfort in the conviction that one’s moral bearings are firmly set, that one’s understanding of complex questions is not only sincere but also correct. The world appears legible; right and wrong seem sharply drawn; doubt and nuance are dismissed as weakness or evasion. There is rarely a single moment when these certainties collapse. They loosen instead through the slow accumulation of experience. Over time, one discovers that life resists easy judgments. Circumstances complicate principles. Good intentions collide with unintended consequences. Our friends betray us. The world proves denser, more conflicted, and less amenable to neat and tidy conclusions than youthful confidence would suggest.


This recognition of complexity, fallibility, and the limits of one’s own certainty is among the quiet achievements of maturity. It marks the point at which conviction learns restraint and moral seriousness acquires humility. Yet much of our public culture now moves in precisely the opposite direction. It rewards juvenile certainty while punishing hesitation, qualification, or good-faith disagreements. Confidence is applauded regardless of depth; slogans substitute for argument; restraint is recast as moral failure. That inversion was on clear display at the recent Grammy Awards, when Billie Eilish declared to enthusiastic applause that “no one is illegal on stolen land.”

It was left unspecified just whose land was being referenced, by whom it was stolen, and according to what historical or legal criteria that claim could be made. The audience, however, needed no clarification. Eilish’s statement was rewarded exactly because it avoided complexity and invited no questions. What was on display was not moral seriousness but a high school performance, an adolescent sense of righteousness delivered with absolute certainty and accepted as self-evident truth. One might charitably attribute such unthinking, categorical statements to Eilish’s youth. Alas, hers is a posture that we have come to expect from many of Hollywood’s men and women: confident, declarative, and curiously uninterested in the burdens of thought that genuine moral judgment requires.

This brings us to the core issue. The greatest threat to free expression today isn’t obvious censorship or government orders. Instead, it’s a more subtle and widespread force: cultural groupthink. This informal but influential system of rewards and punishments quietly limits the range of acceptable opinions, shaping what people feel allowed to say, what they hesitate to voice, and which questions are no longer askedn Nowhere is this trend more evident than in modern celebrity culture. Hollywood and the broader entertainment sector have become models of ideological conformity, especially on divisive social and political topics.

From climate change and gender issues to racial justice and international conflicts, Hollywood repeats the same messages, all delivered with youthful confidence. The same moral language, slogans, and conclusions are echoed with ritualistic consistency. The Eilish episode was not an aberration but a symptom. It illustrated a broader pattern in which public speech functions less as a means of inquiry than as a test of ideological conformity. The cost of dissent is not a thoughtful and considered rebuttal. Rather, it takes the form of reputational damage through social media pile-ons, calls for boycotts, professional exclusion, or quiet blacklisting.

Under such conditions, silence is often the rational choice. Most people have families to support and livelihoods to protect.The greater danger lies in the lesson this celebrity culture teaches: that there is only one permissible way to think and speak about certain issues, and that deviation signals not error but moral failure. Political and social questions are reduced to dogma rather than debated. Once moralized in this way, disagreement becomes illegitimate by definition. This logic now extends well beyond Hollywood. Similar patterns can be found in journalism, medicine, academia, corporate governance, and even the legal profession.

Approved vocabularies narrow discussion; certain premises must be affirmed before conversation can begin; others may not be questioned at all. Arguments are no longer answered on their merits but dismissed as evidence of bad character or suspect motives.The consequences for democratic culture are profound. Democracies do not depend on unanimity but on citizens who can weigh competing claims, tolerate uncertainty, and revise their views in light of evidence and argument. Groupthink undermines these capacities by rewarding conformity and punishing independent judgment. Over time, public discourse loses its corrective function. Errors persist not because they are persuasive, but because questioning them carries too high a cost.

[..] Free speech, properly understood, is not a threat to democracy. It is its foundation.

Read more …

“AI Disruption Crosshairs Hone In On Hollywood Studios ..”

Why pay Brad Pitt 100 million when a computer can “build” his scenes?

• “Billion Dollar Movie In One Prompt” (ZH)

:AI-driven equity disruption was everywhere this past week, spreading like wildfire beyond software into insurance, commercial real estate, financials, shipping, wealth management, and likely many more industries in the coming trading sessions.One industry in the crosshairs of AI disruption is Hollywood. Some of the publicly traded studios include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Global, Sony Group Corporation, Netflix, Lionsgate, and others.nOn Friday, Axios reported that the Walt Disney Company sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, alleging that the Chinese tech firm has been infringing on its films to develop Seedance 2.0 without compensation.

Disney’s outside attorney, David Singer, wrote a letter to ByteDance global general counsel John Rogovin, accusing the AI company of “pre-packaging its Seedance service with a pirated library of Disney’s copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and other Disney franchises, as if Disney’s coveted intellectual property were free public domain clip art.” “Over Disney’s well-publicized objections, ByteDance is hijacking Disney’s characters by reproducing, distributing, and creating derivative works featuring those characters. ByteDance’s virtual smash-and-grab of Disney’s IP is willful, pervasive, and totally unacceptable,” Singer said.

He added, “We believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, which is shocking considering Seedance has only been available for a few days.” It’s not just ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0 that has spooked Hollywood studios. A growing wave of video-generation models suggests that Hollywood’s moat is crumbling, and its control of the media game is nearing its end.

“Authorities should use every legal tool at their disposal to stop this wholesale theft,” the Human Artistry Campaign – a coalition that includes dozens of creative groups such as SAG-AFTRA and the Directors Guild of America – said in a statement on Friday. Seedance 2.0 model …

Hollywood is living on borrowed time. The next big AI disruption trade could be studios.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Optimus COVID RFK jr Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone Pepe Casey

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Home › Forums › Debt Rattle February 15 2026

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 15, 2026 at 10:46 am #230904
    Raúl Ilargi Meijer
    Keymaster

    Ito Shinsui Snowy night 1923 • Newsom Tells EU “Trump Is Temporary,” Doubles Down On Failing Green Agenda (ZH) • Rubio on Fire! (Sarah Anderson) • Vas
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle February 15 2026]

    February 15, 2026 at 11:29 am #230921
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    February 15, 2026 at 12:16 pm #230922
    Topcat
    Participant

    AI writing itself in an endless recursive feedback loop.

    Sounds like High Tech Hell. (HTH)

    Like putting your Mind between two mirrors and looking behind you at the image just over your shoulder.

    The starter gun on The Great Culling has fired.

    Bang!

    Don’t Worry Be Happy…..Gen Z has got your back….

    Hahahahaha!

    They can’t even get drunk and screw?

    Wow, that’s very impressive.

    I guess Gen Z redefined ‘pathetic’ to compliment their historic smaller IQ

    February 15, 2026 at 12:20 pm #230923
    Topcat
    Participant

    February 15, 2026 at 12:27 pm #230924
    Topcat
    Participant

    Ah…merica’s Snuff Queen

    AI has nothing on her…….

    Gen Z’s “Spokes-Drunk” delivers ‘words of wisdom’

    February 15, 2026 at 12:29 pm #230925
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    What Is ‘Western Civilization’? Rubio’s Munich Fantasy Meets the Epstein Reality
    Feb. 14, 2026 (EIRNS)—U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood before the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 13 and delivered what was meant to be a stirring defense of Western Civilization. It was the European continent, he declared, “that produced the genius of Mozart and Beethoven, of Dante and Shakespeare, of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.” Leave aside, for the moment, the embarrassment we feel on his behalf for comparing a rock band with Beethoven. The deeper question Rubio’s speech inadvertently poses is this: What is the actual state of the civilization he claims to champion?

    The answer is being provided, in excruciating and nauseating detail, on the other side of the Atlantic. This week’s Epstein revelations exposed Obama’s former White House Counsel exchanging adoring emails with a convicted sex offender, a Dubai logistics magnate corresponding approvingly about a “torture video,” and sitting members of the Trump Cabinet caught in documented lies about their ties to Epstein’s island, while the Attorney General was caught spying on Congressional research into the files and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche declared new prosecutions “unlikely.” In Britain, the Metropolitan Police raided the home of a former ambassador over evidence he may have passed state secrets to Epstein, and the Prime Minister’s own chief of staff resigned in the fallout. This is not a scandal at the margins. This is the operating culture of the trans-Atlantic elite—the same elite that lectures the world about a “rules-based order.”

    Rubio extolled five centuries of Western expansion, “its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers.” But he made no effort to distinguish the anti-imperial philosophy behind the American Revolution, from the imperial depredations conducted in the name of “the West”—such as the slave trade, the opium wars, or the looting of entire continents. He described the post-1945 retreat of empire as a tragedy, driven by “godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings.” What he could not bring himself to say is that the imperial system he mourns has always required the kind of moral disfigurement now on display in the Epstein files: a ruling class trained to separate the exercise of power from any sense of human empathy. The British “public school” system perfected this for centuries. Was Epstein’s operation part of its American franchise?

    Natural law is unforgiving on this point. You may pass whatever statutes you wish, deploy whatever armies you command, but a civilization which tolerates a leadership class oriented toward domination rather than development is a civilization in terminal decline—not because of some external enemy, but because it has hollowed itself out from within. The same disregard for human dignity that permitted Epstein’s circle to flourish is what permits a genocide to be televised in Gaza, a merciless blockade of Cuba to continue, and the threat of sustained military operations against Iran to be treated as a manageable policy option, all while the trans-Atlantic financial system is bloated beyond belief and overripe for collapse.

    What would George Washington, who led a revolution on the principle of promoting the common good and the concept that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, make of an Attorney General who spies on legislators reviewing evidence of crimes? What would Benjamin Franklin—the brilliant printer, scientist, and diplomat—say to a Secretary of State who defines civilization as an entitlement to dominate, rather than an obligation to uplift? The question answers itself. The American republic was not founded to administer an empire. It was founded on the proposition that human beings possess inherent dignity and creative potential, and that the purpose of government is to foster both.

    This year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If that occasion is to mean anything beyond pageantry, it must become the starting point for a reckoning—not merely with the crimes documented in the Epstein files, but with the culture that produced and allowed them. A civilization worthy of the name does not measure itself by the power it projects, but by the beauty it creates and the creativity it unleashes: in science, in infrastructure, in education, in the arts.

    The question is not whether the West once produced Beethoven.

    The question is whether it can produce anything of comparable moral value today—or whether it has surrendered that ambition to the degraded culture now being dragged into the light, and with it, the elevated vision of the human individual on which any civilization worth defending must rest.
    https://www.laroucheorganization.com/rubios_munich_fantasy_meets_the_epstein_reality

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.