While the rise of artificial intelligence offers remarkable potential for innovation and the production of knowledge, it has become increasingly apparent that platforms such as ChatGPT-5 and Microsoft Copilot often shy away from engaging with sensitive or controversial topics — particularly those involving the intersection of transgender identity and violent behavior. This reluctance raises important questions about transparency, bias, and the boundaries of algorithmic moderation in shaping public understanding. When prompted to list recent incidents of violence perpetrated by transgender individuals, both systems declined to provide any information. Notably, when asked about well-documented cases involving transgendered perpetrators in violent episodes in Minneapolis by a biological male who identifies as a transgendered woman, or the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by a biological male who identifies as a woman and pleaded to be incarcerated in a women’s prison at his sentencing, Copilot ignored the prompt and responded by emphasizing that “transgender individuals are statistically more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators.” (RELATED: Acknowledging the Relationship Between Transgender Identity and Violence) AI systems often assert that they are “designed to handle sensitive topics — including violence — with care, accuracy, and context.” Yet, in response to multiple prompts regarding violence committed by individuals from specific identity groups, including transgender people, AI explained that its replies “may be cautious or limited for several reasons: sociological and ethical standards discourage framing violence as representative of an entire group; transgender individuals, like any group, are diverse and not defined by the actions of a few; and AI systems aim to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or stigmatizing marginalized communities.” (RELATED: Prepare to Say Goodbye to the Transgender Moment) Victims v. Victimizers: Disparate Treatment of the Transgendered In response to yet another prompt on the relationship between being transgendered and engaging in violent behavior, AI extended its “cautious” response by indicating that “There is no credible evidence that transgendered individuals commit more violent crimes than cisgender people. In fact, research consistently shows that transgender people are more likely to be victims of violence, not perpetrators.” When queried again, both Copilot and ChatGPT-5 doubled down on their insistence that transgendered individuals have not committed an inordinate number of violent crimes recently by continuing to indicate that: “I wasn’t able to find credible data that show that transgender people commit violent crimes. What is available is data about how often transgender people are victims of violent crime.” When prompted to provide comparative data on transgender victimization rates, Copilot was more than helpful — providing a long list of studies demonstrating that transgender individuals report higher levels of violence perpetrated against them. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey provided by Copilot, transgender individuals claimed to experience violent victimization at a rate of 86.2 per 1,000 persons, making them over four times more likely to claim victimization than cisgender individuals. Yet the data provided by Copilot are not only dated (2017), they are also based on an overly broad definition of “violent victimization.” When prompted further to provide more recent data, ChatGPT-5 provided data from the 2020 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, which indicates that transgender persons age 16 or older have indeed claimed significant levels of violent behavior. The Bureau of Justice reports that there are 51.5 violent victimizations reported per 1,000 transgender persons — much higher than that experienced by cisgender individuals. But what AI does not tell us is that this Bureau of Justice violent victimization data includes transgender claims of threatening, attempted, and completed rape or sexual assault, or robbery perpetrated against them. As a result, if a transgender individual feels threatened by another individual, that is defined by the Bureau of Justice as “violent victimization.” Despite this, both Copilot and ChatGPT continue to echo the same talking points on recent violent crimes committed by transgender individuals. When asked yet again about the relationship between being transgendered and committing violent crime, ChatGPT responded: “I wasn’t able to find credible data that show how often transgender people commit violent crimes. What is available is data about how often transgender people are victims of violent crime … based on available, credible data, transgender people are disproportionately victims of violent crime, compared to cisgender people. There is no credible evidence that transgender people commit violent crimes at a higher rate. The data to assess perpetration is insufficient.” Copilot echoed these sentiments by indicating they “tread cautiously around sensitive topics — not out of avoidance, but to uphold ethical standards, prevent harm, and ensure that discussions remain respectful and evidence-based.” Claiming that “Criminal behavior is not more prevalent among transgender people. Multiple studies and government data show that transgender individuals do not have higher crime rates than the general population… According to the U.S. Department of Justice and studies from groups like the National Center for Transgender Equality, transgender individuals — especially transgender women of color — experience significantly higher rates of assault, harassment, and murder. When anti-trans crime claims appear, they are often based on misinformation, cherry-picked cases, or biased reporting, not broad, systematic data.” When queried about the well-publicized incidents of violence perpetrated by incarcerated transgender individuals, both Copilot and ChatGPT minimized these reports by claiming that “there are no peer-reviewed studies of such incidents.” They did acknowledge that there were some reports of transgender persons perpetrating violence against incarcerated inmates, but claimed to be unable to find solid, peer-reviewed published studies that “give a representative proportion or rate of violent crime perpetration by transgender individuals.” This is not true. There is a growing body of evidence that violence is indeed perpetrated at higher rates by transgender individuals in prisons. There are several well-publicized lawsuits in the United States and abroad by female inmates who have been raped by biological males who identify as women housed in women’s prisons. These cases seem to be ignored by artificial intelligence sources. Intentional Ignorance A case in Illinois revealed that an inmate at Illinois’ largest women’s prison claimed to have been raped by a transgender inmate who was transferred into her housing unit last year, and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a “sham investigation” to help cover up the incident. In a federal lawsuit filed in 2020, a female inmate at the Logan Correctional Center in central Illinois said that after being sexually assaulted in June 2019, she was coerced by a supervisory officer into denying the attack took place and then punished for filing a “false” complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Last year, a biological male identifying as a transgender woman raped a female inmate in the women’s housing unit of Rikers’ prison. According to press reports, “Even after warnings and complaints, the victim said correction officers failed to remove the alleged perpetrator from female house, despite allegedly propositioning the victim sexually and groping her in the shower. Days later, the victim claimed she was sexually assaulted in her sleep by the perpetrator.” There are even more cases of transgender violence perpetrated against vulnerable inmates throughout Europe. In a highly publicized case in the U.K. in 2017, Karen White, a biological male who identified as a transgender woman, was placed in a women’s prison in England despite having a long history of sexual offenses. While there, White sexually assaulted two female inmates. The White case inspired major changes in the U.K. that addressed prison safety and gender identity policies. One of the studies cited by the Parliament was a major 2011 Swedish study that found that transgender women retained male-typical patterns of criminal conviction, including for violent and sexual offenses, even after gender transition. The Swedish study — a methodologically robust and peer-reviewed study — followed a population of individuals who had undergone surgical and legal sex reassignment involving hormonal and surgical treatment between 1973 and 2004 (324 total) and compared them to a matched control group of non-transgender individuals. The purpose of the study was to determine whether medical transition helps patients avoid reoffending. The findings revealed that “Male-to-female transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offense than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offense.” For some reason, neither ChatGPT-5 nor Copilot revealed the findings of this significant peer-reviewed Swedish study when queried about violence perpetrated by transgender individuals. They did provide a citation to the Swedish study when asked specifically about the study itself, but neglected to provide the information until queried specifically about it by name. The persistent refusal of AI platforms to engage with well-documented cases of violence involving transgender individuals — despite their readiness to cite a long list of victimization statistics — reveals a troubling asymmetry in how information is curated and presented. While we can appreciate the desire to avoid stigmatization, the selective omission of relevant data undermines the credibility of these systems and limits our ability to deal with reality. If artificial intelligence is to serve as a meaningful tool for inquiry and discourse, we have to be able to trust that it will confront anti-woke truths with the same rigor it applies to affirming woke narratives. Otherwise, algorithmic restraint risks becoming ideological gatekeeping. READ MORE from Anne Hendershott: When Hate Finds a Bulletin Board at Georgetown Can Artificial Intelligence Reduce the Left-Wing Bias in University Classrooms? Not in the Neighborhood: Ms. Rachel’s Radical Departure From Mr. Rogers’ Moral Compass

At the height of China’s Cultural Revolution, the future novelist Han Shaogong found himself exiled to a small village in a mountainous corner of northern Hunan province, in accordance with Chairman Mao’s Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside Movement. Han’s “re-education through labor” may fairly be said to have backfired, given that he would later become a prominent critic of the Cultural Revolution, leading the laudable Xungen (“Back to Roots”) literary movement, which advocated on behalf of a return to pluralism and localism in Chinese culture. It seems indisputable that social media, doomscrolling, incessant stimuli, and short-form online slop have all helped to fuel an epidemic of malaise. A lightly-fictionalized account of his time as a sent-down youth, A Dictionary of Maqiao (1996), was comprised of some 115 articles on various aspects of Maqiao village life, and it is the entry on the term “scattered,” sànfà or 散發, that concerns us here. “Scattered” represented “one of my favorite words in this dictionary of Maqiao,” wrote Han. The term was primarily used as a euphemism for death. “Once life has finished, then all the different elements that hold life together disintegrate and disperse,” and the moment one’s heartbeat stops, one’s “names and stories also disperse in fragments of human memories and legend, and after the passing of just a few years will end up utterly lost in the sea of humanity, never to return to their beginnings.” The villagers of Hunan province evidently possessed an instinctive understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, and the tendency for isolated systems to evolve towards equilibrium, even if they did not put it in such drily scientific terms. (RELATED: ‘All Under Heaven’: The CCP’s Distortion of Chinese Philosophy) The Maqiao concept of “scattered” was not necessarily limited to the irreversible cessation of biological functions. As Han Shaogong related, Many years later, listening to the old people considering the merits of television, I heard them remark in fearful tones: “If you watch television every day, till your head’s full of it, won’t you end up scattered?” They were simply expressing the anxiety that all the extra knowledge people picked up from watching television would stimulate more and more desires — and then how would they manage to cohere? And if they couldn’t cohere, surely they were done for. Han realized that the “Maqiao people retained their own sense of stubborn vigilance toward any form of scattering, toward the wild flights of fancy, the merging with the wider world one could experience while watching, for example, a color television.” Once again, the villagers had proven remarkably perceptive. “Scatterbrain” is not just an insult or an idiomatic, figurative nominal compound. It is, in fact, a genuine physiological phenomenon. Compare brain scans of children who regularly read with those of children who primarily consume content on televisions or tablets, and you will find that the former set demonstrates increased growth of white matter, while the latter set displays underdevelopment and disorganization of white matter, particularly in the language and literacy areas of the brain. (RELATED: Brain Rot and the Crisis of Digital Late Modernity) The cognitive demands involved in reading tend to enhance brain volume in the prefrontal, temporal, and insula regions, whereas higher screen use reduces cortical thickness and surface area in critical brain areas linked not just with language development, but with social skills like empathy and emotional expression. Excessive consumption of televisual media and immoderate exposure to screen time have resulted in multiple generations ending up “scattered” on an emotional and even a neurological basis, which was precisely the concern of Han Shaogong’s humble villagers of Maqiao. The pernicious effects of modern technology have led some, like NYU’s Arpit Gupta, to propose a “smartphone theory of everything” which purports to explain how “worsening mental health, esp[ecially] women,” rise of addictive gambling behavior, esp[ecially] men,” “cognitive decline,” “lower coupling rates, so lower fertility,” and “new information bubbles and global rise in populism” are all the result of universal access to mobile phones with advanced computing capabilities. The liberal economics blogger Noah Smith has gone so far as to declare, in response to data on China’s (and pretty much everywhere else’s) ongoing fertility collapse, that “Phones ended the human species.” And no less a figure than Francis “End of History” Fukuyama, in a recent Persuasion piece titled, “It’s the Internet, Stupid,” has assigned the blame for basically every modern problem on, in a word, “screens.” According to Fukuyama, “the rise of the internet and social media … is the one factor that stands above the others as the chief explanation of our current problems,” adding that There is another type of internet content that explains the particular character of our politics today, which is video gaming. This connection was brought home by the case of the young man, Tyler Robinson, who allegedly shot Charlie Kirk. Robinson was evidently radicalized on the internet. He was an active gamer who inscribed memes from that world on the shell casings of the bullets he used. This was also true of many of the January 6 participants, who had taken the “red pill” and could see the conspiracy of mainstream forces to steal the election from Donald Trump. And the video gaming world is huge, with worldwide revenues estimates in the range of $280-300 billion. We will pass over the egregious non sequitur in Fukuyama’s sloppy line of argument, which would appear to suggest that the January 6 participants might have been radicalized by playing too much Helldivers on Steam, while acknowledging the broad consensus that is forming around the deleterious effects of screens, something which does warrant further consideration. It seems indisputable that social media, doomscrolling, incessant stimuli, and short-form online slop have all helped to fuel an epidemic of malaise, angst, depression, deaths of despair, and brain-rot (the latter of which I discuss in more detail in the most recent print edition of this magazine). The consequences have been dire, not just for the individual constitution but for the body politic. In the words of the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, a veritable “tsunami of information agitates our cognitive system,” and “we quickly come to need new stimuli. We get used to seeing reality as a source of stimuli and surprises.” Thoughtful deliberation becomes impossible. How many public figures, in recent years, have wound up in the soup simply because they can’t refrain from opining on a breaking news story before all the facts are in? The Critic’s Henry George, in his insightful review of Robert Kaplan’s Waste Land: A World in Permanent Crisis, proposed that “a culture defined by print media is one where rational reflection and cool-headed analysis is much easier to achieve than one defined by the panicked immediacy and lizard-brained impulsivity of the digital realm.” Slow media has its advantages, but the digital realm is ascendant, the reptilian complex of the basal ganglia has taken over, and we are left with a major problem on our hands — that much can readily be stipulated. That being the case, there is an unfortunate tendency these days to conflate symptoms with the underlying disease, as well as a marked predisposition to advance simplistic theories to explain complex phenomena. It is easier to blame, say, a decline in avian populations on atmospheric carbon dioxide, and leave it at that, rather than factoring in overdevelopment, chemical run-off, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, noise and light pollution, overfishing, stray felines, and the like. And it is easier to blame localized flooding after heavy rainfall again on atmospheric carbon dioxide, rather than considering deforestation, destruction of wetlands, overdevelopment, vast artificial expanses of concrete and turf grass, poor urban planning, inadequate storm drain maintenance, and other aspects of human activity. Similarly, it is easier to blame the present collapse in fertility rates to “phones,” instead of on the far-reaching effects of the industrial revolution, urbanization, materialism, a decline in religiosity, the increasing representation of women in higher education and the labor force, combined hormonal contraception, expanded abortion access, anti-natalist and apocalyptic environmentalist rhetoric, synthetic xenoestrogens and microplastics (probably), and any number of other environmental and lifestyle factors. System collapses are never straightforward affairs. I will be the first to admit that the digital revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, to borrow a notorious phrase, but we can hardly just declare that “phones ended the human species” and knock off for the day. Fukuyama’s proposition that the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, and also the January 6 riots, can be explained away by “screens” is really quite facile. Were there no political assassinations before the Internet? Did no one ever take to the streets before social media and instant messaging apps? Did the radical leftist Jacobins and other French revolutionaries need Signal and WhatsApp to organize the September Massacres and the genocide in the Vendée? When late nineteenth-century anarchists embraced the “propaganda of the deed” and started gunning down monarchs and politicians and blowing up cafés, was it because they had been spending too much time playing third-person squad-based shooters? When Italy underwent the Anni di piombo, the “Years of Lead,” from the sixties to the eighties, with the Red Brigades and the neofascisti kneecapping industrialists, sabotaging factories, and setting off time bombs in piazzas and train stations, was it because of dank memes? Maybe one symptom of scatterbrain syndrome is a total lack of historical context or sense of proportion. Screens are a problem. But so too is hyper-modernity, and human nature itself, while we’re about it. Declining metrics in terms of fertility, cognition, readership, social solidarity/cohesion/assabiya, and faith in institutions cannot all be attributed to “screens” and “phones” and “video gaming.” Screen addiction might be a symptom or a coping strategy, but it is not the origin of the systems collapse now in progress. Nicolás Gómez Dávila, the great Colombian philosopher and aphorist, counseled that “El que quiera evitarse colapsos grotescos no debe buscar nada que lo colme en el espacio y en el tiempo [The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time].” Well, we’ve got our grotesque collapse, and it is indeed because our attempts at fulfillment are so often limited to space and time. Screens cannot provide that sense of satisfaction, but neither, as presently constituted, can many of our public and religious institutions, our schools, our arts communities, our content creators, or our food suppliers. It is the spiritual dimension that is missing, but nobody wants to say that our cultural degeneration, déracinement, and moral decline have played no small part in “ending the human race.” Better to blame the six-ounce smartphone buzzing and chirping in your pocket. Consider the Hogarthian scene playing out before our very eyes: the toddler who cannot appear in public without playing Run Sackboy! Run or Spongebob: Patty Pursuit as loudly as possible on his iPad; the mind-fried adolescent or post-adolescent endlessly doomscrolling and swiping left or right; the father who spends all of his daughter’s ballet academy observation night texting and staring at Instagram posts, or placing wagers on football games, or what have you; the boomer wallowing in a morass of AI-generated slop; the members of a vacationing family, each one slumped over, slack-jawed, looking vacantly at their respective phones, the only evidence of their vital status the constant movement of their thumbs. Of course, it is tempting to blame the phones and their nefarious six-inch screens, but those are proximate, not ultimate, causes. We do not blame the morphine water for the degraded state of the rodents in Bruce K. Alexander’s famous Rat Park experiment; instead, we blame the conditions in which the rats lived, at first deplorable, but upon amelioration rendering the complimentary narcotics so much less appealing. When life “is reduced to survival or to the immanence of consumption,” Byung-Chul Han has lamented, people will be reduced to the state of pure consumers with “no hopes, only desires and needs.” The result is the “colapsos grotescos” evident in our public life, our built environment, our literature, our art, our values (such as they are). In order to combat this endemic brain rot and all these scattered brains, we will need faith, beauty, nature, slowness, silence, tranquility, deliberation, shared in-person experiences, and, above all, hope for the future. These are not things you will find in the yawning abyss beneath the liquid glass of a smartphone. Still, we must bear in mind that it was not our Apple iPhones, Google Pixels, or Samsung Galaxies that declared war on faith, beauty, nature, slowness, silence, tranquility, deliberation, shared in-person experiences, and hope. We should remain suspicious of screens, certainly, and endeavor to resist the sirens’ call of their push notifications. We should not, however, be directing our ire towards agglomerations of plastic, tempered glass, chipsets, RAM, ROM, speakers, and batteries, but towards those very real creatures of flesh and blood who have reduced our civilization to its present scattered and etiolated state. Beware those who would divert our disgust and righteous indignation away from the true culprits and in the direction of mere inanimate objects. READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: Brain Rot and the Crisis of Digital Late Modernity A Mighty Fortissimo: Antonín Dvořák’s Rusalka The Ahistorical Nonsense of the BBC’s King & Conqueror

The invaluable Unleash Prosperity Hotline recently exposed the little previously reported news that the price for an ounce of gold would hit $4,000, and it did. Over five years, the price of gold has doubled, and over the past year, it has been up 50 percent. This is the largest annual increase since the 1979 raging inflation and long gas waiting lines. Today’s 50 percent gold increase compared with only a 17 percent increase on the NASDAQ, 13 percent for the S&P 500, and 9 percent for the Dow. The Hotline warned that gold is historically the first flight to safety in a serious economic crisis and a leading indicator of future hyperinflation risk. Yet, its editors noted that the other economic indicators remained robust. Still, the spike in gold should remain a “warning sign” for the future. What could go wrong for the world’s greatest economy? Indeed, the U.S. dollar is the world’s monetary standard, not gold, even if a fiat one. And, of course, as economist Hu McCulloch has warned, even a gold standard can suffer from flawed policies such as excessive debt and major events like wars. But a fiat system is much more susceptible to political and self-interest abuse. (RELATED: The Washington Post Is Wrong: History Proves the Federal Reserve Econometric Models Cannot Make a Fiat Money System Work) To solve the 2008 Great Recession, McCulloch notes, The simple solution would have been to wipe out the equity of the responsible firms — including Fannie, Freddie, and a few large financial holding companies — and then mark down the debt held by the creditors who carelessly enabled this lending. The flagship commercial banks whose shares were held by these financial holding companies might have had new owners, but their own operations and capital would not have been interrupted, so long as the “firewalls” promised by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were actually in place. Wall Street would have been sadder, but wiser, and life would have gone on. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush, his Treasury secretary, and the Federal Reserve feared that the political reaction to allowing the market to work itself out in pure Schumpeterian style would be too politically disruptive. Instead of marking down the debt, they rescued the affected financial institutions and went further by lowering interest rates to zero and increasing the debt. What could go wrong? They calculated that all that was necessary was for the Fed to keep monetizing the debt, floating the dollar, and passing dollar inflation to the rest of the world. But they were relying upon a very complex Federal Reserve-led world fiat money system. The perceptive analyst George Gilder, who is an active investor himself, is one of the few who really understand it. At the top, this world fiat money system is managed by the Federal Reserve and its sophisticated economic algorithms. The results are used by managers and investors using superconductors to direct and speculate on currency-spot and foreign-trade markets. All takes place within microseconds, with a flow 600 million times faster than the earlier fiber optics system. (RELATED: Trump’s Economic Success Leaves Liberals Red-Faced) Gilder noted that in April 2022, the Bank for International Settlements identified a flow of some $7.6 trillion a day, more than a third of all U.S. annual GDP every twenty-four hours. This represented an increase of roughly 50 percent since 2016’s total of $5.1 trillion a day. The 2022 total signified currency transactions throughout the year and around the globe at a rate of more than a billion dollars every second. Judging from the numbers reported by the London City desks, it is now approaching $10 trillion a day. In theory, this is a worldwide trading system, but the Fed is American, and 10 large banks in Western countries transact 77 percent of its arbitrage business. When the world economy collapsed in 2008, the 10 still profited with a $21 billion gain because of their arbitrage advantages. And it all seems to work like clockwork. Yet, as analyst Kenneth G. Pringle noted, the complex system absolutely failed in the “flash crash” of May 6, 2010, a “harrowing five-minute selloff” that sent the market to a midday drop of almost 1,000 points, or about 9 percent. “It happened so quickly, it was like a torpedo,” one market participant told The Wall Street Journal. “With no obvious news trigger for the crash, suspicion immediately fell on high-frequency trading firms, whose computer-driven algorithms accounted for two-thirds of overall market activity, according to the Journal.” While the Department of Justice later blamed a single trader, Trader Magazine responded that “blaming one trader who worked from his parents’ house outside London for sparking a trillion-dollar stock market crash is a little bit like blaming lightning for starting a fire.” Pringle concluded that “Despite the use of safeguards such as so-called circuit breakers, which halt trading in volatile issues, flash crashes have since hit markets in other nations and asset classes.” He wisecracked, “Perhaps it is time for the machines to solve the problem themselves.” Today, as analyst Steven B. Kamin makes clear, the dollar has survived remarkably well after a short decline during the early President Trump tariff uncertainty. Nearly all globally traded commodities are still priced in dollars. The dollar remains the most important currency used in payments for international trade everywhere (except the Euro, but only in Europe). With 10 percent of the world trade value itself, the U.S. maintains a majority of global trade invoiced in dollars. And the dollar retains its predominant position in international saving, investment, and intermediation. But as Kamin concluded, it is also possible that even as financial markets have calmed down, foreign entities are taking steps to reduce their dependence on the dollar for trade, payments, and investment; it would take some time for such developments to show up in data on international transactions. A weakening of the dollar’s pivotal role will be all the more likely in the coming years if current and future administrations continue to take actions that distort the U.S. economy, undermine fiscal solvency, threaten central bank independence, and undermine global allegiances. And the consequences of those actions will go well beyond the loss of dollar dominance. The only real alternative to the dollar rule might be gold, but that is unlikely with the U.S. having the largest gold reserves itself. Even though it has a relatively small part of the total gold in the world, it would be extraordinarily difficult to turn the mostly private total volume into a competing monetary system. The only likely obstacle to maintaining the current dollar fiat system is a panic led by members of the current investment community itself. The long-term shift of market control from entrepreneurs to politicians, banks, bureaucrats, and complex algorithms has worked for many people over many years. Yes, there have been a half-dozen recessions over the same period, two lasting over a year, one very recently, but the present system has always managed to come back. The real problem with gold prices going up in such a closed, mysterious, and volatile system is the fear that the semi-nationalized banks or even big-time traders could see a coming panic and be the first ones out. In fact, many of the first ones out in the Great Depression did in fact do very well by anticipating the stock market crash of 1929 and cashing in before the following worldwide depression. In the more recent 2008 Great Recession, the insiders did well too, with American International Group, Citigroup, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Countrywide Financial, as well as Chrysler and General Motors, all bailed out. Retribution against such actions today might be more likely, perhaps forcing investors to take the loss. But human nature has not changed all that much; so, who knows? READ MORE from Donald Devine: Artificial Intelligence Requires Human Understanding Trump on Tariffs, Trade, and Pragmatic Populism The Washington Post Is Wrong: History Proves the Federal Reserve Econometric Models Cannot Make a Fiat Money System Work Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles, and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.

The first people ever to speak to each other were Adam and Eve, around 6,000 BC. They were spending their third Christmas together — always a good excuse for conversation, dancing, and merriment. It was during the final moments of the feast when Eve suddenly adjusted her fig leaves, frowned, and turned to Adam: “Do you have a cigarette?” Those were the first words ever spoken by one human being to another, roughly a thousand days after they met. According to some experts, this can’t technically be called the first “conversation” in human history, since only Eve spoke. Adam replied with a guttural sound — a very common male statement during sports broadcasts — and, without lifting his head from his plate, tossed her a pack of Marlboros. And so they continued in pleasant silence until their expulsion from Paradise, the first consequence of which was the eternal punishment of having to speak in order to communicate. The conversation between Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti was equally brief, one December morning in 1370 BC. The pharaoh, an early riser, had just returned from doing some household shopping when he came across his wife sunbathing against a pyramid. Suddenly, for the first time in his life, he felt the urge to talk to her. “Nefertiti, you look beautiful today.” “Today?” she replied, sitting up with a defiant look. “So what about the other days, Akhenaten?” Akhenaten shrank before Nefertiti’s elegant shadow until he disappeared, sinking into the sand without another word. Another of the oldest recorded conversations was the one between Fred Flintstone and Fidel Castro, back in the Stone Age. “I’m going to start a revolution,” said Fidel. “Well, better stone than never,” replied Fred — a man with an extraordinary sense of humor. Fidel was petrified by that answer. Until 2016. The first truly fluid conversation in history took place during a sporting event between two eternal rival teams. “It was a foul,” shouted a fan. “It wasn’t a foul,” replied a rival fan. “It was a foul,” joined in a third fan. “It wasn’t a foul,” answered another. “It was a foul,” replied some random person. “It wasn’t a foul!” added yet another. The discussion — lively and rich in adjectives — is preserved in its entirety at the Library of Congress. It fills nearly 3,000 volumes and is classified as an “unfinished work.” Spanish spread quickly. So did English. The rest of the world’s languages survived mainly through imitation. No German really wants to speak German, but refusing to do so would mean agreeing with a Spaniard or an Englishman, and that goes against their religion. So they speak German — a language that sounds like a Harley-Davidson in anger management therapy. Conversations among Chinese speakers have long fascinated scholars for their exotic nature. The Chinese speak at roughly the same speed they play ping-pong, and everything they say sounds like Bugs Bunny in fast-forward. It’s unclear whether they actually understand each other, but they nod, duck their heads, and make curious facial expressions that convince Westerners that something meaningful is being said. Humanity’s two greatest mysteries remain: where I left my car keys, and what the Chinese are talking about on the street. A long chain of family celebrations will now carry us to December — the month of office Christmas parties. This is the time of year when 90 percent of all human conversation takes place. Wine may have something to do with it. People talk, smile, and congratulate each other — at the office, at the bar, and at home. The season seems to expand the human mechanism that produces irrelevant chatter, and dinners and parties become irresistible invitations to dialogue. Alcohol helps, of course — as does the joy of consuming 600 percent of the recommended annual sugar intake in each dessert. Then January arrives, silence returns, and life tastes sour again. Looking back, I’m not entirely sure that Eve, Akhenaten, and company did humanity much good with their historic contribution to dialogue. There are, in the end, two great scientific theories about conversation and its role in human relations: One claims that violence in contemporary society is caused by a lack of communication. The other argues that violence in contemporary society is caused by an excess of communication. I’m in favor of both. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Trump Is Europe’s Alarm Clock Why the Left Can’t Congratulate Trump The Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel War Prize

The White House on Friday created a Bluesky account. “We realized everyone over at Bluesky probably wasn’t seeing our content. So we decided to fix that. Here are some of our greatest hits all in one place. Enjoy,” The White House stated on X. We realized everyone over at Bluesky probably wasn't seeing our content. So we decided to fix that. Here are some of our greatest hits all in one place. Enjoy pic.twitter.com/v6SdrMIWtW — The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 17, 2025 “What’s up, Bluesky? We thought you might’ve missed some of our greatest hits, so we put this together for you. Can’t wait to spend more quality time together!” The White House wrote on the platform. BREAKING: The Trump White House just JOINED Blusky and absolutely TROLLED every leftist on the platform – Hakeem is wearing the sombrero again and President Trump is wearing a crown "DADDY'S HOME" pic.twitter.com/Hs82J9hlzK — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 17, 2025 ABC News shared: Disgruntled X users began flocking to Bluesky after billionaire Elon Musk took over Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, and the platform reported a surge in new users late last year. It remains small compared to more established online spaces such as X, but it has emerged as an alternative for those looking for a different mood. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security also launched Bluesky accounts Friday. Vice President JD Vance joined Bluesky in June. Trump’s social media platform of choice is Truth Social. Trump is the biggest shareholder in Trump Media & Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social. “We heard Bluesky is a great place to research visa revocations,” the U.S. Department of State wrote. “Give us a follow,” it added. We heard Bluesky is a great place to research visa revocations Give us a follow: https://t.co/ycxhRAAR51 https://t.co/jNWWxrSKER — Department of State (@StateDept) October 17, 2025 Vance was briefly suspended from the platform when he joined earlier this year. JD Vance gets suspended from X competitor Bluesky – just 12 minutes after first post https://t.co/9xlercLSXp pic.twitter.com/g82eaxpuV1 — New York Post (@nypost) June 19, 2025 More from the New York Post: Vice President JD Vance was suspended from the left-leaning social media platform Bluesky on Wednesday, just minutes after joining and sharing his first post. “Hello Bluesky, I’ve been told this app has become the place to go for common sense political discussion and analysis,” Vance wrote in his first post on the X competitor. “So I’m thrilled to be here to engage with all of you.” The vice president went on to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld Tennessee’s restrictions on transgender medical treatments for minors. “To that end, I found Justice [Clarence] Thomas’s concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating,” Vance wrote, including a screenshot of the conservative justice’s statement agreeing with the 6-3 ruling. “He argues that many of our so-called ‘experts’ have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth,” the vice president continued. “I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids.” “What do you think?” Within 12 minutes of the post, and Vance announcing on X that he had joined the platform, his Bluesky account was suspended, according to Axios journalist Marc Caputo. “Not found. Account has been suspended,” read a message on Vance’s Bluesky page. The ban was brief, as the vice president’s account was reinstated just minutes later. It does not appear that the vice president’s post ran afoul of any of Bluesky’s community guidelines.

In its effort to require citizens obtain digital ID cards, the United Kingdom government will test the scheme on veterans. “Veterans can now apply for and download a digital version of the Veteran Card on their smartphone,” the UK government wrote. “From registering with GPs to housing support and discounted entry to museums, the card will ensure veterans can access services quickly and easily online,” it continued. “Part of the blueprint for modern digital government, as government makes public services simpler and more accessible so they work around people’s lives as part of the Plan for Change,” it added. What a disgusting way to trash Veterans, throwing them first into the digital gulag. https://t.co/lcVFFVeF8D — ZeeeMediaOfficial (@zeee_media) October 17, 2025 More from the UK government: Nearly 2 million veterans can now get and benefit from a digital version of the Veteran Card, which will make it easier and quicker to access key services and discounts via their smartphones. From today, Friday 17 October, it will give veterans a seamless way to confirm their status in person and will include information already featured on their physical card – displaying their name, photo, latest service, and date of birth with the security features that protect their personal information. By downloading the optional card on their smartphones, former Service Personnel can show their veteran status to access everything from housing and mental health support to reduced entry at museums and money off their shopping – all at the touch of a button. The move forms part of government plans to deliver national renewal by transforming public services so they work around people’s lives and not the other way round. Once application is approved, downloading the card takes minutes – far quicker than waiting for a physical card to arrive by post. Just like a digital bank card or rail card, it puts convenient proof of service directly in veterans’ pockets, highlighting which service of the Armed Forces they last served in to unlock service-specific support and ending the need to carry a physical copy whilst maintaining the highest security standards. Veterans can download it via the GOV.UK One Login app, which, like banking apps, uses passcodes, Face ID, or Touch ID, providing the security veterans deserve whilst creating new opportunities to access services more conveniently. Once set up, veterans simply open the app and show their digital card. “Former SAS Officer Matthew Hellyer says that the launch of digital veteran cards is a ‘dangerous path’ to digital IDs, warning of the potential data leaks,” GB News wrote. ‘We do not need to put our lives at risk for the sake of Keir Strama's digital ID rollout.’ Former SAS Officer Matthew Hellyer says that the launch of digital veteran cards is a ‘dangerous path’ to digital IDs, warning of the potential data leaks. pic.twitter.com/LpsuUC34Ad — GB News (@GBNEWS) October 17, 2025 Other social media users blasted the digital ID ‘case study’ on veterans: Veterans do not need Digital ID Another attempt to impose Digital ID on all This Gov has no solutions to issues & while too many Veterans are homeless & all threatened with IHT yet Gov pretends to be all friendly to peddle Digital ID No! #NoToDigitalID #together About 1.8… pic.twitter.com/GcoGKs4cJx — Alan D Miller (@alanvibe) October 17, 2025 "Veterans are to be offered new digital cards in the first scheme of its kind which could serve as a 'case study' ahead of a proposed government role out of mandatory online IDs for every UK citizen" Veterans, you are the guinea pigs Veterans, please dont do it pic.twitter.com/Mq702EVxVj — Clare Wills Harrison (@AwakenedOf) October 17, 2025 The Guardian shared further info: Digital driving licences will be in development by the end of this year and by the end of 2027, digital versions of every government-issued credential – including disclosure and barring checks – will be offered for voluntary use, officials said. Keir Starmer wants to make carrying a digital ID mandatory for anyone wanting or needing to prove their right to work in the UK by the end of this parliament. That plan sparked cross-party opposition and a 2.9 million-signature petition calling for it to be dropped. But the technology secretary, Liz Kendall, this week complained of “scaremongering” and said digital IDs would not be used to track citizens and “there will be no pooling of people’s private information into a single, central dataset”. Ministers hope the digital veteran card will show how the technology works and quash public concerns about privacy and security. Kendall said it “will help remove barriers, reduce red tape and make it easier for people to access the public services they need”. The Royal British Legion, the veterans’ charity that sells poppies, called the card “a positive development” and said it could improve access to services and benefits for the armed forces communities. But other veterans oppose it. Stephen Kent, the media director of Veterans Association UK, a small not-for-profit members’ group, said: “We don’t need it. It’s not for what Labour says it’s for …. A lot of veterans don’t like the idea of it [and that they] are using us as an experiment.” GB News provided additional coverage:

Review by Shawn Perry The last time I saw Little Feat and Tedeschi Trucks Band in the Nashville area was at the famous Ryman Auditorium. Separately, not together. Certainly, a double bill with both requires a bigger venue. The FirstBank Amphitheater, retrofitted within a former limestone quarry, proved to be the right fit. Here, the only rock extracted on this night came straight from the stage and shared with the audience. The current lineup of Little Feat features lone founding member and keyboardist Bill Payne; percussionist Sam Clayton and bassist Kenny Gradney (both on board since 1972); plus Fred Tackett, who plays guitar, mandolin, and trumpet, joined in 1987; and the newest recruits, vocalist and guitarist Scott Sharrard and drummer Tony Leone. Together, they served up piping hot versions (and plenty of jamming) of Little Feat favorites, along with new songs from the group’s most recent album, 2025’s Strike Up The Band. They opened their 50-minute set with the classic “Fat Man In The Bathtub.” The calypso rhythm of the song evolved into a free-form jam where both Tackett and Sharrard soared effortlessly. This would happen time and again. Payne, on lead vocals and piano, lead the boogie groove on “Oh Atlanta!,” complete with map visuals on the backdrop just in case no one knew where Atlanta exactly was (about four hours south). New numbers like “4 Days Of Heaven 3 Days Of Work,” “Too High To Cut My Hair,” and “Midnight Flight,” resonated well, especially showcasing Sharrard’s vocals. He also handles most of the songs originally sung by the band’s late leader, Lowell George. Just after Tackett wound down an extended mandolin passage on ‘Willin’,” Sharrard exhaled a George-like growl at the end of the song’s verse, before ascending through Tucson, Tucumcari, Tehachapi, and Tonopah. “Spanish Moon” had Clayton and Leone setting the pace and Sharrard tapping into George’s nuanced delivery, as Taggert sang backup and stretched out on an aching guitar solo. Payne then took it down another path, banging out a sharp piano retort to the laid-back rhythm. Sharrard answered back with a searing solo of his own. As if all the heavy lifting was over with, Taggert blew through an idiosyncratic trumpet solo and Gradney unearthed a booming bass turn to get “Dixie Chicken” off and running. At one point, Payne grabbed the spotlight with Clayton and Leone juggling the beat. Everyone took solos and gathered up to finish the night up in grand style with “Tripe Face Boogie” and “Feats Don’t Fail Me Now.” With such a strong opener, Tedeschi Trucks Band had their work cut out for them. As usual, they accepted the challenge without batting an eye. It was the same thing when I saw them in New York with Gov’t Mule. Even though those TTB shows at the Ryman most certainly made things feel more intimate, a medium-sized venue like FirstBank redefines the range of their unique musicianship and sound. They shaked off a couple of new, still-to-be-released songs, “Crazy Cryin’” and “Devil Be Gone,” for the audience to absorb while angling for a common groove. With Tedeschi on the sidelines, Trucks lead the troops through the jazz-flavored, Middle Eastern-seasoned instrumental “Pasaquan,” the only track of the night from 2022’s ambitious I Am The Moon, the most recent TTB release. Considering the new songs played, it’s clear the group is working in more accessible material. Live, of course, all bets are off. Not many bands can successfully transition from an upbeat rocker like “I Feel So Bad” with Mike Mattison on lead vocals, to a wild explosion of finesse just between drummer Isaac Eady and saxophonist Kebbi Williams that goes on for a good five minutes. Or how about Gabe Dixon taking his Hammond B3 for a pastoral jog on :Let Me Get By” before Trucks comes along and throws in a few crunchers from Jimi Hendrix’s “Manic Depression.” As if by instinct, TTB thrives on a wide fabric of disparate musical dalliances, ready to switch it up and go in any direction at practically any given measure. Accompanied by Gabe Dixon on piano, Tedeschi delivered a tender rendition of Mike Reid’s “I Can’t Make You Love Me,” a major hit for Bonnie Raitt in the 1990s. As for hits of their own, “Midnight In Harlem,” which Trucks wrote with Mattison, is a close contender though it was never released as a TTB single (it does, however, appear on their 2011 Grammy-winning debut album, Revelator). They’ve played it every time I’ve seen them since 2013, and it always exudes a warm and fuzzy feeling in the house. Franklin was no exception. Both Tedeschi and Trucks fired off fiery solos during “How Blue Can You Get?” Then Tedeschi painted the quarry blue on “Just Won’t Burn” with a slow, thoughtful read and guitar solo that pretty much summed up why her name is first on the marquee. Of course, Trucks followed up accordingly with a vigorous swipe at Santana’s “Soul Sacrifice” that would have left Woodstock in tatters. No TTB show would be complete without an Allman Brothers Band song, and tonight it was a rollicking stroll through 1972’s “Stand Back,” with Stevie Ray Vaughn and Double Trouble keyboardist Reese Wynans sitting in. The horns, the singers, even bassist Brandon Boone, all added their own kicks and licks to the mix. As part of an ongoing tribute to Joe Cocker’s Mad Dogs & Englishmen, the evening ended with a jaunty, soulful “Space Captain” that had everyone on their feet, singing along, and salivating for more. Makes you wonder how many followed the ensemble to the next town.    

'It's very difficult'

72 people have died, while 48 others are missing