Conor McGregor removed from Hitman video game after losing sexual assault case



Conor McGregor was removed from popular online game Hitman after he was found liable for sexual assault by a jury in a civil case.

McGregor, who plans to appeal the decision, will have to pay more than $262,000 (€250,000) to the victim. Nikita Hand filed a civil suit in early 2021 alleging that while intoxicated, McGregor and another man, James Lawrence, had sex with her without her consent in 2018. Criminal charges were not pursued.

IO Interactive, the developer of the Hitman game, reacted promptly after the verdict, announcing that it was removing the former UFC champion from the game.

"In light of the recent court ruling regarding Conor McGregor, IO Interactive has made the decision to cease its collaboration with the athlete, effective immediately," the company wrote on X. "We take this matter very seriously and cannot ignore its implications. Consequently, we will begin removing all content featuring Mr. McGregor from our storefronts starting today."

— (@)

McGregor took to his social media the day following the verdict and apologized to his wife.

"People want to hear from me, I needed time. I know I made mistakes. Six years ago, I should have never responded to her outreaches. I should have shut the party down. I should never have stepped out on the woman I love the most in the world," McGregor wrote.

The fighter continued, "That's all on me. As much as I regret it, everything that happened that night was consensual and all the witnesses present swore to that under oath."

McGregor added that he has instructed his legal team to appeal the decision and that he must "move forward," not back.

"I am beyond grateful to my family, friends and supporters all over the world who have stayed by my side. That's it. No more. Getting back to the gym- the fight game awaits!"

— (@)

McGregor is part of a paid, downloadable content pack in which gamers take on a mission to assassinate him before or while he is engaging in a fight to the death against an eccentric billionaire on an island-castle surrounded by an elite secret society.

In recent years, McGregor has had many run-ins with law enforcement across the world. He has engaged in shattering bus windows and allegedly attacked fans in separate incidents in both Florida and Ireland.

He was accused of assaulting an Italian musician in Rome and a woman on his yacht in Spain. Other allegations of sexual assault have been dropped against the fighter, as well.

While it will be interesting to see if the IO Interactive team reinstates McGregor should the verdict be overturned, there will always be questions as to whether or not he should have been included in the game at all if his out-of-the-Octagon troubles were the reason for taking him out.

McGregor has another court battle on the horizon. His former training partner Artem Lobov is suing him over the creation of his popular whiskey Proper Twelve, saying the liquor brand was originally his idea, the Irish Star reported.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden administration spent $267 million on 'misinformation' projects to battle vaccine skepticism



More than 10 federal agencies under the Biden administration were allocated funding for research and projects on misinformation, spending records show.

According to federal figures obtained by Open the Books, the Biden administration spread hundreds of millions of dollars throughout federal agencies to tackle "misinformation."

With a total of $273,860,723 spent since 2017, just $6.7 million in federal funding was provided under the Trump administration, with $267 million falling under Biden's years.

The report revealed that HHS received the bulk of the funding to stop the spread of "health misinformation."

HHS defines "misinformation" as information that is "false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time."

The federal department has claimed that misinformation spreads easily on social media, as well as on "online retail sites" and "search engines."

HHS further declared that building a "healthier information environment" is just as important clean air and water.

"Health misinformation has led people to decline vaccines, reject public health measures, and use unproven treatments."

A breakdown of the spending showed that HHS received well over $185 million over this time period, which included money to combat what it saw as COVID-19 misinformation.

This resulted in a plethora of propaganda materials, including the following from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General:

During the pandemic, health misinformation has led people to decline vaccines, reject public health measures, and use unproven treatments. Health misinformation has also led to harassment and violence against health workers, airline staff, and other frontline workers tasked with communicating evolving public health measures.

In total, $127 million was directly related to fighting COVID "misinformation." The most typical ways were through public programs to meant to limit misinformation through on-the-ground advocacy, or studies and conferences explaining how misinformation is spread.

A whopping $80 million was awarded to HHS and the CDC to partner with "community-based organizations" to "increase vaccination coverage" across different racial and ethnic populations who are allegedly "experiencing disparities."

With a "health equity focus," the program has the stated goal of increasing "access and acceptance of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines among adults in racial and/or ethnic populations."

The project does not end until April 2026.

Other projects focused on alleged misinformation related to HIV, the HPV vaccine, and opioids.

One obscure grant included over $230,000 to "educate consumers about the sustainable management of Bering Sea crab fisheries."

"[The project] will combat misinformation that negatively impacts public perception of crabbing and the commercial fishing industry."

Other federal agencies receiving misinformation funding included the National Science Foundation ($65.5 million), the State Department ($12.6 million), and the Department of Defense ($2.9 million).

Other departments including the Institute of Museum & Library Services, the Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, and Department of the Interior received funding ranging from $200,000 to $2,000,000.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Your property rights could disappear in the ‘tokenized’ economy



Since January, blockchain technology company Digital Asset has issued at least eight press releases detailing its progress toward completing the Canton Network, a blockchain ledger designed to house tokenized assets. To run its Canton Network pilot programs, Digital Asset partnered with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation and Euroclear, two of the world’s most influential financial institutions.

These successful pilot programs indicate the imminent arrival of a global, dematerialized macroeconomic system, which could lead to the loss of remaining property rights over virtually all of our assets.

Are you ready to own nothing and be happy?

DTCC and Euroclear play critical roles in tokenization. DTCC serves as the clearing and settlement provider, standing “at the center of global trading activity” and processing trillions of dollars in securities transactions daily. Euroclear, meanwhile, is “the leading International Central Securities Depository (ICSD).” Together, these entities handle the majority of global securities transactions.

In the pilot program with DTCC, U.S. Treasuries were tokenized and used as collateral for margin calls. In the future, other tokenized assets could also serve as collateral for similar purposes and beyond.

Deloitte, which observed the Canton Network pilot programs, stated that tokenization aims to transform illiquid assets, create new assets usable like cash, open capital markets to more customers by making assets “cash-like,” and automate transactions. The Canton Network pilot programs demonstrated the feasibility of achieving all three objectives.

The organizations behind the Canton Network present it as a promising solution to address ownership and privacy concerns associated with other blockchain networks. While tokenization carries significant risks, it is not inherently problematic if properly designed and can even be beneficial.

However, the Canton Network’s processes for tokenization, custody, and control lack sufficient precision to guarantee that investors will retain their property rights. More concerning, Digital Asset states in a report that the Canton Network complies with Articles 8 and 12 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a comprehensive set of state laws governing commercial transactions in the United States.

In a paper I co-authored with Heartland Institute Research fellow Jack McPherrin, we discuss how the UCC has already undermined property rights to investment securities through the creation of a legal concept called a “security entitlement.” Revisions to Article 8 transformed individual securities investors from outright property owners into “entitlement holders,” allowing the world’s largest banks to seize what most consider personal property during insolvency scenarios.

As we emphasize in our paper, the proposed UCC Article 12 — along with amendments to Article 9 — threatens to extend this framework to all tokenized assets, further benefiting too-big-to-fail financial institutions at the expense of individual property rights.

In its report, Digital Asset asserts,

The creation of a digital twin of the UST fits neatly into [the Article 8] framework: the security interest in the underlying 'original' UST is perfected through Article 8 while the security interest in the controllable electronic record representing the UST is perfected by established control over the digital twin. However, the phrase 'digital twin' may end up creating confusion – market participants should consider simply explaining that these are securities entitlements represented by ledger entries on the blockchain.

In plain English, this means that tokenized assets will function in the exact same way as “security entitlements,” meaning that this technology will allow Digital Asset and its allies to legally own anything that is tokenized and housed on its blockchain.

As McPherrin and I explain, “UCC Article 8 defines individual securities investors as entitlement holders — with no property rights to the securities that investors think they own — the amendments to UCC Articles 9 and 12 would define individuals as purchasers of ‘interest,’ who are considered neither secured parties nor qualifying purchasers.”

We further clarify:

Under this new arrangement, ‘entitlement holders’ are treated as unsecured creditors rather than property owners. The ‘secured creditors’ are the too-big-to-fail financial institutions to which securities brokers have pledged investors’ assets as collateral for loans and derivatives. In other words, if a securities broker or the DTC/DTCC goes bankrupt, their creditors — primarily the world’s largest banks — have priority over the securities that investors believe they own.

As of October, 25 states and the District of Columbia have passed the 2022 amendments to the UCC that create Article 12 and update Article 9 for this centrally controlled, tokenized economy.

Why is this happening?

According to David Rogers Webb’s “The Great Taking,” the derivatives market needs more collateral to survive. Transforming currently illiquid assets into liquid forms of collateral solves this problem, while giving even greater control to the banks.

Once everything is tokenized, all assets will become collateral for the derivatives markets in which too-big-to-fail institutions are the secured creditors — and therefore the legal owners of all of our property.

It is no longer a matter of if all assets will be tokenized but when they will be tokenized. Are you ready to own nothing and be happy?

Biden’s AI blockade stalls US progress, but Trump can fix it



China's latest AI advancements highlight the urgency for America to support its open-source community. Chinese companies, such as Alibaba, are driving innovation with projects like the Qwen 2.5-Coder, an open-source model that reportedly outperforms all global open-source models and rivals some tasks performed by the leading closed-source model, GPT-4o.

These achievements stem from a sharp policy contrast. China actively subsidizes its open-source ecosystem, encouraging global collaboration and rapid innovation. It provides indirect funding and supports major open-source AI conferences. Meanwhile, U.S. politicians and policymakers are increasingly at odds with their own open-source community, creating barriers that hinder progress. If this trend continues, America risks surrendering its technological leadership to global competitors.

China recognizes that its primary risk lies in losing technological primacy. America’s risk-aversion, ironically, is its biggest risk.

America has long been the global leader in AI research talent and enterprise, especially in closed-source AI applications. However, the gap in open-source AI leadership is narrowing rapidly — and in some cases, even reversing.

Open source plays a critical role in the diffusion of AI technology. China has recognized this and uses open-source platforms to distribute its AI infrastructure globally. In industries like manufacturing and 5G networks, U.S. policymakers understand the risks posed by China’s dominance in infrastructure. Unfortunately, they have yet to apply the same clarity and urgency to AI.

Open-source AI is uniquely positioned to diffuse both American and Chinese AI models to third-party countries, fostering permission-less innovation. Startups and independent researchers, regardless of location, can build on almost one million open-source models hosted on platforms like HuggingFace. Unlike closed-source AI companies, open-source platforms eliminate many cost, communication, and regulatory barriers.

This accessibility allows researchers in countries like India, Brazil, and Indonesia to use local knowledge to fine-tune and adapt open-source models for their economies.

The most efficient open-source models available in the next decade may permanently determine the AI infrastructure of the world.

Until recently, the American regulatory environment had been largely hostile to AI. The Biden administration’s executive order on AI focused heavily on limiting the technology’s expansion. Meanwhile, a bill that would have effectively banned open-source AI narrowly avoided becoming law after California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it.

American policymakers claim strict regulations ensure ethical AI development. In reality, even moderate AI regulations have hampered U.S. companies’ ability to innovate. These rules require significant resources and talent to ensure compliance. For example, a Google engineer told Pirate Wires that “probably half of our engineering hours” are spent on diversity compliance in the Gemini model.

China has a different philosophy. While it wields political power strategically, it remains conscious of the cost of overly restrictive policies. As U.S. companies self-regulate to avoid backlash, Chinese AI models are rapidly catching up. China recognizes that its primary risk lies in losing technological primacy. America’s risk-aversion, ironically, is its biggest risk.

At a time when traditional AI approaches are delivering diminishing returns, open-source AI offers a critical platform for academics, startups, and independent researchers to test innovative algorithms and methods. However, open-source efforts remain significantly underfunded compared to closed-source companies.

As the Trump-Vance administration seeks to unleash AI’s potential, it could draw lessons from an unusual exception to the Biden administration’s skeptical stance on open source. A July report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration revealed overwhelming support for open-source AI in public comments. While the report stopped short of actively promoting open-source AI, it rejected proposals to restrict open-source model weights.

The unpursued recommendations from the NTIA report offer valuable insights for crafting a more innovation-friendly AI policy. Embracing these options could align with the new administration’s mission to foster U.S. leadership in AI while encouraging experimentation and innovation. We simply cannot let China win.

Undersea internet cable possibly severed in Baltic Sea, sparking concerns about sabotage



The 745-mile underwater internet cable linking NATO allies Finland and Germany was apparently severed in the Baltic Sea Monday morning, sparking concerns about possible sabotage.

The cybersecurity and telecoms network company Cinia said in a statement that a "fault" was initially detected in its C-Lion1 submarine cable — the only undersea cable connecting Finland to Central Europe — just after 4 a.m. on Monday, killing the services provided over the line.

According to Cinia, it could take anywhere from five to 15 days for cable repairs and to get a clearer sense of what precisely is responsible.

Telia Lietuva AB, one of the Baltic states' biggest telecommunication companies, told Bloomberg that the incident took place just hours after an undersea cable linking Lithuania to Sweden's Gotland island, nearly 33 feet away from the Finnish line, was cut.

Their allusion to Russian aggression prompted some to speculate that Moscow may have severed the line — possibly in a similar manner to how senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen allegedly sapped the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September 2022.

Elina Valtonen, the Finnish minister of foreign affairs, and her German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, said in a joint statement, "We are deeply concerned about the severed undersea cable connecting Finland and Germany in the Baltic Sea. The fact that such an incident immediately raises suspicions of intentional damage speaks volumes about the volatility of our times."

After noting that an investigation into the incident is underway, the duo stressed that "European security is not only under threat from Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, but also from hybrid warfare by malicious actors. Safeguarding our shared critical infrastructure is vital to our security and the resilience of our societies."

Their allusion to Russian aggression prompted some to speculate that Moscow may have severed the line — possibly in a similar manner to how senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen allegedly sapped the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September 2022.

A line-cutting in the area would have been risky business for the Russians given that just days before the malfunction, NATO allies took part in an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Baltic Sea and likely had some assets in the area.

"The Baltic Sea is a challenging operational environment. The local expertise of our regional Allies facilitates success here and rehearsing command and control ensures the effective use of assets," Royal Danish Navy Commodore Thomas Stig Rasmussen said of the maritime exercises that ran from Nov. 11-14. "Training together in Swedish waters offers Allies an important opportunity to enhance interoperability, which is the key to success in real life operations. Our new Allies in Sweden and Finland have redefined how NATO approaches maritime security in the region."

When pressed on whether the Finnish cable showed signs of sabotage, Cinia CEO Ari-Jussi Knaapila indicated there was "no way to assess the reason right now."

"We can say that such damage doesn't happen without some kind of external impact," Knaapila told Bloomberg, citing ship anchors and bottom trawling as possible causes.

Knaapila ruled out seismic activity and suggested sabotage has not been eliminated as a possibility.

Ship anchors have done serious damage to undersea cables in recent years. On Oct. 8, 2023, two telecom cables and a rupture to a Baltic Sea gas pipeline were caused by the Hong Kong-flagged cargo vessel Newnew Polar Bear. After months of investigation and finger-pointing, Beijing finally admitted the error in August.

Samuli Bergström, communications chief of the Finnish transport and communications agency, told Deutsche Welle, "The reasons are under investigation. Disturbances occur from time to time and there can be various reasons. For example, they are susceptible to weather and damage caused by shipping. The essential thing is that the problems are identified and corrective measures are taken."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Texas announces plan for advanced nuclear reactors across the state worth over $50 billion



Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Public Utility Commission of Texas have identified 61 possible sites across the state for new nuclear reactors.

A recently-released state report on Advanced Nuclear Energy is hoping to bring in over $50 billion in new economic output to Texas, along with $27 billion in income for Texas workers.

Governor Abbott announced the state's new plan, saying the plants would enhance the "reliability" of the state grid and provide "affordable, dispatchable power" to residents.

"Texas is the energy capital of the world, and we are ready to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power," the governor added.

The Nuclear Energy Institute defines advanced nuclear reactors as smaller, more efficient reactors that are safer to build and protect than the previous generation of reactors. Underground and underwater housing can be used for advanced reactors to greater endure natural disasters.

Advanced nuclear designs have been used for the newly popular small modular reactors being built privately across the country by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle. States like Virginia and Maryland have become popular sites for SMRs and self-sustaining commercial campuses.

Texas is already home to two nuclear plants that generate over five gigawatts of electricity, which makes up about 10% of the state's grid.

The state report alleged that the two plants have already displayed "resilience during extreme weather."

— (@)

Of the 61 possible nuclear sites identified, 21 of them are closed or closing coal sites. The report stated that replacing the coal sites, which are typically seen as bad for the environment, would be just one puzzle piece in overcoming strong environmental regulatory hurdles.

In order to garner approval for the plant builds, energy officials suggested appointing a Nuclear Permitting Officer to facilitate "tailored assistance to companies seeking to build advanced nuclear reactor operations in the state."

Cool
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

The report pinpointed a possible $700 million in costs leading up to the building of advanced nuclear reactors, using estimations based on public funding that has been awarded in other states.

This included $60 million to retain and attract supply chain companies and another $350 million for design and development of small nuclear reactors.

About $100 million was awarded across Kentucky, North Carolina, and Wyoming for permitting and studies, along with $40 million in South Carolina for support of nuclear workforce development.

While these costs are similar to what other companies have been spending on small modular reactors across the country, those are typically used to power a company's campus and/or data centers. This means that reactors meant to power the public at large would likely come at twice the cost, especially considering how much government oversight and appointed positions the state report has recommended.

For example, computer technology company Oracle announced in early September its intention to build a 1-gigawatt data center campus powered by three small modular reactors.

Therefore, about 15 small modular reactors would be required to match the five gigawatts of power (10% of the grid) put out by Texas' two existing plants.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elon Musk triumphant as IBM, Disney, and Comcast end yearlong advertising boycott on X



Big-name brands have ended their advertising boycott against Elon Musk's X after approximately a year of refusing to support the platform.

Comcast, Discovery, Disney, IBM, Lionsgate Entertainment, and Warner Bros. have resumed their ad spending on X, with Musk thanking CEO Linda Yaccarino for her work on bringing the companies back onto his platform.

"Just want to say that we super appreciate major brands resuming advertising on our platform!" Musk wrote. "Thanks [Linda Yaccarino] and the whole X team for your hard work in restoring confidence in our platform and ensuring that advertising content only appears where advertisers want it shown."

In November 2023, the brands mentioned above (along with Apple) dialed back their ad campaigns after claims their branding appeared next to "anti-Semetic content" and "hate speech," AdWeek reported.

'The censorship apparatus is coming to an end.'

Without the major companies, brands like Karma Shopping and Canles Shoes became the top ad-buyers on X. Overall, ad revenue dropped by a reported 98% year over year, but Musk remained principled in his cause.

"I'll say what I want to say, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it," Musk told CNBC at the time.

Political commentator Ian Miles Cheong called the boycott a failed effort "the moment Donald Trump won the election."

"The censorship apparatus is coming to an end, and the advertisers know it. Beyond that, advertisers can undoubtedly see the strength of X, and depriving themselves of profits for the sake of sticking it to Elon clearly doesn't work," Cheong added.

— (@)

The new report comes after claims in September that there would be a mass exodus of advertisers from the platform over concerns of "extreme content" that could damage brand images.

However, that was after X announced a lawsuit against major advertisers in August, following a House Judiciary Committee report that pointed to an illegal boycott against the company.

The World Federation of Advertisers, which represents some of the world's largest companies and advertisers, was accused of directly organizing boycotts and targeting disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations in an effort to demonetize them.

BlazeTV host James Poulos said the smoke surrounding the advertising conflict was cleared once the nature of the report was revealed.

"Rather than mild-mannered normies afraid of controversial content on X, advertisers operate as a cartel of far-left propagandists, reaping profits from taxpayers on government contracts while conspiring to silence free speech at odds with their radical ideologies."

Concurrently, many left-wing celebrities are announcing plans to leave X. This includes MSNBC's Joy Reid, who said she doesn't want to support the platform, and ex-CNN host Don Lemon, who claimed he disagrees with the new terms of service.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We’re on the verge of Orwell’s Thought Police becoming a reality in Ireland



As Donald Trump prepares to re-enter the White House in January, the push to police "truth" is gaining momentum.

Literally. With real cops.

Police1, a powerful arm of “public safety policy management” behemoth Lexipol, is reshaping law enforcement across the United States — though certainly not for the better.

Barring decisive pushback, the madness spreading across the UK and Ireland will soon find its way into the United States.

You see, Police1 is busy preparing officers to confront what it labels the “misinformation” crisis of the digital age. If they're not already prepared, the author of a recent article on the Police1 website, Joseph J. Lestrange, insists they should be.

But Lestrange isn’t your average op-ed writer. As a former high-ranking official in the Biden administration, he sees misinformation and disinformation not as minor nuisances but as direct threats — ones that erode public trust, fuel hostility toward officers, and undermine police operations. With AI-powered tools like deepfakes and manipulated audio, he warns, these threats have reached unprecedented sophistication, opening the door to ever more calculated assaults on public perception. At the same time, these threats open the door to another possible assault — specifically, law enforcement overreach.

As the fight against misinformation intensifies, “Big Brother” risks morphing into an even more pervasive “Bigger Brother,” blurring the line between protection and control. More of the latter. Much less of the former.

Lestrange suggests that police agencies adopt “Misinformation/Disinformation Units” to identify, fact-check, and counter false narratives. This move would position law enforcement as responders and architects of public perception, armed with the power to collaborate with tech giants and preemptively flag “harmful” content. Lestrange frames the unholy alliance to protect officers and rebuild community trust.

But these units, if created, would cast a dark shadow and raise serious concerns about transparency, civil liberties, and unchecked power. If Edward Snowden taught us anything — now over a decade ago — it's that government tools meant for “protection” can easily slip into surveillance and control tools, threatening the very freedoms they claim to defend.

Not surprisingly, Lestrange’s promises of “impartial policing” ring hollow. These units risk becoming tools for selective narrative control — amplifying certain voices and silencing others. The report’s concerns about eroding public trust underscore how fragile this balance is; if law enforcement assumes the role of “truth arbiter,” any misstep or bias will swiftly deepen public distrust. Let me be clear here. This isn’t an attack on officers. Most boys (and girls) in blue are decent, honorable people. The real issue lies with the powerful few who officers must answer to. Those behind the curtain pull the strings not to protect us but to manipulate and control us.

The implications are potentially dire with Police1 and Lexipol driving this model nationwide. By framing narrative control as essential to policing, Lexipol pushes departments to blur the line between traditional duties and digital influence. This shift should raise alarms: It marks a slippery slope into content moderation — a realm typically reserved for independent platforms, not government agencies. We’re on the verge of Orwell’s Thought Police becoming a reality.

Some essential questions must be asked. Who will hold these “misinformation” units accountable? What will prevent personal or political biases from determining what gets flagged as “harmful”? Without strict transparency and oversight, these units risk becoming unchecked gatekeepers of information, placing the public’s right to knowledge — and the integrity of law enforcement — in jeopardy.

The threat is not hypothetical; it is already a reality in the U.K., where similar units have been established, wielding considerable influence over what is deemed "truth." In my own country, Ireland, people are already being arrested for “misgendering” others. Referring to a biological man who believes he's a woman isn’t just expected — it’s now mandatory. Calling him what he truly is can land you in prison for years. In other words, speaking the truth is now a punishable offense.

This raises crucial concerns about who holds the power to decide what constitutes "mis" or "dis" information. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public witnessed how accurate yet dissenting narratives were swiftly demonized, labeled misinformation, and suppressed. Such tactics delegitimized valid perspectives, leading to a chilling effect on open dialogue. In the U.S., if Lexipol’s framework for misinformation units is adopted without strict oversight, the implications could be similarly far-reaching, threatening the plurality of voices that is fundamental to democracy.

And as public safety agencies venture into content moderation, the question of who defines "truth" will become increasingly critical — and potentially contentious — highlighting the need for clear, accountable practices to safeguard public trust and democratic integrity. Barring decisive pushback, the madness spreading across the U.K. and Ireland will soon find its way into the United States.

As Trump’s team readies to take charge, his allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy must push back against a state apparatus eager to police thought — a system the current administration eagerly embraces.

How Trump’s 'golden age' rhetoric could redefine America



The golden hair. The golden penthouse. Yes, he turned down the golden toilet, but surely Donald Trump is to be believed when he offers Americans a new golden age.

Who’s on board? Not the Guardian — which recently rage-quit X — where one column warns, “Trump’s ‘golden age of America’ could be an unrestrained imperial presidency. Emboldened by a strong mandate,” the paper laments, “the Republican will bring his dark Maga vision to the US with little resistance.”

Pride still comes before a fall, and as even the wisest ancient pagans remind us, the pinnacle of civilization typically tips all too fast under the weight of decadent luxury into rack and ruin.

But the golden age pitch is also getting more serious and perhaps unexpected blowback — from certain corners of the anti-globalist right. Elon Musk’s choice to caption his post celebrating Trump’s election win with the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum — one of the two Latin mottos on the Great Seal of the United States — has set off skeptics worried that the rise of an antichrist might be around the corner.

“This phrase resonates with the term 'Golden Age,' which has been referenced by Donald Trump and is echoed by various new age teachers and high-degree Freemasons, who at higher levels, are known to worship Lucifer,” one popular X account warns. “These expressions align with Biblical warnings of a great deception, where people are described as welcoming what is referred to as the beast system with open arms.”

It’s always alarmingly easy to see how the world’s most powerful people could give in to what must be the enormous temptation to sell their souls for control of the planet. So far, Musk’s biggest ambitions concern not Earth but Mars, population zero. And both he and Trump are assembling a governing team focused on avoiding world war and countering China’s bid for global domination. They’re also both friendly to Christians — a stark contrast to many leaders of the other political team.

Nevertheless, we’d do well to carefully discern how to avoid paving our way to hell with intentions as good as gold. Pride still comes before a fall, and as even the wisest ancient pagans remind us, the pinnacle of civilization typically tips all too fast under the weight of decadent luxury into rack and ruin.

They say there’s a tweet for everything — sorry, a post — and in this case, it’s true. In typical X dot com fashion, it’s a half-joke with a deeper meaning written by a pseud: “Golden age Hollywood actor's wikipedia biographies are like, ‘he worked as a train conductor, ranch hand, denim model, and itinerant drifter before being drafted to serve in WWII. When he came back he decided to become an actor and two weeks later was discovered by Fritz Lang.’”

Interesting, isn’t it? How radically different is that “golden age” culture from the one that scares critics of the gilded empire across the political spectrum? Doubtless, the Hollywood golden age itself was one all too festooned with excess and corruption. But the films themselves, which give the era its name, brought a refined yet accessible beauty and grace to the public — and they did it by welcoming ordinary people with real experience living in the rough-and-tumble world onto the screen.

The point isn’t that we ought to romanticize a bygone age or value the appearance of virtue over the reality of vice. It’s that when Americans circulate fruitfully with one another, that energy enlivens and elevates our institutions, setting fresh standards for our social, cultural, and economic life.

I often go back to Alexis de Tocqueville when measuring the pace and scope of change in America — sometimes what seems to be a new twist is something he saw coming long ago — and, in that spirit, here’s one of my favorite of his observations, as timely and instructive now as ever.

Men connect the greatness of their idea of unity with means, God with ends: hence this idea of greatness, as men conceive it, leads us into infinite littleness. To compel all men to follow the same course towards the same object is a human notion; — to introduce infinite variety of action, but so combined that all these acts lead by a multitude of different courses to the accomplishment of one great design, is a conception of the Deity. The human idea of unity is almost always barren; the divine idea pregnant with abundant results. Men think they manifest their greatness by simplifying the means they use; but it is the purpose of God which is simple — his means are infinitely varied.

Now, there’s a MAGA vision everyone should be able to get behind.

Court freezes Onion deal for Infowars: Alex Jones exclusively responds on 'Glenn Beck Program'



As our nation looks forward to turning the page into a new era following the clear mandate for freedom in the recent election, the existing regime is not going quietly into the night.

Alex Jones’ Infowars has allegedly been acquired by the satire site the Onion in a court-ordered bankruptcy auction. Developments on Friday have cast doubt on the legitimacy of this acquisition, however.

Thanks to X, he moved studios and was able to immediately start broadcasting again.

On Thursday, there were reports that the Onion had acquired Alex Jones’ Infowars. By late Friday morning, Alex Jones released a statement alleging that the auction for his assets was fake and that there is now an ongoing criminal investigation into the proceedings. Infowars.com is once again live after being taken down from Thursday into Friday morning.

According to BBC News, the Onion bought Infowars with the support of the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, who won a $1.5 billion defamation lawsuit over Jones’ claims surrounding the school shooting. Financial details have not been disclosed.

Ben Collins, the CEO of the Onion, is reported to have said, “The Onion has a long history of helping the American public navigate some of the most difficult moments in American life, from our historic issue after 9/11 to our groundbreaking reportage after every American mass shooting. In that tradition, we hope the Sandy Hook families will be able to marvel at the cosmic joke we will soon make of Infowars.com.”

On X, Collins posted, “We're planning on making a very stupid website.”

Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization, will reportedly be “the exclusive launch advertiser for the site in the new venture.” John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said, “It’s fitting that a platform once used to profit off of tragedy will be a tool of education, hence our multiyear advertising commitment to this new venture.”

He went on: “We’re proud to be a part of what comes next, not only in terms of staunching the flow of hurtful misinformation, but also for the potential this new venture has to help Everytown reach new audiences ready to hold the gun industry accountable for contributing to our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”

It is almost poetic that a gun control organization is partnering with the Onion in this attack on free speech. The First Amendment was listed first for a reason, yet the Second Amendment is listed immediately afterward as a fail-safe in the event of egregious violations of the First Amendment. Keeping that in mind, the fight for the First Amendment is not over.

Alex Jones posted a video update on his X account, saying, “This is a total attack on free speech.” He also said, “They want to silence the American people, but we’re not gonna be silenced.” He then directed his viewers to follow the Alex Jones Network on X, where he will continue to speak out against what is happening to Infowars.

However, Jones posted later in the day Thursday that the auction was not legitimate: “Infowars was not sold to the The Onion. I am breaking the news now.” According to the Independent, the judge involved in the case, District Judge Christopher Lopez, said, “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

Since this news story broke, it was revealed that the auction’s process was questionable and is now under review. As the Independent reports, bidders were required to submit their best offers, yet the amounts of these offers were not disclosed. “The trustee who ran the auction said the total amount was a better deal overall but came in under First United American’s [Alex Jones’ proxy] $3.5 million offer.”

Therefore, the auction results are paused. The judge explained the next steps in this case: “We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing, and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened.” He added: “I personally don’t care who wins the auction. … I care about process and transparency.”

The shadiness of these developments in this story seem to confirm the true motivations behind this acquisition. Many opponents of Alex Jones take issue with him being able to speak at all, it seems. For example, an NBC anchor discussing the acquisition said, “His X account will remain — for now, at least.” While this reporter is not related to the case, it seems to be implied that the main issue is not the legal acquisition of Infowars as an asset in the defamation case but rather Alex Jones’ ability to speak out on a platform at all.

— (@)

Today, Alex Jones called "The Glenn Beck Program" to break down some of the latest developments. Jones alleges the court is trying to prevent him from broadcasting in the future. He also alleges to Beck that there was a secret sale to subvert the auction and alleges a deep state plot to take him off the air forever.

The social media landscape has completely changed the idea of a platform, which means that even the most vindictive attacks on a well-established platform are somewhat ineffective. While the defamation lawsuit and the subsequent auction for Jones’ assets were a blow to Jones’ image and security, his ability to continue speaking freely is relatively unchanged. Thanks to X, he moved studios and was able to start broadcasting again immediately.

Now, the relative ease that Jones had in moving his platform and broadcast will reveal something very interesting in our political landscape going forward. Anyone who has a problem with this fact is fundamentally opposed to free speech. Free speech and the First Amendment are the first bulwarks against tyranny.

This is a developing story that will be updated.