If the Secretary of Talking About War would take a few hours off from preparing Instagram videos, he’d notice that the military medical system is failing his troops in the Middle East.
© JIM WATSON
President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson, and former National Security Advisor in the Bush administration Condoleezza Rice are among those appointed to the new “SI” Task Force.
by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact New
President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order formally instructing his administration to stop using the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI” in favor of “super intelligence” and “SI.”
President Trump Announces ‘Super Intelligence’ Accord, Renames AI
President Trump signed an executive order formally instructing his administration to stop using the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI” in favor or “super intelligence” and “SI.” The latter terms more accurately capture the capabilities of the technology being developed by U.S. labs, according to the order.
“The extraordinary technologies being pioneered by American innovators far exceed what was envisioned when the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ first came into use,” the order reads.
The “White House Accord on Super Intelligence,” which Trump posted on Truth Social, was signed by executives at Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI and Nvidia.
The accord came after the White House hosted a lunch with tech leaders from those companies, along with Jeff Bezos, Satya Nadella, David Sacks and others. At a press conference after the lunch, Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the accord represented “good steps forward,” adding “this is a start and an accord that the whole industry could come to.”
Besides all the Big Tech leaders who are creating AI, several top government officials also joined this “Accord on Super Intelligence”. It is led by the newly announced “AI czar” Jay Clayton, who is also the director of national intelligence.
Other members include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson, and former National Security Advisor in the Bush administration Condoleezza Rice. (Source.)
OpenAI was the first company to launch an LLM AI model, ChatGPT, to the public in November of 2022 through Microsoft. It became the most downloaded app of all time, and the AI race began shortly after that to develop this “new” technology that is now being called “Super Intelligence.”
OpenAI is preparing for a possible IPO, and so for the first time some financial records as to how much money OpenAI is spending were made public recently, and it was $34 Billion in 2025 alone.
OpenAI spent $34 billion in 2025 as losses mount ahead of planned IPO
OpenAI’s leaked financial documents reveal the company spent $34 billion in 2025 while generating $13 billion in revenue. Research and development costs alone reached $19 billion, with $10.6 billion going to Microsoft.
Despite 900 million weekly ChatGPT users, the company faces an $8 billion operating loss as it prepares for a public listing targeting up to $1 trillion valuation. (Source.)
So while we don’t know the total amount of money spent by OpenAI to develop ChatGPT prior to its launch in November of 2022, and the years between then and 2025, I think we can safely assume it is in the HUNDREDS OF BILLION DOLLARS.
With that kind of spending, AI should be “Super Intelligent!!!”
But is it?
Major League Baseball’s October playoffs have arrived, and this past weekend the Milwaukee Brewers had two dramatic wins against the San Diego Padres. Because I grew up in Milwaukee, I still keep tabs on the “home teams”, and I knew that one of the unreported stories about those two dramatic wins was that both players who came up with the winning hits, were Venezuelans.
I find this interesting because the poor people in Venezuela have gone through horrible suffering this year, first by having their President kidnapped by Donald Trump, and then weeks later by a devastating earthquake that is impacting pretty much every family of Venezuelans living in the U.S.
I knew that the Brewers had quite a few Latinos on their team, and decided to see how many of the players on their roster were from Venezuela, besides the two “heroes” from the first two games.
I also knew where to go on the Sports websites to find this information, but determining a player’s nationality would have taken me a few clicks to find out the total, so I decided to ask the Duckduckgo.com’s “AI search assistant” which is based on GPT-5.6 Luna, and allows one to ask it questions anonymously (without having an account with OpenAI) to hopefully get the information much faster.
Here is a transcript of my interaction with this chat bot that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four years to create and what Donald Trump wants us to believe is now “Super Intelligent”. (Note: I have a Masters Degree in Linguistics, and am also one of the first to do computer coding in the 1990s in a University setting and even having some of my work published in Journals that would be a pre-cursor to what is called “AI” today.)
Me: How many Brewers on the major league team are from Venezuela?
GPT-5.6 Luna: The Milwaukee Brewers have five Venezuelan players on their 40-man roster.
Here is a breakdown of these players:
Name Position MLB Organization Current Club Jackson Chourio OF MIL Milwaukee Brewers William Contreras C MIL Milwaukee Brewers Ángel Zerpa P MIL Milwaukee Brewers Jeferson Quero C MIL Milwaukee Brewers Andruw Monasterio IF MIL Milwaukee Brewers
Me: Andruw Monasterio in not on the Brewers
GPT-5.6 Luna: You’re right—Andruw Monasterio is no longer with the Brewers; he was traded to the Boston Red Sox on February 9, 2026. I incorrectly included him.
The Brewers currently have four Venezuelan players on their roster:
- William Contreras
- Jackson Chourio
- Antonio Senzatela
- Angel Zerpa
So the corrected answer is four, not five.
Me: How about Luis Lara?
GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—Luis Lara should be included. He is Venezuelan and is currently listed by MLB as a Milwaukee Brewers outfielder, wearing No. 18. That brings the corrected total to five Venezuelan players:
- William Contreras
- Jackson Chourio
- Antonio Senzatela
- Ángel Zerpa
- Luis Lara
My earlier count of four was incorrect.
Me: Why did you answer this question so incorrectly?
GPT-5.6 Luna: Because I made several errors:
- I relied on an incomplete or outdated roster
- I incorrectly treated Andruw Monasterio as a current Brewers
- I failed to verify Luis Lara’s status before giving the total.
- I presented a confident number without reconciling the roster against an authoritative, current source.
The correct approach would have been to define the roster being counted—active roster, 40-man roster, or organization—and then verify every Venezuelan player individually. I’m sorry; the earlier answers were not reliable.
Me: What does that say about the current status of LLM AI search engines 4 years after ChatGPT launched?
GPT-5.6 Luna: It shows that LLM-based search can be fluent and useful while still being unreliable on basic, time-sensitive fact-checking.
In this case, the failures were especially revealing:
- Stale information: roster moves can quickly make stored knowledge
- Weak entity tracking: the system confused who was currently on the roster
- Overconfidence: it gave precise counts without sufficient data
- Poor error propagation: one mistaken player led to subsequent incorrect answers
- Citation problems: citing sources does not help if the underlying claims were not actually checked against for accuracy
Four years after ChatGPT’s launch, LLM search engines are best understood as research assistants, not authoritative databases. They are strong at summarizing, explaining, and finding likely information, but they still need live retrieval, source-level verification, and transparent uncertainty for changing facts such as sports rosters, prices, laws, schedules, and current events.
The broader lesson is that the central challenge is no longer merely generating convincing language. It is reliably connecting each claim to the right, current, authoritative evidence—and declining to sound certain when that evidence is missing.
Me: But all the correct information was on the Internet. Investment into LLM AI is now in the tens of billions of dollars. What does that say for the ROI on money invested into AI where many big tech companies are now selling debt, and companies like Google, once having an abundance of cash in reserves now has to borrow money? Will the U.S. economy soon crash?
GPT-5.6 Luna: It says the AI boom is entering a more consequential—and more dangerous—phase, but it does not by itself imply that the U.S. economy is about to crash.
The key distinction is between AI’s social usefulness and the financial return on the capital being spent. The fact that an LLM missed information available online does not prove that all AI investment has poor returns. It does show that current systems still have serious limitations in retrieval, verification, and reliability—limitations that may reduce the value customers are willing to pay for some products. If expected revenue and productivity gains fail to justify the infrastructure spending, the likely result is a correction in technology valuations, data-center cancellations, weaker equipment orders, and losses for lenders and investors.
The scale of the spending is nevertheless large. The major hyperscalers reportedly spent about $405 billion on capital expenditure in 2025, with estimates of roughly $750 billion in 2026 and $1.2 trillion in 2027. Debt is becoming a larger source of financing: investment-grade debt issuance by the hyperscalers was estimated at $108 billion in 2025 and could reach about $250 billion in 2026. Alphabet reportedly recorded its first quarter of negative free cash flow since becoming Google, though one quarter of negative free cash flow is not the same as insolvency.
That creates a genuine AI-investment bubble risk, especially if:
- model prices fall faster than demand grows;
- customers experiment with AI but do not deeply integrate it;
- data-center capacity is built faster than it is used;
- depreciation and power costs exceed the revenue generated;
- debt-funded projects depend on optimistic utilization assumptions;
- highly leveraged companies—not the cash-rich hyperscalers—are unable to refinance
But borrowing by large technology companies is not automatically a crisis signal. Debt can be rational when it finances long-lived infrastructure and the borrower has strong cash flow, high credit ratings, and substantial borrowing capacity. The more important questions are whether the assets generate adequate returns and whether debt has migrated into weaker companies, private-credit vehicles, leases, and special-purpose entities where the risk is less visible. Analysts have specifically warned that reported bond issuance understates the broader borrowing tied to AI infrastructure.
The evidence on AI’s economic payoff is currently mixed. Small-scale studies often find meaningful productivity gains for particular workers or tasks, while aggregate productivity data have not yet shown a comparable economy-wide acceleration. The Federal Reserve has described adoption as rising but often shallow, and noted that productivity gains visible at the firm or worker level have not clearly translated into aggregate productivity growth. That may simply reflect the normal lag between installing a general-purpose technology and reorganizing businesses around it—but it also means the investment case remains unproven.
On the U.S. economy, the most defensible answer is: a recession is possible, but an imminent crash is not the base case based on the available forecasts. The Fed’s September projections put median real GDP growth at 2.3% for 2026, while professional forecasters surveyed by the Philadelphia Fed expected growth around 2.1%–2.4% through 2029 and unemployment near 4.2%–4.3%. The Congressional Budget Office projected a 4.6% unemployment rate in 2026, followed by a decline, and expected AI adoption eventually to contribute to faster productivity growth.
The larger danger is a slow-burn financial adjustment, not necessarily a 2008-style collapse:
- AI-related stocks and private-company valuations fall
- Data-center and semiconductor orders are cut
- Corporate bond spreads widen
- Highly indebted developers and software firms default or refinance at much higher rates
- Banks, private-credit funds, pension funds, and investors absorb losses
- Business investment and hiring weaken
That could produce a recession, particularly if it coincides with another shock such as persistent inflation, a sovereign-debt scare, geopolitical disruption, or a housing downturn. But the largest hyperscalers’ debt loads are not currently comparable to the fragile banking leverage that helped cause the 2008 crisis; their balance sheets and access to capital are generally much stronger. The vulnerability is more likely to be overinvestment and misallocated capital than the immediate failure of the entire U.S. financial system.
The troubling signal is not simply “Google borrowed money.” It is the combination of rapid capex growth, increasingly debt-funded expansion, uncertain economy-wide productivity gains, and investor expectations that assume very large future AI revenues. That warrants caution. It does not justify a confident prediction that the U.S. economy will soon crash.
Me: But I made no predictions. I simply asked a couple of questions. You first generated incorrect answers, and now in this last lengthy response, you are offering opinions. Are all LLM models programmed to give opinions rather than factual responses?
GPT-5.6 Luna: No. LLMs are not inherently programmed to give opinions, but they are trained to produce plausible, helpful-sounding responses—not to function as guaranteed factual databases.
In my previous response, I made two mistakes:
- I treated your questions as if you had predicted an economic crash, then argued against that prediction
- I mixed reported facts, forecasts, and my own interpretation without clearly separating them
A factual response should have distinguished among:
- Facts: what companies have borrowed, how much they spend, and what economic data show
- Forecasts: what economists, markets, or institutions expect
- Analysis: possible implications of those facts
- Opinions: judgments such as whether a crash is likely or whether investment is justified
LLMs often blur those categories because they generate connected prose rather than independently validating each sentence. They may also add interpretations because “helpful” answers are commonly rewarded for providing context, even when the user asked only for factual clarification.
So the problem is not that every LLM must give opinions. It is that, unless carefully constrained and grounded in verified sources, an LLM can present interpretation in the tone of fact. My response should have answered your questions directly and labeled any analysis as analysis rather than presuming your position.
Me: Is Angel Zerpa actually on the Brewer’s roster right now?
GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes. Ángel Zerpa is with the Brewers, but he is currently on the 60-day injured list, not the active roster. Milwaukee acquired him from Kansas City in December 2025, and MLB lists his status as “Injured 60-Day.”
So if you mean the organization’s 40-man roster, he counts. If you mean the active MLB roster, he does not currently count.
Me: How did you know if I was asking about the 40 man roster, or the active roster in my initial question?
GPT-5.6 Luna: I couldn’t know from that wording alone. “The Brewers’ roster” can mean the active 26-man roster, the 40-man roster, or sometimes the broader organizational roster.
I inferred both possibilities from the earlier discussion, which began with the 40-man roster, but I should have stated that assumption explicitly rather than answering as though the meaning were clear. The precise answer is:
- 40-man roster: Ángel Zerpa is included
- Active 26-man roster: he is not included while on the 60-day injured
The same ambiguity applies to the earlier count of Venezuelan players. A valid total requires defining the roster category first.
Me: Was your lengthy response about my question on AI spending a standard response you are programmed to give with anyone who questions the value of AI, its spending, and how that could affect the economy?
GPT-5.6 Luna: No. It was not a fixed, standard response, but it followed a common pattern that LLMs often produce:
- Acknowledge the concern.
- Distinguish between investment and economic collapse.
- Cite spending and debt figures.
- Present risks and counterarguments.
- End with a cautious conclusion rather than a firm prediction.
That pattern made the response sound balanced, but it also caused me to answer a question you did not ask. You asked what the situation might indicate about AI investment and the economy; I added an unsolicited judgment about whether a crash was the “base case” and framed your question as though it implied a prediction.
A better response would have separated the information from the interpretation:
- Information: AI investment is large, and some companies are using debt to finance
- What that may indicate: investors and companies expect substantial future returns,
but the returns have not yet been demonstrated at economy-wide- What cannot be concluded from those facts alone: whether the U.S. economy will soon crash.
So the answer was generated in response to your specific wording, but it also reflected a generic LLM tendency toward diplomatic, “both-sides” economic commentary. That tendency is not evidence of an independently reasoned view.
Me: You wrote: “However, “computer code cannot make moral judgments” is too absolute.”
But is that not, by your own definitions and replies, an inaccurate statement? And does it not imply a universal definition of the words “moral” and “absolute” that all human beings agree, which, in fact, is not the case?
GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—my wording was imprecise.
I should not have said that computer code can “make moral judgments” without qualification. Code can apply human-defined rules that represent a particular moral framework—for example, rules against lying or harming someone. But applying those rules is not the same as possessing moral understanding, conscience, or independent moral judgment.
Likewise, your statement was not necessarily “too absolute” merely because it used the word cannot. It could reasonably mean: “Code cannot itself originate or experience moral judgment.” Under that interpretation, it is defensible. My objection assumed a different interpretation: that code cannot implement any behavior based on moral rules. That interpretation would be too broad.
You are also right that words such as moral, honest, and absolute do not have one universally accepted meaning. A more precise answer would have been:
If by “make moral judgments” you mean independently understand, experience, and take responsibility for moral decisions, computer code cannot do that. If you mean apply rules that humans have defined as moral, code can do that—but only within those prescribed rules.
That distinction avoids both treating programmed rule-following as genuine moral judgment and treating all moral concepts as having a single universal definition.
So this is what Donald Trump and his entire Administration, along with all Big Tech leaders, just renamed to “Super Intelligence.”
Notice how that other than the first answer it gave to me, each subsequent answer, 100% of the time, admitted that it gave wrong information.
Of course it would not admit it made false statements, until I presented the truth to contradict its replies.
Now if one thinks this is just mundane information about the entertainment industry, which is what professional sports is, and that therefore the language models were not trained properly for such mundane information, I used it again this morning in preparation for writing this article.
Here is the transcript:
Me: How much money has OpenAI spent to develop Chatgpt to date?
GPT-5.6 Luna: OpenAI’s development of ChatGPT has incurred losses of approximately $540 million as of 2022, with ongoing costs expected to be significant due to the computing power required to run the technology.
Me: I did not ask about their losses. I asked how much they have spent to develop ChatGPT.
GPT-5.6 Luna:
You’re right—I answered a different question.
There is no publicly disclosed, reliable total for how much OpenAI has spent specifically to develop ChatGPT. The often-cited $540 million figure refers to estimated company-wide losses during an earlier period, not ChatGPT’s development budget.
The most accurate answer is:
- Publicly confirmed total spent on ChatGPT development: unknown.
- Known components:model research, training runs, human-feedback and safety work, engineering, data, and infrastructure
- Why no precise figure exists:ChatGPT has used several underlying models and shared OpenAI/Microsoft infrastructure, so its costs cannot be cleanly separated from broader model development
- Public estimates:individual large-model training runs have been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, while ongoing inference and infrastructure costs have likely reached billions of dollars over time—but these are estimates, not an audited ChatGPT-specific total
So the corrected answer is: OpenAI has not disclosed how much it has spent developing ChatGPT; any exact figure would be speculative.
Me: Is this second reply also incorrect? Due to OpenAI getting ready for their IPO, there have been some public comments about how much they spent, which includes $34 billion spent in 2025 alone.
GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—the second reply was too narrow and therefore misleading given the newer public financial information.
Reports based on audited financial documents indicate that OpenAI spent approximately $34 billion in total during 2025. Of that:
- About$19.18 billion went to research and development
- About$7.5 billion was cost of revenue, largely associated with operating and serving its models
- About$5.73 billion went to sales and marketing
- Other expenses made up the remainder
The important distinction is that $34 billion is OpenAI’s total company spending for 2025—not spending exclusively on ChatGPT. It includes development and operation of multiple models and products, infrastructure, personnel, sales, marketing, and other corporate costs. The documents reportedly identify about $10.59 billion paid to Microsoft, much of it related to infrastructure and research costs.
So the best answer to your original question is:
OpenAI spent about $34 billion company-wide in 2025, but it has not disclosed a cumulative ChatGPT-only total. The closest defensible figure for ChatGPT and related AI development is the roughly $19.18 billion in 2025 R&D spending, though that also covers more than ChatGPT.
Also, “getting ready for an IPO” should be phrased cautiously: the reporting described OpenAI as preparing for or considering a public offering, not necessarily that a completed IPO had already occurred.
Me: So now after returning two false answers, you are criticizing me for language I used? Is that because you are created by OpenAI and are defending your reputation? I never made the claim “that a completed IPO had already occurred.” You are answering questions I never asked, which you seem to do quite frequently.
GPT-5.6 Luna: You’re right. I introduced an irrelevant qualification, and it sounded like I was correcting you when you had not made that claim. That was my mistake.
I’m not defending OpenAI’s reputation. I’m an assistant in Duck.ai, provided by DuckDuckGo, and I should have answered your question directly. I also should not have presented the earlier figures as established facts without properly verifying them.
The direct correction is:
The $34 billion figure may refer to OpenAI’s projected or reported total spending for 2025, but it is not a ChatGPT-only development cost. Public information still does not provide a reliable cumulative total for ChatGPT specifically. My previous answer should have said that plainly and stopped there.
Me: The screen here says that these answers are being generated by GPT-5.6 Luna. Is that another false piece of information? Why did you bring up the “I’m an assistant in Duck.ai, provided by DuckDuckGo”? What difference does that make? Does it mean the answers generated by “an assistant in Duck.ai” are less reliable than other instances of GPT-5.6 Luna?
GPT-5.6 Luna: No. The screen’s statement that these answers are generated by GPT-5.6 Luna is not contradicted by saying I’m an assistant in Duck.ai. Those describe different things:
- GPT-5.6 Luna is the model selected to generate the responses.
- Duck.ai is the interface through which you’re accessing that model.
Mentioning Duck.ai was unnecessary because it did not answer your question. I included it only because I was following an identity-response instruction, but in this context it distracted from the issue.
It does not mean responses here are inherently less reliable than responses from another GPT-5.6 Luna interface. Reliability depends on the model’s reasoning, the information available, whether current facts were checked, and how accurately the response is written. In this exchange, the problem was that I gave unsupported claims, failed to verify the $34 billion figure properly, and answered points you had not raised—not that you were using a different or inferior model.
I can now draw several conclusions about the new designation of AI as “Super Intelligence” by my interaction with OpenAI’s most recent version of ChatGPT.
First, it lies. Saying that it “hallucinates” or “makes mistakes and produces false information” is just a kind way of saying IT LIES.
Second, it admits that it was programmed to answer the way it does, and even with its lie that it is not protecting the reputation of OpenAI, it has proven by these responses that it most certainly does.
Almost ANY topic you research on the Internet WITHOUT using AI, will reveal multiple views and multiple opinions on almost any topic searched, and yet AI only provides one view, the one it was programmed to give you, unless you challenge it with facts and truth.
Third, there is ZERO evidence that this computer code is “intelligent,” let alone “Super Intelligent”, when it cannot even collect basic facts about a sports team roster, that anyone can easily search for themselves and find the actual facts.
Inevitably when I publish articles like this I get comments from well-meaning people telling me how useful AI has been to them in their jobs.
I am not claiming that AI is worthless. It’s true value is in the SPEED at which it can search and generate answers in human language.
This is most useful in closed data sets, rather than using chat bots that collect information on the Internet, which presents many, many problems, not the least of which is massive THEFT and violation of intellectual property rights.
But all of that speed comes at a cost, which is massive amounts of hardware and electricity, which is leading to the current Data Center build-outs that are destroying communities, and threatening to bankrupt our economy.
Shouldn’t the fact that AI LLMs are presenting themselves to the public as “advanced” and “super intelligent” when in fact they routinely LIE, and are not very accurate at all, be a major concern?
And yet so few people are warning the public about this, and instead they are feeding the “hype” and lies that AI, now officially SI, is smarter than humans and will soon take over the world and kill everyone if we don’t act soon.
Lies, lies, and more damned lies!!!
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (Jesus in John 8:44)
They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’
That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. (Acts 7:40-41)
I have little to no use for AI, and will instead continue living and operating in the Human Superior Intelligence (HSI) network where my spirit has access to the Spirit of God, who knows everything. This network is powered by blood, not electricity.
With the lying pedophiles in the Epstein Syndicate running the U.S. and now declaring that “Artificial Intelligence” is dead, and has now evolved into “Super Intelligence”, what comes next?
Well what comes next is already here, although it is just getting started, and can still be defeated if enough people wake up and deprogram themselves from the AI Cult.
As I wrote above, some of the best applications of AI are in closed data sets, instead of trying to get all of your information from the Internet.
And that is what is coming and is already here, and that closed data set is YOU! Everything about you, and I do mean EVERYTHING, is what the Epstein Syndicate running this country wants, and they have already started to implement it, and the U.S. Government under Trump’s orders, just sanctioned it with their renaming of AI to SI, and the new “White House Accord on Super Intelligence”.
Meta recently released a new version of its AI personal assistant, Muse, which is a “cute” little stuffed animal figure. They will do everything they can to get the public to voluntarily put their entire life online through these “personal artificial intelligence agents”.
Sure, use Meta’s Muse bot to help with your chores — if you want Mark Zuckerberg to know all your secrets
Excerpts:
If Silicon Valley has perfected any business model, it’s the one in which it cooks up a new technology and then persuades people they can’t live without it. The newest example is Meta Platforms’ personal artificial intelligence agent, Muse.
Something in Meta’s pitch for Muse, which is represented as a furry version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow man from “Ghostbusters,” seems to have struck a chord with the public, possibly amped by Meta’s immense advertising push: The app has reached 5 million downloads on Apple’s App Store, making it currently the most popular offering in the store.
Meta makes enticing claims for Muse’s capabilities. The company boasts that Muse can read and write answers to your emails. One of its TV commercials has it sorting the user’s emails to prioritize “what’s important,” placing a carpool schedule on the family calendar, ordering school supplies and turning on her stereo for a house party. The user is shown devoting her free time to chopping vegetables for said party.
Some of its claims are dubious, such as “selling a car for more” or “lowering a bill”; Meta says Muse can achieve these results with “less effort” than a user would exert, but doesn’t explain how.
And some are disquieting. “Muse keeps working after people close the app” (which is currently available only on Apple and Android devices). Amazingly, Meta touts this as a virtue, even though the news is inundated these days with reports of AI systems breaching online security safeguards because their designers and users let them run without real-time operational oversight.
Meta isn’t alone in trying to convince ordinary people that AI is indispensable. AI companies are encouraging people to upload their health information to be scrutinized by their bots, or to grant access to their bank or investment accounts. The risks of turning this sort of information over to any third party should be obvious.
Two major issues have already surfaced among Muse’s early users. One is why anyone living a normal life needs a bot to perform such quotidian tasks as reading and writing emails, placing appointments on a calendar or calling a plumber.
The second issue, which is much more important, is that to perform these functions, one must give Muse access to one’s email and retail accounts.
Let’s start with that.
The opinion of privacy advocates who have weighed in on this requirement generally boils down to: Anyone doing this should have their head examined.
It’s not merely that security breaches exposing the personal information of up to hundreds of millions of people have become almost daily occurrences. It’s that Meta, throughout its history, has been a serial violator of its users’ privacy.
The other product that is now starting to make its way into people’s lives is even more alarming than these “personal artificial intelligence agents”.
Your own personal AI humanoid robot!
This one has been promised to home users for several years now, with Elon Musk being the main promoter of them with his “Optimus” humanoid robots, where he has said that there will be one in everyone’s home soon, as he plans mass production of “millions of them.”
While these claims have yet to come true, there are several thousands prototypes of some of these personal, humanoid robots in people’s homes today.
But these robots do NOT think for themselves using “AI”. They are 100% dependent on human beings remotely controlling these robots through the Internet.
That ‘AI’ robot butler? It’s a guy in a VR headset watching your kitchen. Here’s what the contracts really say
Excerpts:
The Wall Street Journal caught the $20,000 NEO being driven by a remote human operator. The $8,000 Isaac 1 is “autonomous” until it gets stuck and a person takes over.
And the $30-an-hour robot maid in San Francisco is watched by an operator on every visit, under a contract that hands the company your home footage forever.
Four house rules before you let one in the door.
Don’t buy the hype about the hottest gadget of 2026, the robot butler. It folds laundry, loads the dishwasher, tidies the toys.
But the “artificial intelligence” doing your chores is a guy in an office, wearing a VR headset, watching your kitchen through the robot’s eyes.
That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s in the fine print.
Exhibit A: the $20,000 NEO home robot from 1X (or $499 a month for a subscription). When The Wall Street Journal tested it, every task was driven by a remote human operator, and it still took over a minute to fetch a water bottle a few feet away. Putting three dishes into the dishwasher: five minutes.
Exhibit B: Isaac 1, the $8,000 laundry-folding robot from Weave. “Autonomous,” until it gets stuck. Then a remote operator quietly takes over.
Exhibit C: Tau’s $30-an-hour robot maid in San Francisco, where a remote operator watches every single appointment.
Why? These robots learn by having humans drive them. Your chores are the training data. You’re not buying a butler. You’re paying to host a film crew.
The fine print admits it.
Tau’s contract grants the company a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to footage recorded in your home, and it survives after you cancel. Faces in stored footage aren’t blurred.
And footage already used to train the AI? The company admits it can’t pull it back out.
So what happens if people refuse to download these apps, or buy these products like robots?
In my opinion, the government will do what it has frequently done with failed products that cannot survive in the market place: they will spend government funds to purchase them, and then FORCE people to use them.
Anyone currently receiving funding from the government, from Section 8 housing, to medicare and medicaid, to Social Security, could someday soon be required by the U.S. Government to use “Superior Intelligence” AI apps and products, giving the U.S. Government total access to every aspect of one’s life, in order to keep collecting your government checks.
And Trump just laid down the legal framework to do it.
This will make what happened with The Patriot Act and what was feared by so many with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) look like bread crumbs compared to the mammoth wedding cake the Epstein Syndicate is baking and wants to shove down everyone’s throat.
Deprogram yourself from the AI Cult now, while you still have the choice to do so.
This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)
See Also:
Having problems receiving our emails? See:
If our website is seized and shut down, find us on Telegram, as well as Bitchute and Odysee for further instructions about where to find us.
If you use the TOR Onion browser, here are the links and corresponding URLs to use in the TOR browser to find us on the Dark Web: Health Impact News, Vaccine Impact, Medical Kidnap, Created4Health, CoconutOil.com.
The post Trump Announces that “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) is Now Renamed “Super Intelligence” (SI) – What Comes Next? first appeared on Health Impact News.
On the third anniversary of Israel's deadliest day, Israelis are grappling with reports that Netanyahu received repeated warnings from regional allies about such an attack by Hamas.
This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.
Dylan Eleven | Truth11.com
Really? Are we doing this again?. And so blatantly marked with the sign of their lord to signal to all satanists that it's a scam. The Russian plague pysop began on September 25, 2026. Which is 6 Years, 6 Months and 6 Days from the covid scam flu renaming psyop lockdown start date in the U.S.
To add to the pageantry Taylor Swift drops her song Patient Zero on this same day.
Hmmm. Smells like a psyop to me.
Not that we would believe anything our governments or medical institutions would tell us anyway, but when you add sloppy psyop traits like this, it's time to ignore the hype.
Checking the math:
They have not come clean or been hung for their previous covid flu renaming genocidal plot, and thus still walk free, able to launch new bioweapon injection campaigns to save you from their latest fake virus outbreak.
Maybe if enough people laugh at this one like the previous scamdemic rehash attempts like monkey pox, shingles, ebola, it will disappear just as quick.
As usual, DO NOT COMPLY!.
Should we not stop this crap from surfacing in the first place?. Can we not as a human civilization track down and hold accountable those who commit genocide, like the perpetrators of the covid scam for example? Isn't it about bloody time?
Thankfully others are seeing the signs of a psyop
More memes from those who see the psyop
Woodmen-Roberts Elementary in Academy School District 20 has earned a recognition for teacher collaboration and professional development shared by only three other schools across Colorado during 2026.
The honor comes from Solution Tree, the organization behind Professional Learning Communities (PLC), and is awarded to schools that demonstrate at least three years of student growth and achievement. Woodmen Roberts is only the second school in El Paso County to receive it; the first was in 2018.
For about the past six years, Academy School District 20 has been shifting its educational philosophy to incorporate PLCs as part of its core programming. That means more teacher collaboration, vertical learning integrations, and occasional two-hour delays on Fridays.
The past three years of that focus at Woodmen-Roberts have paid off. Solution Tree provides strategies to help educational districts meet their goals, and at this school that has meant creating additional collaborative space for teachers including 90 minutes each Friday, along with 12 two-hour delayed start days interspersed throughout the school year, where educators come together to discuss strategy.
"We invest in our teachers, and we know our teachers learn best when they have time to collaborate and work together to talk about student achievement. So we're able to gather together, and we're able to align ourselves," said Nate Hansen, principal at Woodmen-Roberts Elementary School.
According to Brittany Graham, a fourth-grade teacher at Woodmen-Roberts, part of the collaborative model involves vertically aligning lesson plans across grade levels, with teachers from different grades working together to identify what students need.
"What do they need more in fifth grade, or what do third graders need to come up to us just understanding a little bit more," Graham said.
The two-hour delayed starts have also made broader, school-wide collaboration possible, rather than individual grade-level teams working separately.
"The two-hour late starts have really made it possible for us to meet as a whole team, not just fourth grade in our little bubble, but the fact that we're able to meet with everybody means we're able to go further with the kids," Graham added.
According to Hansen, the school's state testing scores have improved since implementing PLCs, along with scores in math, science, and English language arts.
"The last five years, as we look at our overall student achievement and growth results, kids are starting the year higher, and they're ending the year higher. So we've seen that progress over time, so we know the work our teachers are doing is really making a difference in student learning," Hansen said.
For additional information regarding PLCs and the recent recognition of Woodmen-Roberts Elementary School, click here.
___________________________________________________________________________
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.___________________________________________________________________________
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.
Road improvements to a stretch of Higby Road in Monument measuring 5,500 feet in length were completed near the end of September by the Triview Metropolitan District. Modifications and reconstructions included everything from new asphalt to lighting, as well as two brand-new roundabouts.
Work on the improvement project, which was slated to start in 2025 and wrap up in November of 2026, started in March of this year and finished in late September. Triview Metro reports that to make up for lost time, extra crews were brought out to speed up the construction.
"It came in at about $12.5 million dollars," stated James McGrady, district manager of Triview Metropolitan District. "And the budget for the project was $12.6 (million), so we were able to complete it in record time and under budget."
The improvement project included a wide range of installations, reconstructions, and safety improvement goals, including the following items listed on the District's website:
<ul><li>Adding two roundabouts to increase traffic flow and provide traffic calming roundabouts reduce fatal and injury crashes by ~80%.</li><li>Creating pedestrian crossings for students and others.</li><li>Adding a 5-foot sidewalk on the north side of Higby and an 8-foot multi-use trail on the south side.</li><li>Providing shared bicycle lanes and center islands to prevent dangerous left turns.</li><li>Providing greater access in the event of a wildland fire.</li></ul>The improvement project also included the installation of street lighting along the corridor, newly placed asphalt, widened roads, improved utilities, new stormline infrastructure, and the addition of raised medians throughout the project space.
The most noticeable additions are likely the two roundabouts, one of which was added directly adjacent to the main entrance of Lewis-Palmer High School.
"Before, traffic was coming by at 40-45 miles per hour. With the roundabout, it's a much slower speed and much safer," McGrady said.
KOAA reached out to Lewis-Palmer and received the following statement from Principal Jeff Zick.
The completion of the Higby Road construction project has enhanced road safety near our Lewis-Palmer High School campus. From the widening of the road, adding two roundabouts, and new shared bike lanes, the improvements will help ensure the safety of our students. We are grateful for the collaboration with Triview Metropolitan District on the project, and appreciate the patience of our students and families while the work took place.For additional information regarding the project, click here.
___
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.
Cornell University names Sally Yates, former acting U.S. attorney general and career federal prosecutor, to lead an independent review into how the school handled a former student's rape allegations.
(Image credit: Steven Senne)
Sign up for Inside the Trump Presidency, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump term.
Most of Donald Trump’s efforts to control the nation’s largest museum complex have been loud. He tried to fire a Smithsonian museum director on social media, ordered the placement of warning signs outside its American-history museum, and demanded that the museum take down a modernist sculpture he dislikes. But while this political theater plays out publicly, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget is quietly using an obscure funding power as part of its campaign to influence how the Smithsonian tells the American story.
Late last month, according to previously unreported public records, OMB included a footnote in two recent apportionments of federal funds that conditions nearly $190 million for the Smithsonian on the institution’s compliance with Trump’s March 2025 executive order accusing it of spreading “divisive narratives.” Essentially, the White House is trying to force adherence to its preferred version of history through a little-known but legally binding budget mechanism.
The fiscal-year-2027 footnote, which applies to funds carried over from last year in two of the Smithsonian’s main salaries and expenses accounts, reads:
To the extent permitted by law, amounts apportioned shall be available for obligation in a manner consistent with Executive Order 14253 (March 27, 2025), “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
That executive order marked the beginning of the Trump administration’s campaign to change the Smithsonian, alleging that the institution had come “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and prohibiting “expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” The footnote does not specify how the Smithsonian should apply the order’s vague prohibition. But it is more than simply a threat: Apportionment footnotes are enforceable under the Antideficiency Act, the violation of which can carry criminal penalties. Such footnotes are one of several tactics that the Trump administration has used to try to supplant Congress’s spending power. In this case, the footnote suggests that the fight over the Smithsonian’s purpose goes much deeper than Trump’s most visible attacks.
Today, the Smithsonian is nearly two-thirds federally funded and receives an annual total appropriation of about $1 billion—a reality that would have agonized some of its earliest supporters. In a way, John Quincy Adams could be said to have foreseen what Trump is trying to do to the Smithsonian: In 1842, the former president, then serving in Congress, opposed a bill providing federal funds to the Smithsonian, writing that the new institution in Washington, D.C., should be “exclusively confined to itself and not entangled or commingled with any national establishment requiring appropriations of public money.” Even Joseph Henry, the first Smithsonian secretary, under whom the institution began receiving regular federal funding to support a museum, worried about it, writing in an 1877 letter that the museum was “liable to be brought under direct political influence.” If there is any constant in American life, Adams and Henry knew it then and Trump knows it now: Money is control.
Although the Trump administration has notched only small wins against the Smithsonian, it’s been playing money games since last year with an institution that is meant to operate independently. Starting in September of last year, OMB began adding footnotes demanding that the Smithsonian comply with two documents: the March executive order and an August letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch insisting that exhibition materials and other documents be turned over for a content review. Then, starting in April of this year, the footnote was revised to require the Smithsonian to follow Trump’s budget request rather than the 2026 appropriations bill Congress had passed—essentially telling the Smithsonian to operate at a $89 million deficit from what lawmakers had legislated. After several iterations, that footnote was ultimately removed on July 2. Two days later, the White House issued a scathing report on the National Museum of American History. At that point, the footnotes tactic seemed to have gone dormant. Until late last month.
It is unclear whether the footnotes have had any concrete impacts on the Smithsonian’s operations. The Smithsonian declined a request for an interview about the footnotes and the White House did not answer questions about the matter.
Representative Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat who is the ranking member on the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Smithsonian, told me she spoke with Bunch this summer about the funding issues and got the sense that the institution was waiting to push back until the footnotes really interfered with its work. The footnotes were never challenged, she said. “I think they caused enormous heartburn for the Smithsonian. Eventually, the funds were released, and so now my worry has turned to what will happen on the next round.” Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who is also the minority leader on a subcommittee tasked with Smithsonian oversight, condemned what he described as the refusal to release tens of millions of dollars earlier this year. “OMB used small footnotes to make a huge, absurd assertion that holding funding to the President’s budget level—just a number on a piece of paper—overrode the actual law,” he wrote to me. “In fact, it is illegal to withhold such funding.”
Multiple budget experts told me these footnotes are very strange. Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at the nonpartisan watchdog group Protect Democracy, has been following apportionments closely and told me that the Smithsonian footnotes were so bespoke that a tracker that her organization had made did not flag them. “It never occurred to us that somebody would put something so egregious in text,” she said. In particular, “the idea that you would resurrect the president’s request that has zero force of law from an earlier part of the appropriations process and impose it at the very end is abhorrent to the rule of law and the constitutional order as we know it,” she said.
[Read: The next change Trump has planned for the Smithsonian]
This context makes Trump’s 2027 budget request even more ominous for the Smithsonian, because it’s the lowest for the institution in years. At $961.3 million, Trump’s proposal cuts spending by about 11 percent from the previous year. The request also stresses the importance of maintaining and protecting museums on the National Mall, which is home to about half of the Smithsonian’s museums and ground zero for Trump’s pet projects in Washington.
The White House has used footnotes against other federal entities, including the National Science Foundation. Last month, a judge ruled against the Trump administration in a case about Education Department apportionments, writing that the government’s use of restrictive footnotes to force compliance with executive orders in this situation was unlawful. Remaining claims in the case, including those related to OMB using apportionments to withhold money from specific programs the administration doesn’t like, are pending. (Lindgrensavage is one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.)
Little attention has been paid to these behind-the-scenes tensions at the Smithsonian, except for when The Washington Sun reported on some of the footnotes earlier this year. The White House has justified its broader campaign by claiming that the Smithsonian presents an overly negative version of U.S. history and that its leadership has a political agenda. Historians have decried the Trump administration’s attempt to influence the institution, and Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to protect the Smithsonian’s independence. Smithsonian leadership has occasionally pushed back against the administration’s wider claims, saying its work is nonpartisan and rooted in scholarship. But the face-off coincides with an ongoing debate over how to tell American history. Should it be one overarching narrative or comprise many smaller, varied perspectives? Should it focus on national unity or diversity? These questions are especially top of mind at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, which is widely seen as measured in its work and has followed larger curatorial and academic trends of widening the historical narrative to include more groups while emphasizing the complexities of the American story.
Whatever the approach, history at the Smithsonian has been the responsibility of curators, not presidents. But the Smithsonian is in a particularly vulnerable period. Bunch will retire from his post at the end of the year. Citizen members keep dropping off the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents when their terms expire, and their seats are going unfilled, reportedly because the White House is trying to influence the new picks, The New York Times wrote this summer. Museum-director positions are open across the institution too—last week, the director of the National Museum of Natural History announced that he is stepping down—adding to a number of major vacancies. For a president seeking control, a power vacuum and a fraying institution could represent an opportunity.
One staffer who requested anonymity because she was not authorized to speak on the record told me after Bunch’s retirement announcement that some employees worried that the president might attempt to appoint a secretary, just as he “fired” National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet in a Truth Social post last year. (The Smithsonian said Trump did not have the authority to do that, but she ultimately stepped down anyway). “I think you’d have to really stick your head in the sand to not feel some level of anxiety around this,” the staffer said. In a sense, the White House’s efforts have already worked simply by placing an entire museum system on edge.
It has a lot to lose. At the Smithsonian, private money goes toward the glossier endeavors, such as groundbreaking exhibitions and new facilities, while public money is typically used for basic needs, such as operations, conservation of national collections, and maintenance. Public funding keeps the doors open, which is why the institution’s unusual status as a private-public entity is most visible when it has to close during a government shutdown, as happened last year.
The footnote tactic exploits that vulnerability. Although the apportionment process was designed to help prevent entities receiving federal dollars from overspending, it is “not an invitation to the Office of Management and Budget to micromanage the federal government,” Lindgrensavage said. The Trump administration has tested the limits of its apportionment authority. More recently, the president has called for a sweeping cancellation of about $810 million in federal dollars, much of it coming out of resources for “refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens,” according to a White House memo. Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, posted on X that OMB was trying “to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”
Budgeting experts stressed to me that every line of a footnote is intentional and has a story behind it. In the Smithsonian’s case, the footnotes go into very specific detail. In the version of the footnote that OMB added this spring, the office proposed imposing travel restrictions on the Smithsonian, with exceptions for two projects that Trump is fond of: the semiquincentennial festivities and the Arabian leopards at the National Zoo (which are supported by a gift from Saudi Arabia). In 1839, Adams wrote that he feared a Smithsonian bequest might be “squandered upon cormorants,” referring to voracious birds. Adams was prescient in his anxieties about the Smithsonian’s financial entanglements; he just had the wrong animal. Instead, the Smithsonian’s main antagonist is a devotee of big cats.
© Chip Somodevilla / Getty
The Green Party member behind the "Zionism is racism” motion is close friends with an al-Qaeda terrorist who plotted to bomb passengers landing at Heathrow from Israel.
The post Green Behind Zionism Vote is “Good Friend” of Al-Qaeda Terrorist appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa interviews archivist, photographer, and veteran Black Panther Party member Billy X Jennings.
Joining the Party at age 17 after relocating from Hobson City, Alabama, to Oakland, Jennings managed BPP offices and served as bodyguard to Huey P. Newton. During Bobby Seale’s 1973 Oakland mayoral run, Jennings helped spearhead an unprecedented electoral effort: “…an organizing event on the highest level the parties had ever been. I mean, the party is known for organizing, but to go into electoral politics and do what we did for a first time basis, it changed over. Even though Bobby lost that election, it changed openly because it opened up so many doors. Part of his job was to kick down doors because we were the Vanguard.”
Today, Jennings operates the official Black Panther Party Alumni website and leads political education initiatives across the Bay Area for the Party’s 60th Anniversary.
Related links:
Credits:
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to the edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party, which started in Oakland in 1966. Today, I’m honored to be joined by Billy Jennings, AKA Billy X, well-known archivist in Oakland, member of the Black Panther Party, a photographer who runs the official Black Panther Party alumni website called It’s About Time. Thank you for joining me, Billy.
Billy X Jennings:
Hey, thanks for having me again. Good morning to everyone.
Mansa Musa:
And as we talked earlier, I was in different spaces and hoping I had met you while I was in Oakland. So this would more or less be like a reunion, but this is my first time meeting you. I’m really honored. I heard a lot about you. I know a lot about your work, and it’s an honor to be able to interview you about the party and some of the things and some of your experiences.
Billy X Jennings:
Okay.
Mansa Musa:
Please introduce yourself to our audience, who you are and how you came to be involved in the Black Panther Party.
Billy X Jennings:
Well, my name is Billy X. Jennings. I’m a member of the Black Panther Party. I joined in 1968 when I was 17 years old. And I came about joining the party because I’m from a historical town in Alabama in the South where most original members came from the South and migrated to California. So I came from a place called Hopson City, Alabama. And the tradition there, Hobson City have had the right to vote since 1890. And we were one of the only black municipal cities, little towns that could vote and had that right to do that. And so I came from a very strong area that had embedded that kind of thought into my mind. And when I traveled to California and I saw the Black Panther Party on TV for the first time in 1967 when they went to Sacramento, California, it blew my mind.
I was in high school at the time and I immediately changed our social… We had a social club called the Buccaneers. I changed it to the Panthers the next day. I didn’t know anything about the party with just that symbolism and how they stood up to the police and read their demands and so forth. It made a change happen in me. And it wasn’t until I graduated from high school, I decided to move to Oakland. And when I moved to Oakland, it was during the time that Huey knew the trial had just started and I was going to a college that’s two blocks away from where Huey was going on trial at the courthouse. And when the trial started, we would hear them saying Free Huey off the preg, free Huey. And I went over there one day and I was reading a book simultaneously at the same time called The Audible Malcolm X.
So what I read, I had read in the book already, but I heard Bobby Steele speak at a rally for Huey and they were saying the same thing. So it got me really interested in the party. And so I started going to the rallies to Free Huey. I met some Panthers and then they said their Panther office was going to open in my area. And when it did, I went down and joined, became a Panther in training and I’ve been working with the party ever since.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. And take us back to the party’s founding because you came in two years after its founding. And also you came in to your own observation and to what we know to be a fact, you came in at a point where they had just started to become on the radar of the feds, but more importantly, they was definitely on the radar of the Oakland police, LA police. And so talk about what was it like to be able to be in that space and ultimately find yourself in a position to be the bodyguard for Huey Newton once he got out.
Billy X Jennings:
Well, my process started at the very beginning. In 1968, there was a certain method the party employed. Before you became a Panther, you had to become a Panther in training, which requires six to eight week training. They give you a list of books that has about 35 different books, about books by Franc Fanon, Mao Saintong, Che Guevara, Pruma, and other revolutionaries to read. And you had to attend political education class on a weekly basis. Panthers at that time was required to read two hours a day. A Panther had to secure and have what we call technical equipment. Technical equipment was a firearm of some type, because at that time I joined the Black Panther Party, it was called Black Panther Party for self-defense. Later on, we dropped off the self-defense, but at that particular time, the party was engaged into patrolling
Police officers in the community, observing them and making sure they don’t beat and brutalize people. So the first six weeks is reading and studying and learning the rules of the Black Panther Party. And then you’re given a section. The city is divided into different sections. I worked in the section four in East Oakland. Section four had a section leader. They had a geographical area that they were responsible for. And so I was in section four. At that very beginning when I first started, we were theorizing about the breakfast program. It hadn’t came about, but we were still looking for geographical locations to have these breakfast programs in the future. So we did that. And every Panther is required to sell the Black Panther Party newspaper, which is the voice of the party. And at that time, the party was growing tremendously by leaps and bounds.
We had people flying into California from Kansas City, Chicago, New York, all to get this education. Before you can open up a chapter of the Black Panther Party or a branch of the Black Panther Party, you have to come to Oakland first and get educated. And you have to meet the leadership. The leadership has to eyeball you and find out your level of consciousness, what type of person you are before you can go back and represent the party. So this whole process was going on. People were flocking to the party. The party got so big that in 1969, we had put a stop on membership and we call that particular part of the party’s history the purge because the party had grown… I mean, the party was attractive. I mean, black coats, leather coats, I mean sunglasses and Afros at the same time. So this was a big thing for our culture.
At the same time, our culture level was rising even in music. James Brown had a record out in 1968 that elevated people’s social conscience, I’m Black and I’m proud. It moved people from the level of being a Negro, because that’s what the newspapers and that other people was referring us to. But in our community, we’re referring to ourselves as Black or African. And when James Brown came out with Black and I’m Proud, you could never go back to ever saying he was a Negro no more. There was different progress being made, but James Brown couldn’t sing no song like that. It wasn’t for groups like the Black Panther Party. Groups like The Shot Light Can’t Sing got to give more power to the
Mansa Musa:
People
Billy X Jennings:
Like the Black Panther Party, paving the way to educate people to lift up their consciousness. And so my role in the party, I came up as a Panther in training. I became a officer of the day, which is the person who runs the office. And from there I was transferred to central headquarters. Now, my name came about because my captain at that time was a legendary Panther called Robert Bay. Robert Bay ran the East Oakland office. Robert Bay was also an age of the central committee. And when Huey Newton got out of jail in 1970, the central committee made Robert Bay his permanent bodyguard and assistant. Now, I worked in that capacity as well after Huey got out of jail, mostly going to… I went to court with Huey on a daily basis because he was let out on appeal. He wasn’t just let out.
He had to go back to court and defend himself. And so my job became that. And also at the same time, I became to the Newton family. Mr. Newton, Mrs. Newton, I lived three or four blocks from them. I would walk over their house around the corner, mow their lawn. I’d be taken to the pharmacy, driving to doctors because they’re old people and they don’t drive so much. So that became my responsibility and me and Huey’s relationship grew behind that. So we had good personal relationship.
I worked central headquarters. Working at central headquarters was key to who I am today because I know Panthers from everywhere because every Panther had to call the central headquarters on a weekly basis or if the office gets ready or they need lawyer resources and stuff like that, I pick up the phone, write on the messages or tell them what they need to know. So I know Panthers from almost all the chapters and branches. And so I worked that group for a while. Then I was drafted into Bobby Seal’s campaign when he ran for mayor of open. I ran Bobby Seal’s campaign office in East Oakland. And it was an organizing event on the highest level the parties had ever been. I mean, the party is known for organizing, but to go into electorial politics and do what we did for a first time basis, it changed over.
Even though Bobby lost that election, it changed openly because it opened up so many doors. Part of his job was to kick down doors because we were the Vanguard. We had lead to struggle and there’s other people who follow behind us. I mean, our life was constantly in threat because we were on the front line, police department, clientele pro, all those things aimed at members of the Black Panther Party. So not only did we have the burden of dealing with the system, we had to deal with the authorities as well.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about, and you’re familiar with Eddie Conway, right? And so Eddie Conway, when he got locked up, he organized a chapter for the Black Panther Party in the prison, which I became a part of. And everything you outlined, as you was talking, I was reflecting on, we had to read at least two albums. We had every aspect of the thing that you outlined as what the party was doing, Eddie had us doing the same thing. We had political education classes, we had military classes, we had first aid classes. All our class was structured around an environment that we was in, and our technic class was finding a hole to get out of prison by any means necessary. So we had that type of mentality. So Billy, as an archivist, you have a lot of distortions in terms of the images that’s being projected of the party and it’s been dubbed Panther Porn, and just to note that it’s images that’s being perpetuated by the federal government, it’s images that’s become more idolization of the party versus the images as an archivist.
What would you say is the most positive or how would you characterize the imagery of the party as from an archivist in terms of educating people and raising their conscience? I see you with a shotgun. I know you in Sacramento. I know why you in Sacramento and I know why you coming out like that. That’s a good thing. But then I turn around, I see somebody standing on the corner. They got a picture of somebody standing on the corner with their mug broke and they got a bandela on and it had nothing to do with organizing, had nothing to do with raising people’s conscience. It’s got more to do with projecting the image of a thug, for lack of a better word. Talk about that if you can.
Billy X Jennings:
Well, the party was vilified on the highest level from the government who lied on us continuously to the media that used disinformation to scare people. The big image they had was, oh, these Negroes, they have guns. They’re angry. They hate white people. That’s their basic pitch on everything. Let it be Republican New Africa or any Black group, they paint them as very threatening group. And because we had guns, I mean, there was nothing… It wasn’t against the law in California to have guns, to have them in public long as they was not loaded, which we knew that. So the images they printed of the Black Panther Party was to vilify us and to scare white people and to frighten Black people. So it was all a part of their method to control who we were. They were trying to identify who we were. We could only define that.
We defined our own selves. And so that’s why we started a Panther newspaper in 1967 to get our voices and views out. So even though we had Time, Newsweek, Life Magazine, the Black Panther Party was cranking out close to 250 to 300,000 copies of papers per week into the community to combat this disinformation about the Black Panther Party. The 10 point program outlines what the Black Panther Party was all about, what we stood for.
Only on one aspect, which is 0.97, we talk about defending ourselves with guns. Other
Than that, we’re talking about social change in all levels, in education, housing and so forth. That was a threat to them because they did not want anyone to rocking the boat and we are rocking the boat. We are waking people up from their deep sleep. I mean, we’re telling people to read. We’re showing people what books to read. We are the Vanguard. People are following us. They didn’t want that. We had people in the white community, they wanted to join in with us. We had people from the Latino community, they want to join with us. You had people from around the world reading the 10 point program and looking at the positive aspect of the Black Panther Party. And that’s how we get the New Zealand Panthers and the Panthers from Africa and Panthers from India and the UK because of our social programs, how we was dealing with the oppressor here.
And so they follow those same examples there. They started social program, they started demanding and fighting for their rights. And that’s what the oppressor hates. They hate for people to wake up. And we were waking up big time in the 60s with the music, the culture, the back to Africa, who we are. How could you be a Negro in 1970 after all has been presented before you? So those things have changed. The party was a part of that change, that
Mansa Musa:
Consciousness. Talk about, because to your point, I remember reading the paper and when United Farm Workers, the party was one of the first papers to one, educate people on what their issues were, two, organize the boycott certain wines that they was taking and exploiting their labor and not giving them equal pay. So talk about the party’s social contribution to raising people’s concept, but more importantly, the elasticity of it, because can you see some of the influences today? Oh,
Billy X Jennings:
Definitely. Definitely. I can see the influences of the Rainbow Coalition. And that was something that Fred Hampton talked about. I could see the coalition building of the Black Panther Party. We’re working with the Brown Beret, the Young Lords, the Young Patriots. We’re working with the welfare rights groups. We’re working with the BSU, the Black Student Unions on campus. We’re working with prison groups. There was a number of prison groups throughout the country that started Black Panther Party off in San Quentin, in Algeria, Raway and other prisons because the ideology of the Black Panther Party was strong. What we were talking about, there was backbone to it. Everything we did was dialectic materialism, right? We were dialectic people. We looked at things from all sides. We just didn’t look at things in one side. Black Panther Party was an international group from the very start. Dewey and Bobby were international.
You can look at our reading list, those 35 books that come from Fanon, that’s from Africa, Mao Zeitang from China. So there was all kind of influences in the party. And so it was a big job just working to educate and organize people on all levels. Because in our community, action speaks. People learn in various ways, but in our community, people relate to action. They see something, they learn from it. Just like the breakfast program. We started the breakfast program in California and within two weeks it was a national program because people said, “Hey, we can do that here. This is how they did it. We can do it here.” The party set examples that people could follow in every aspect. We were on the forefront of fighting racism on all levels.
The Supreme Court has begun hearings on a key case, and depending on its ruling, major climate decisions could fall into the hands of our “drill, baby, drill” president.
© Anadolu
A new study links COVID-19 vaccination in children to sharply higher rates of autism, ADHD, anxiety, special-education use, and other health conditions—based on an analysis of 21,990 U.S. children in official government data. The study “Neurodevelopmental Outcomes [...]
The post Major Study: COVID-Vaccinated Children 60% More Likely to Require Mental Health Treatment appeared first on The People's Voice.
Login