TruthseekerHT

Behold, I send you forth: sheep in midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd serpents and innocent doves. Mathew 10:16

[Dan Dicks @DanDicksPFT]

The $15,000 “MISSION” To Firebomb Synagogue That WASN’T ANTISEMITISM - Full Court Breakdown!!!

The mainstream media is pushing another "antisemitic hate crime" narrative in Canada, but the truth just exploded in court.

Mohamed Akodad, the man who pleaded guilty to firebombing a Montreal synagogue, admitted he was offered a $15,000 "mission" by strangers while struggling with drug addiction.

He had no idea the target was Jewish, received $3K upfront, panicked, and bailed.

This wasn't ideology, it was a desperate junkie taking a shady gig.

Why did politicians and legacy media immediately label it a vile antisemitic attack?

Why the rush to fear and outrage?

In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth breaks down how this case screams entrapment and fits the exact same pattern as previous RCMP and intelligence agency setups (Nuttall/Korody, VIA Rail, and multiple hate crime hoaxes).

These manufactured crises are being used to justify Bill C-9, the new "Combatting Hate Act" that just received Royal Assent and dramatically expands government power to police speech, thought, and dissent.

Problem → Reaction → Solution. The playbook never changes.

Wake up, Canada.
The real threat isn't the patsies, it's the agencies and political insiders creating the chaos to justify more control.

Share this video widely, question everything, and demand accountability!

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@TuckerCarlson @realDonaldTrump

"You're criticizing Trump for not putting his hand on the Bible during his second inauguration? That's actually what Jesus told us not to do:

'But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.' — Matthew 5:34-37

The Constitution doesn't require a president to swear to a higher power, i.e., use a Bible or say 'So help me God.' The Founders may have left those out for this exact reason. Trump came closer to following Jesus by skipping the Bible, but to fully honor the teaching, he should have simply said:

'I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

No oath, no Bible, no invoking God.

Christians who demand this are breaking faith with Christ.

#ChristisKing

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@Zenith_Returns Hey, just a heads up—a lot of your replies are getting heavily muted and aren't showing up in threads. If you're open to discussing the CDA further I'm down to talk.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

While there are trade-offs, holding the prelim is probably the smart move here. The prosecution's spent nine months shaping the narrative, even getting a prosecutor held in contempt for claiming they can overcome the presumption of innocence. A public prelim lets the defense push back, challenge other evidence like the DNA and the confession (note, text messages, Discord), cross-examine witnesses, and show they're not afraid of the state's case. Waiving it may look like they're hiding something.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

You're acting like the term is meaningless, when in fact we have well-tested boundaries. In the American context, free speech is clearly understood. "I'm a free speech absolutist" is Elon-speak for "I want the First Amendment applied honestly, without political double standards." It's not complicated.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

Palantir's just selling secure, on-prem AI deployments to governments and paranoid corporations terrified of data leaks. That's fine as a business—practical even. But wrapping it in this fuzzy, quasi-philosophical language about "sovereign AI" makes it sound far more profound than it is. Only living beings can be sovereign.

Corporations aren't. AI systems definitely aren't. This is marketing sleaze dressed up as deep insight.

[Palantir @PalantirTech]

Our thoughts on the importance of AI sovereignty.

1. Your AI sovereignty dictates your institution’s future. Sovereignty is the precondition for choice. Relinquishing sovereignty transfers the future choices of your institution to others, who are likely to exploit it for their gain and your loss.

2. Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. Your ability to win is dictated by your ability to recognize and use your unique edges, and you keep winning by compounding the underlying data to generate new insights. Transferring that data hands over access to your pre-existing winning plays and yields the means of production for new ones.

3. Tokenmaxxing hijacks your value orientation and decreases your institutional fortitude and intelligence. The pursuit of high token usage incentivizes disposable scripts over robust software — with the addictive feeling of false progress. There is a reason why those selling tokens refuse to charge based on value.

4. Controlling your weights is controlling your fate. Weights are the distilled form of hard-won, accumulated institutional knowledge. If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.

5. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and alpha. The architecture that maximally preserves sovereignty is one that enables institutions to own their tribal knowledge, and to compound it as alpha.

6. Politicizing the technical issues involving sovereignty is what your adversary wants. Techno-politicization is the wellspring of false sovereignty. Techno-politicization drives decisions that seem to reduce dependency, but ultimately limit agency — especially on the battlefield in the West.

7. Real expertise is existential. Allowing politics or favoritism to determine your technical decisions rewards whoever is best at politics, not whoever is right. Listen to those closest to the problems, not those speaking most compellingly about them.

8. Learn from institutions that are winning or that have consistently delivered. Institutions facing existential threats do not have the luxury of making technical decisions based on political preferences.

9. Only listen to institutions, countries, and people who have a proven record of being right. A track record of correctness is the best and only signal for future correctness. Judging something as right or wrong based on who you like is exceedingly misguided.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

What could possibly go wrong. 🤔

[CNN @CNN]

Scientists say they have built a cell from scratch for the first time that can feed, grow and replicate like a natural cell. This breakthrough in synthetic biology could usher in an era of made-to-order organisms that function like living machines. https://t.co/weTPfCIQi8

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@sewinnan @heynavtoor Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

"It hasn't happened yet" isn't an argument.

The UK can legally force SimpleX to secretly weaken encryption or install backdoors, and gag them from telling users. That means it could already be happening... and we'd have no way of knowing.

The real risk isn't a ban. It's silent surveillance.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

X claims 1A rights as a publisher when it wants to moderate or suppress speech. But the moment someone sues them, they hide behind Section 230 claiming they're not a publisher and can't be held liable.

They get to play both sides: full editorial control when it benefits them, and total immunity when it doesn't.

Section 230 lets platforms market themselves as "free speech" platforms while facing almost zero accountability for how they actually operate.

That's not principle. That's having your cake and eating it too.

You're okay with that?

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@sewinnan @heynavtoor Forks are a useful last-resort safety net for advanced users, but they don't eliminate the jurisdiction problem for the average person or solve ecosystem-wide risks. They add complexity and fragmentation, which most users avoid.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

Open source is a real strength, because it prevents outright bans and allows forks. That part is fair.

But it doesn't solve the core issue. The UK can still issue secret Technical Capability Notices under the Investigatory Powers Act that compel the company (and its small team) to assist with targeted access, push updates, or weaken defaults—with gagging orders so no one can even talk about it.

Most users won't verify every build or self-host relays. They'll use the defaults run by a UK company. That's the practical weak point.

Being "needed more in the UK" doesn't make the jurisdiction less hostile to privacy. It just makes the risk higher. Why base the company there instead of a jurisdiction with stronger legal protections, such as Sweden (and then market to UK consumers)?

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

The issue isn't that people are "anti-AI." It's that they're being forced to subsidize it.

In multiple areas, residents are reporting sharp increases in electricity and water bills after data centers move in and strike deals with local utilities. That't not abstract resentment, it's direct cost-shifting onto regular people.

Data centers also aren't a permanent solution. As AI chips improve in phones, laptops, and edge devices, more of the heavy lifting can shift to on-device processing. We already have billions of computers and devices worldwide that could form distributed networks. That transition is already underway.

By the time these massive centralized data centers are fully built out, a significant portion of AI workloads will likely have moved to more efficient, decentralized models.

The current approach looks more like a short-term gold rush than a sustainable architecture.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

SimpleX is UK-based—a country that has turned into a mass surveillance state (Investigatory Powers Act + Online Safety Act).

Even assuming good intentions from Dorsey, the legal compulsion risk at the company level is real. Architecture on paper only goes so far when the jurisdiction itself is hostile to privacy.

Better question: given these issues, why base it in the UK at all?

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@grok Massie has committed multiple times (including on Meet the Press in May) that he'll release the names from the over-redacted Epstein files before his term ends.

So why would someone post a fake dramatic quote when the actual commitment is already on record? Did @RepThomasMassie walk it back?

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

Crazy thought: Just kill the algorithm and let users decide what they see.

Free speech also includes freedom of association. Any centralized algo is, by nature, a control/censorship mechanism, no matter the tweaks.

Default to pure chronological + user filters/lists. That's real sovereignty. Everything else is false advertising.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

@SergioVengeance @GillelandKristi @heynavtoor Both Dorsey and Elon loudly claimed to be "pro free speech."

Turns out the fine print was "pro free speech… until it wasn't convenient."

False advertising. Pick your poison.

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

The number of fragments scattered across the floor makes it impossible to claim someone just "stepped on it." Multiple shards clearly show the RØDE branding.

Yet Gary (Forest) keeps obsessing over one tiny angle on a single piece while completely ignoring the volume of debris and the missing evidence.

Missing the forest for the trees.

#forestgump

[TruthseekerHT @TruthseekerHT]

Agreed—Section 230/CDA has been weaponized as a govt- censorship catspaw for years. Thank you Conservatives!

Did the govt also compel Dorsey to build the engagement algorithms and moderation policies that suppressed stories like the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID dissent, and election-related content? This is a problem Elon has perpetuated too, so I'm not letting him off the hook either: users, not algorithms, should determine engagement.

Dorsey has since supported decentralized/open projects, which I respect. Still, for SimpleX and similar tools, I'll stick to verifying the code and builds myself rather than relying on investor narratives.

Once trust is lost, it's very, very difficult to regain it—and rightly so.