Was The J6 "Insurrection" A Government-Sponsored Seditious Conspiracy?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Cold Case Heats Up

"[The current FBI] was competent at cracking the case; [Christopher Wray's] was competent at corruption and obstructing it."

- Mike Benz

Do you have any idea what tapestry of corruption and crime is attached to the little thread of the J6 / DNC / RNC pipe bomber suspect arrested yesterday by the FBI? Consider this: suspect Brian Cole, Jr., is alive and probably talking, unlike, say, Jeffrey Epstein and Thomas Matthew Crooks in other matters of public interest. Let’s hope he is under FBI protection in custody, lest something. . . say. . . happen to him.

Dressed for government work?

As of early this morning, the country knows next to nothing else about Cole and what he was up to the night of Jan. 5, 2021.

The FBI has not even said how he is employed. But his photo shows a young man dressed for office work. . . he lives in a nice house in the DC suburbs of Virginia. . .and you might infer that he is, possibly, a federal government worker. Oh, and the FBI was unable to catch him through the whole four years of “Joe Biden?”

You can suppose at this point that the story of that four-year botched investigation will be a way bigger thing than the pipe bomber’s little prank itself.

It probably leads to the story of wholesale corruption in Christopher Wray’s FBI, and even more consequentially, to the realization that the so-called J6, 2021 “insurrection” was a government op from top to bottom, aimed at eradicating Trump and Trumpism.

First, what was supposed to happen in a joint session of Congress that day?

Answer: certification of electoral college votes in the 2020 election. What else was liable to happen that day? Answer: under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (3 U.S.C. §§ 5–6, 15–18) — as amended, and by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution (Article II and the 12th Amendment) — objections to several states’ slates of electors were expected to be entertained, triggering debate and possible rejection of those states’ electors on the basis that the votes were not “lawfully certified” (under 3 U.S.C. § 6), or not “regularly given” (meaning the vote was marred by fraud, corruption, or violence). Any state’s electoral votes could be rejected if both the House and Senate voted by simple majority, after up to two hours of separate debate.

At mid-day, objections meeting the written requirement (one House member + one Senator) were filed for Arizona and Pennsylvania. The objection to the Arizona vote (Rep. Paul Gosar + Sen. Ted Cruz) was the first scheduled to be debated shortly after 1:00 p.m. It was not allowed to happen. Instead, Congress evacuated the chamber. When Congress returned at 8:00 p.m., votes objecting to Arizona and Pennsylvania slates failed and no others were taken up. Senators who previously had committed to debating the votes of several other swing states demurred, citing the breach of demonstrators into the Capitol. The full tally concluded at 3:44 in the morning, Jan 7, “Joe Biden” and Kamala Harris were certified as winners of the 2020 election.

Here are some things to know about the pipe bomb subplot in the J-6 story.

Kamala Harris, vice president-elect, still a sitting Senator (CA), was not in the chamber for the certification process. She arrived at the DNC headquarters some blocks away from the Capitol by motorcade at 11:30 a.m. and stayed until she was evacuated from the DNC at 1:14 p.m. Couple of questions about that? 1) did she not want to be present in the chamber at the momentous instant that her election as veep was certified? 2) Did she not have a duty to be present for voting on any of the procedure? Weird, a little bit. She has never explained what she was doing at the DNC that day.

Kamala Harris was in the DNC building when the pipe bomb was discovered there, around 1:07 p.m. The pipe bomb at the RNC had been discovered some 20 minutes prior, and it was the discovery of that bomb, at 12:44 p.m. that prompted the evacuation of the joint House / Senate session in Congress, not any breach of the Capitol building, which did not occur until 2:13, p.m., more than an hour later.

Now, to the FBI response to all this.

They quickly collected tons of closed-circuit video of a suspect planting these pipe bombs. The footage they released showed the suspect at a one-frame-per-second recording rate which, as Mike Benz points out, is a hundred times slower than any common gas station closed circuit camera nowadays. The FBI also doctored the recordings, specifically blurring out the section of the suspect’s face at one angle captured by a CC camera about eight meters away. The rectangular blur patch over his eyes can be clearly seen. How’d that happen?

The FBI also managed to botch every other aspect of the investigation into the act that actually triggered the evacuation of Congress that day — which was (repeat) not the breach of the Capitol building but the pipe bombs. In the months afterward, FBI Director Wray took agents off the case. He had in place as chief of the FBI’s Washington office an assistant director named Steven D’Antuono who had been in charge previously, as Detroit field chief, of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in which at least 12 confidential informants and three FBI agents were involved in what looked like an entrapment scheme. D’Antuono had demonstrated considerable skill in constructing skeezy FBI ops when he was put in charge of the DC office. The agency managed to lose the chain-of-custody for much of the evidence in the case, including originals of the videos, cell phone records, communications records between Capitol police, DC metropolitan police, Secret Service, and the FBI, and more.

So, the pipe bomber has been a cold case lo these many years. And now we’re informed as of yesterday’s FBI / DOJ press conference, that the FBI under Director Patel cracked the case using only information and evidence already in the FBI files. So, get this: there must be a record of exactly which agents were on the pipe bomber case those four years under Christopher Wray. There must be a record of who, by name, was in charge of chains-of-custody for all that evidence. And there must be a record of the senior agents and deputy directors who oversaw all their activities, all the way up to Director Wray. Why would they not be subject to charges of obstruction of justice?

All of this is just the pipe bomber subplot of the J6 story. There remains the weird business with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her failure to request national guard protection at the US Capitol that day. And there remains the question of how many agents, assets, and confidential informants the FBI had in-place at the Capitol on J6, 2021, including Antifa members, and which actions, including the breach inside the building, they instigated. Then there is the question of the House J6 committee, how it was constructed with the help of lawfare ninja Norm Eisen, and how it deliberately destroyed all the evidence it collected over the months of its existence.

Be prepared to learn how the J6 “insurrection” was a government-sponsored seditious conspiracy and then ponder who, by name, will be held responsible for it. That’s the tapestry that Brian Cole, Jr.’s little thread leads to.

Shout out to Mike Benz for his nearly four-hour discussion about the pipe bomber case on “X”.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/lCDSdsP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lCDSdsP
via IFTTT

Was The J6 "Insurrection" A Government-Sponsored Seditious Conspiracy?

A Newsom Nihilist Nomination?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

As California Governor Gavin Newsom gears up to run for president, what in the world will he run on?

Californians know that Newsom will not boast, “I will do for America what I have done to California!”

Why not?

Count the reasons.

California’s astronomical gas prices and taxes remain the highest in the continental U.S.

Ditto the state’s trifecta of the highest electricity rates, the costliest home prices, and the fourth-highest home insurance costs.

California has the largest unfunded liability debt in the nation, approaching $270 billion.

The budget deficit each year usually ranges from $15 to $70 billion.

Such profligate spending and deficits explain why the state also has the highest income taxes and state sales tax rates in the nation.

Just 1% of California households pay 50% of the state income tax. And the fleeced are leaving in droves.

Newsom recently boasted that he extended Medi-Cal health insurance to thousands more illegal aliens.

So, no wonder Newsom next begged for a nearly $3 billion Medi-Cal federal bailout.

Half of the state’s 41 million residents are now on Medi-Cal. Some 50 percent of all births are Medi-Cal-provided—and growing.

California has a lot of other firsts among the 50 states:

• The largest population of illegal aliens.

• The largest number of homeless people.

• The largest number of people fleeing a state.

• The largest number (11 million) and percentage (27%) of foreign-born residents.

• The largest number of people living in poverty.

• The highest food prices in the continental U.S.

• The state’s infrastructure is usually rated near the bottom.

• California ranks among the five worst states in per capita violent crime.

Here are a few other observations about the current disaster that is Newsom’s California.

One, California is a naturally wealthy state. It is the third largest by area. It ranks seventh in the nation in oil reserves. No nation has more agricultural production or forested land acreage. So it’s hard to bankrupt California, but Newsom has managed.

Two, under prior governors Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson, California used to be the best-run state in the country.

California once produced more oil than any other state except Texas.

Its now-moribund timber industry once used to be the third largest in the nation.

And its currently ossified mining and mineral industries were once among the top ten producers in the country.

Three, no state politician over the last three decades has been more responsible for California’s decline than Gavin Newsom: six years as governor, eight years as lieutenant governor, seven years as mayor of San Francisco, and seven years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Four, California chose decline. In the last thirty years, it drove out somewhere between 18 and 20 million affluent and middle-class state residents, the largest state exodus in U.S. history.

Its open border welcomed in an influx of over 10 million illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley’s $11 trillion in market capitalization created the wealthiest and the most left-wing out-of-touch elite in the United States.

The result was a medieval state of a few million elites, a mass of poor people, and a vanishing middle class.

Five, such influxes and exoduses, along with gerrymandering, have ensured a one-party state. There are no Republican statewide officeholders.

Democrats control all branches of government. Only 17% of its congressional delegation is Republican. So the Left proudly owns what California has become.

What, then, will Newsom run on?

• Certainly not high-speed rail—17 years, $15 billion, and not a foot of track laid.

• Certainly not a $500-million exploding solar battery plant.

• Certainly not illegally issuing 17,000 commercial truck driver’s licenses to non-resident illegal aliens with little or no English competency.

• Certainly not the horrific but preventable Pacific Palisades fire.

• And certainly not a now-closed $2-billion desert solar plant boondoggle.

Instead, Newsom will continue his he-man threats to Trump, like, “We’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.”

But will such bluster lower the state’s gas and power prices or reduce its sky-high taxes?

On social media and in podcasts, Newsom will continue his adolescent threats to federal officials like Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem while serving up his adolescent potty-mouth smears (e.g., “son of a b***h,” “god-d**n,” “f**k,” etc.).

But that profanity will not lower crime or house prices.

In other words, in the Democrat primaries, Newsom will try to out-crazy the violence, profanity, and extremism of the now-crazy Democrat socialists.

Newsom will rant nonstop about the evil Trump, but neither offer a word nor do a thing about his own responsibility for the collapse of a once great state.

Newsom will lecture on “affordability” without mentioning that he has created the most unaffordable state in the nation.

Will all this gobbledygook work?

It did in New York.

So, who knows?

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/04/2025 - 17:00
https://ift.tt/CNpK7rt
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/CNpK7rt
via IFTTT

A Newsom Nihilist Nomination?

"Rage Bait" May Be The Word Of The Year, But Free Speech Remains The Target

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

George Bernard Shaw famously observed that “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.” It appears, however, that this chasm has finally been overcome by the common dialect of rage. The new word of the year was announced this week by the Oxford University Press and it is tragically apt: “rage bait.”

First used in 2002, the new word is defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.”

The choice is certainly apropos of what I called in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Rage is a curious emotion. It is the ultimate release. It allows you to do things and say things that you would not otherwise do or say. That is why it is addictive and contagious.

Rage, however, can also be a license not just to rave but to regulate.

The key to rage is that it is entirely subjective and relative. If you agree with a speaker, it is righteous. If you disagree, it is dangerous.

That relativism was evident in Oxford’s own press release on the selection of the word. 

Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Languages, associated the term with “manipulation tactics we can be drawn into online.”

He slammed “internet culture” for “hijacking and influencing our emotions.”

Grathwohl warned that it is an extension of what is called “rage-farming… to manipulate reactions and to build anger and engagement over time by seeding content with rage bait, particularly in the form of deliberate misinformation of conspiracy theory-based material.”

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the “here, here” grunts of the British censors.

Great Britain and other European countries have eviscerated free speech through criminalization and regulation for decades. The Internet is a particular obsession of the anti-free speech movement. The greatest single invention since the printing press, the Internet is a threat to countries and groups that want to control speech.

The new scourge is hidden “algorithms” that elevate certain postings. While liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have called for social media companies to use algorithms to encourage people to choose better books, the left accuses these companies of fueling divisions but creating forums for views that it considers “disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.”

The difficulty is distinguishing content-based bias in algorithms (which is rightfully condemned) from systems that simply elevate more popular posts. If social media is merely favoring more popular speech, the problem with critics is not with the bait but their own failure to attract nibbles from those surfing the web.

The fact is that these companies profit from traffic and favor posts that customers are most interested in reading. That drives activists to distraction because they believe their views are healthier and superior for citizens to discuss.

These are really calls for “enlightened algorithms” to favor truth, as defined by governments and supporting experts. That is not “hijacking” but liberating; it is not “rage bait” but reasoned debate. It is that easy.

Any disliked image or view can be deemed rage bait. The same week that Oxford was choosing rage bait, there was another story of how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom.

Jon Richelieu-Booth told the Yorkshire Post that he was arrested for posting a picture on the networking site LinkedIn of himself holding a shotgun at a friend’s homestead in Florida. West Yorkshire Police allegedly warned him about the post and told him to be “careful” about what he says online and “how it makes people feel.” He was later arrested and spent months in the criminal justice system before the case was dropped.

It is an all-too-familiar story for those of us who have documented the decline of free speech in the UK.

The British police have arrested people for silently praying in public and a man was convicted for “toxic ideologies,” literal thought crimes.

The Times of London reported that police are making around 12,000 arrests per year over online posts.

Rage rhetoric has been with us since humans first learned to speak. The danger of rage rhetoric is rarely the rhetoric itself. It is the use of rage rhetoric by the government and others to silence citizens.

It is easy to say that certain postings are “bait” for rage. It is more difficult to agree on what rage is. While the left will denounce statements of Donald Trump as rage bait, they rarely object to such rhetoric from Hillary Clinton or Jasmine Crockett. The same is often true on the right. Each side views its own postings as reasoned debate and the other side’s as rage bait.

No one is being “hijacked” on the Internet. They are choosing their sources, and many create siloes or echo chambers. It is a common feature of “an age of rage.”

Oxford is clearly correct in the selection of a word that captures the age. However, it also captures the use of rage to rationalize censorship by treating viewpoints as harmful lures for the unsuspecting, unwashed masses. That desire to regulate speech is also often driven by rage, but it is embraced as reason.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/04/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/xjC3Z5J
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xjC3Z5J
via IFTTT

"Rage Bait" May Be The Word Of The Year, But Free Speech Remains The Target

DOE's Hyperspeed Reactors

As the rate of data center development rises, more states should be following the Texas example, where each data center must have its own “behind the meter” onsite power generation. Instead, it appears data center development will continue to grossly outpace the rate of production for on-site electricity generation in most states.

To prevent skyrocketing electric bills, every state has to follow the Texas example: each data center must have its own "behind the meter" onsite power generation.

“We believe data centers should pay for the full cost of their power,” Dominion Energy spokesperson Aaron Ruby… https://t.co/0u1owTeAs8 pic.twitter.com/8W421s3rzV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 23, 2025

With power demand surging, driven heavily by new AI data centers, more people are starting to realize the best means for addressing future demand will be through clean nuclear energy. Unfortunately, decades of atrophy currently afflict today’s nuclear industry, and nuclear engineers are in desperate need of a “nuclear iteration playground” to quickly develop their advanced reactor designs to the commercial stage.

And then there is the issue of where the US gets 300,000 engineers to build all this missing power supply by 2030 https://t.co/a18crhqZ4v pic.twitter.com/tinW8SHDwM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

The current framework of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not allow for efficient iteration of reactor design. The licensing process, which used to take several years and has recently been reduced to a comparatively shorter timeline, would need to be heavily repeated for changes to reactor and secondary systems, reopening reactor developers to lawfare attacks from anti-nuclear activists like the Sierra Club and Beyond Nuclear. This leads to the million dollar question: “How do we enable efficient nuclear reactor iteration?”

Enter the Department of Energy

The American nuclear renaissance isn’t talk. It’s action.

— Office of Nuclear Energy | US Department of Energy (@GovNuclear) September 23, 2025

Derived from the Executive Orders issued by President Trump on May 23, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Reactor Pilot Program (RPP). Under this program, multiple companies were chosen to work with the DOE under an expedited licensing pathway to enable faster timelines to reach reactor construction, bringing reactor developers closer to the desired stage of design iteration to achieve economic and commercial scale at a faster pace.  The DOE also initiated the Fuel Line Pilot Program (FLPP) to rapidly progress technology within the nuclear fuel chain.

The primary goal of the RPP was to facilitate three new reactors achieving criticality by July 4, 2026, which was the specific directive given by the Executive Orders. The expedited path to actual steel in the ground is a massive secondary benefit. We recently highlighted one of the program's successes with Valar Atomics achieving cold criticality with Project NOVA.

The FLPP‘s biggest win to date came with the recent announcement of Oklo receiving approval for their Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (NSDA) for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility, approved in just under two weeks.

Concern was expressed by many as to the amount of technical rigor applied to the NSDA review. How could the DOE review in two weeks what would’ve taken the NRC several months, or years? The answer we think others are missing lies in the six years of collaboration between Oklo and the DOE national laboratories. Oklo has been coordinating with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on multiple projects, including their fuel fabrication facility and their fuel reprocessing technology, since 2019.  The DOE was able to use those two weeks to verify if there were any outstanding questions with the research and coordination that have occurred over those several years, instead of having to take several months or years to perform an independent review of data that had already been coordinated and verified by government laboratory scientists and staff (what the NRC would have to do).

Companies like Oklo will continue to enjoy benefits like these for the remainder of their time under the DOE. Eventually, they will also be able to utilize the recent addendum signed between the DOE and the NRC to very easily and rapidly transition their already approved Aurora reactor design to the NRC license review process for quick commercialization. 

Another under-discussed benefit to working with the federal government on federal land, is the lack of absolute nonsense that reactor developers no longer have to deal with.

• Oklo doesn't have to sit at a local town meeting and listen to grandma complain about how she doesn't want Chernobyl in her backyard
• Atomic Alchemy doesn't have to wait for state and local lawmakers to finish bickering and dragging their feet over changes to zoning laws
• Terrestrial Energy doesn't have to be subject to the weaponization of environmental regulations by the Sierra Club to force them to spend $900 million to protect salmon

The head of the UK nuclear regulatory taskforce says the country is...

"... spending £700m (~$900m) on systems to protect one salmon every ten years..."

... for the UK newest nuclear power plant. https://t.co/pfbL0uElGM

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) November 24, 2025

To a large extent, the federal government gets to do what it pleases on federal land. For now, it seems like the federal government is finally ready to give reactor developers what they have been in desperate need of – a nuclear iteration playground.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:40
https://ift.tt/RVbGxOC
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RVbGxOC
via IFTTT

DOE's Hyperspeed Reactors

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit

Authored by Mark Keenan via GlobalResearch.ca,

Artificial intelligence is being sold as the technology that will “change everything.” Yet while a handful of firms are profiting enormously from the AI boom, the financial risk may already be shifting to the public. The louder the promises become, the quieter another possibility seems to be:

What if AI is not accelerating the global economy - but masking its slow down?

The headlines declare that AI is transforming medicine, education, logistics, finance, and culture. But when I speak with people in ordinary jobs, a different reality emerges: wages feel sluggish, job openings are tightening, and the loudest optimism often comes from sectors most financially invested in the AI narrative.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Has AI become a true engine of prosperity — or a financial life-support system?

The Mirage of Growth

Recent economic data suggests that a significant portion of U.S. GDP growth is being driven not by broad productivity, but by AI-related infrastructure spending — especially data centers.

A study from S&P Global found that in Q2 of 2025, data center construction alone added 0.5% to U.S. GDP. That is historic. But what happens if this spending slows? Are we witnessing genuine economic expansion — or merely a short-term stimulus disguised as innovation?

This pattern is not new. In Ireland in 2008 — before the housing collapse — construction boomed, GDP rose, and skepticism was treated as pessimism. The United States experienced something similar the same year: real estate appeared to be a pillar of prosperity — until it wasn’t. On paper, economies looked strong. In reality, fragility was already setting in.

Today, echoes of that optimism are returning — except this time, the bubble may be silicon, data, and expectation.

The Productivity Paradox

AI has been presented as a labor-saving miracle. But many businesses report a different experience: “work slop” — AI-generated content that looks polished yet must be painstakingly corrected by humans. Time is not saved — it is quietly relocated.

Studies reflect the same paradox:

• According to media coverage, MIT found that 95% of corporate AI pilot programs show no measurable ROI.

• MIT Sloan research indicates that AI adoption can lead to initial productivity losses — and that any potential gains depend on major organizational and human adaptation.

• Even McKinsey — one of AI’s greatest evangelists — warns that AI only produces value after major human and organizational change. “Piloting gen AI is easy, but creating value is hard.”

This suggests that AI has not removed human labor. It has hidden it — behind algorithms, interfaces, and automated output that still requires correction.

We are not replacing work. We may only be concealing it.

AI may appear efficient, but it operates strictly within the limits of its training data: it can replicate mistakes, miss what humans would notice, and often reinforce a consensus version of reality rather than reality itself. Once AI becomes an administrative layer — managing speech, research, hiring, and access to capital — it can become financially embedded into institutions, whether or not it produces measurable productivity.

As I explore in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI at that point, AI does not enhance judgment — it administers it. And then we should ask:

Is AI improving society — or merely managing and controlling it?

The Global Data Center Stampede — But Toward What?

McKinsey estimates that over $6.7 trillion  may be spent on AI and computing infrastructure by 2030 — a level of capital allocation typically seen in wartime. But what exactly is being built, and will it ever return value to ordinary people?

The United States is not the only nation embedding AI within its economic strategy. Similar trends are emerging globally:

• EU: funding AI infrastructure via public bonds

• China: integrating AI into its “national rejuvenation” strategy

• Singapore / UAE / Ireland: offering major tax incentives to build data-center zones

• BRICS: framing AI as a counterweight to Western digital dominance

AI may no longer be a neutral technology — it is becoming a strategic instrument shaped globally by national policy, geopolitical competition, and financial pressure. The question is no longer whether AI will shape national policy — but whether policy itself is already being reshaped in service of an AI orthodoxy.

Analysts warn that parts of the industry may already resemble a circular economy of expectations: cloud and chip companies invest in AI startups that then buy computing services from the very firms that fund them. Speculation becomes demand — and demand becomes proof of viability.

If this pattern repeats globally, AI may not represent a technological revolution — but a new public liability embedded into national strategies.

The Genesis Mission — And the Rise of State-Protected AI

A November 2025 U.S. executive order — internally referred to as the “Genesis Mission” — may institutionalize AI infrastructure by merging:

• federal supercomputers

• national-lab datasets

• taxpayer funding

• private-sector AI firms

into a unified national AI platform.

This does not guarantee bailouts — but it creates the conditions under which major AI firms may become “too big to fail”. Once AI is embedded into national strategy, failure becomes political.

We may be witnessing the transformation of AI from speculative investment into a publicly underwritten enterprise.

Under these conditions, any failure — technological, economic, or environmental — will not remain private. It will become a public cost.

Are we potentially witnessing a new socialisation of private risk and debt — similar to what occurred after the 2008 housing collapse in the United States, Ireland and elsewhere — with the burden once again transferred onto the public?

Who Carries the Risk?

The concern is not just the data boundaries of AI itself and the “consensus reality” it portrays — but where the financial risk may already be hiding.

Large retirement funds and passive index portfolios are now concentrated in AI-dependent giants such as Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Tesla. On the debt side, data-center financing and private credit tied to AI infrastructure are quietly entering bond portfolios.

This means the AI boom is not simply an investment trend. It may already be embedded inside the retirement accounts of ordinary citizens — without their knowledge.

Across borders, governments risk repeating the same pattern: constructing AI infrastructure before proving that it benefits society.

Questions the Global Public Deserves Answers To

• Is AI transforming work — or creating new layers of hidden labor?

• Are data centers driving prosperity — or merely propping up GDP?

• Are citizens knowingly investing in AI — or being invested through passive portfolios?

• Is AI creating value — or simply absorbing public capital and subsidies?

When enough money, debt, and public credibility are tied to a technology, questioning it becomes difficult — and supporting it becomes mandatory.

Conclusion

As I wrote in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI, we should not allow AI to overshadow human thought. History reminds us that optimism is most dangerous when it becomes unquestioned. AI may still deliver genuine breakthroughs — but belief is currently moving faster than evidence.

If AI delivers value, perhaps this risk will be justified. If it does not — the cost will not fall on venture capital. It will fall on pensioners, savers, taxpayers, and future generations.

Now that AI is being treated as national infrastructure, its success or failure is no longer a private gamble. It has become a global public risk — and public risks always come with a public bill.

If we allow AI to define the future, we risk forgetting that the future is still ours to define.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/BTDrmN2
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/BTDrmN2
via IFTTT

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit