Godking Wanhope

In recovery.

[Chris Corney @ChrisCorney1]

How is there a 'legal risk' involved for the leader of a govt with 410 MPs who could pass whatever legislation he likes to change the law?

An admission that under Labour we dont have a democracy. Our govt grovels before billionaires.

[『Louis @LouisLeLouche]

AI is everything that right wingers pretend immigrants are.

It’s taking your jobs.
It’s draining your resources.
It’s destroying your books, your history, your art and your culture.

Shut down the data centers. All of them.

[Muhammad Shehada @muhammadshehad2]

Israel didn’t just “fire on a car”, the Red Cross told them 5-year-old Hind was in that car. IDF gave permission to an ambulance to enter the area, then ambushed & bombed that ambulance, shot 355 bullets at Hind’s car, prevented anyone from reaching her body for 12 days & lied about it for 2 years saying “we never even had troops in that area” despite satellite images & audio recordings proving they were lying!

[nikki mccann ramírez @NikkiMcR]

Columbia had students who said this was true arrested, expelled, and stripped of their degrees. They were falsely accused of antisemitism by the international press and government for speaking out. What will the consequence be for the perpetrators admitting it? Probably nothing.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

Let's talk about the Samson Option.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented, publicly discussed Israeli nuclear doctrine.

The Samson Option refers to Israel's reported strategy of nuclear retaliation as a last resort, the idea that if Israel faces an existential threat, it will launch nuclear strikes even if it means mutual destruction.

It has been discussed by Israeli officials. It has been analyzed in mainstream Western strategic literature. Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian, said it plainly in an interview published in the Dutch magazine Elsevier in April 2002, and it has been quoted repeatedly since:

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."

This doctrine, of threatened nuclear annihilation as strategic deterrence, is treated in Western strategic circles as a rational, if sobering, security posture.

Iran's civilian nuclear program, which produced no confirmed weapon across decades of operation, which was subjected to the most intrusive inspection regime ever applied to any non-weapons state, which exists within a country that has signed the NPT and repeatedly engaged in negotiations, is treated as an existential threat to civilization.

The country with 90 warheads, no IAEA inspection in its history, no NPT signature, and a public doctrine of threatening regional nuclear annihilation is the victim.

The country with zero nuclear warheads and a uranium enrichment program is the aggressor.

Say it until you understand what you're actually saying.

[Thomas King @TomK_Brit1993]

@PolitlcsUK Reform do have a remarkable talent for finding “tough choices” that somehow always fall hardest on people with the least power.

There are ways to reform welfare. Taking support away from disabled people is a rather revealing place to start.

[Mohanad @MohanadElbalal]

Countless academics every year get caught plagiarising parts of their work and it almost never makes it beyond the University press. The reason why a section of the British media chose to obsess with his particular case, continuing to hound him even after he resigned is plainly obvious.

[Un Étrange En Terre Étrange @LoinDuTribu]

So here’s a modest proposal.

Jason Arday is dead. The circus has lost its main attraction. The tent is still up, the popcorn machine is still warm, and several of the ringmasters are wandering around pretending they were merely checking the fire exits.

Perhaps The Telegraph, The Spectator, Kathleen Stock, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Julie Bindel, Andrew Neil, Brendan O’Neill and the rest of Britain’s newly discovered Society for Relentless Academic Due Diligence could turn their tremendous investigative appetite towards Nathan fucking Cofnas.

You know Nathan.

The self-described race realist whose intervention helped detonate the Arday story.

The bloke who already believed DEI was corrupting academia.

The bloke who has argued that genuine meritocracy would leave vanishingly few Black professors at elite institutions.

The bloke who talks about a “hereditarian revolution”.

The bloke who, while discussing what comes next for his own career, joked that after “the revolution” he might become head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard.

That Nathan Cofnas.

Come on, lads.

You have just spent weeks demonstrating that no biographical pebble is too small to overturn in the sacred pursuit of Truth.

So get the fucking tweezers out.

Go through his history.

Interview the old classmates.

Find the former supervisors.

Call the ex-colleagues.

Dust off the teenage writings.

Read Reptiles with a Conscience from cover to fucking cover.

Check every citation.

Check every footnote.

Find out what he believed before he acquired the qualifications he now uses to defend those beliefs.

Ask when exactly the fascination with hereditarianism began.

Ask what evidence changed his mind.

Ask what evidence could change his mind.

Ask whether race realism emerged reluctantly at the end of an exhausting empirical journey, or whether the destination appeared on the map first and the intellectual road-building project came afterwards.

You wanted to know whether Jason Arday really ran every marathon he claimed.

Excellent.

I would quite like to know whether Nathan Cofnas has actually demonstrated that Black people are genetically less suited to elite intellectual life, or whether he has spent years developing increasingly elaborate reasons for believing something he found compelling in the first place.

Seems at least as fucking interesting as somebody’s 10K split time.

And while we are at it, perhaps ask why the alleged misconduct of one Black academic became so magnificently useful to a man whose existing political project already concerned Black representation, DEI and declining standards.

Was Arday merely a plagiarism case?

Or did Cofnas look at him and see Christmas morning?

Because once you have spent years arguing that progressive universities are artificially elevating Black academics, discovering a celebrated Black Cambridge professor with serious questions hanging over his work must feel less like stumbling across evidence and more like finding a fucking golden ticket inside your ideological Wonka bar.

And apparently that angle is not worth the same excavation?

Really?

Jason Arday tells a tall tale about running and Fleet Street behaves like somebody has discovered the Pentagon Papers.

Nathan Cofnas spends years developing a political programme around hereditarianism and race, then helps frame a national scandal involving a Black professor, and suddenly everyone develops a tremendous respect for intellectual privacy.

How curious.

I am not asking for another pile-on.

I am asking for the same thing you all claimed to worship while Arday was alive:

scrutiny.

Context.

Provenance.

Motivation.

Evidence.

Standards.

Those lovely grown-up words everybody suddenly remembers when they are about to put somebody else under the microscope.

1/2

[shoe @shoe0nhead]

over $700,000 now raised for a woman who strangled her 3 children to death with exercise ropes. every single donation is from a woman. hundreds of thousands of women in a tiktok true crime psychosis where they believe the husband did it because he looks mean

[David Hundeyin @DavidHundeyin]

Did @thetimes ever put an ad budget behind a story about British royal family member Prince Andrew Windsor fucking babies on Epstein Island? Did they spend money to boost a story about Peter Mandelson , Epstein's British bestie, and chase you around Twitter with it for days?

Tell me again that this was really about some dissertation of a university professor!

[BBD @cotton_candiee]

Hell I’d argue that adult literacy is *THE* issue. Because not only do ppl struggle to understand, they don’t even recognize when they don’t understand.

[David Hundeyin @DavidHundeyin]

French UN "peacekeepers" in the Central African Republic were making 8 year old girls give them blowjobs in exchange for food.

However much you detest France as an African, I promise you don't hate that country enough.

[Godking Wanhope @stabini]

https://t.co/YFWz5OCtBI

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

Americans invented a word for their corruption so that it wouldn't sound like corruption.

They called it lobbying.

In most of the world, if a corporation hands a politician money and the politician then votes in that corporation's interest, we have a name for that.

The name is bribery.

The person goes to prison, or is supposed to, or at least has to conduct the transaction in a parking garage at midnight with an envelope.

In America, the transaction happens in broad daylight. It is filed with the Federal Election Commission. It is legal. It is protected, since 2010, by a Supreme Court ruling that defined the exchange of money for political access as free speech.

They looked at bribery and called it speech.

They looked at corruption and called it democracy.

And then they sent ambassadors to other countries to lecture those governments about transparency and rule of law.

The audacity is not incidental to the system.

The audacity is the system.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

The United States has approximately 5,200 nuclear warheads.

It is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons on human beings.

It used them on a civilian population. Twice.

The United Kingdom has approximately 225.

France has approximately 290.

These are the countries leading the international campaign against nuclear proliferation.

Not one of them has disarmed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which legally obligates them to work toward disarmament. Not one.

The NPT has been in force since 1970.

Fifty-six years.

The nuclear powers have modernized their arsenals, developed new delivery systems, and in the case of the United States, budgeted over $1.7 trillion for nuclear modernization over the next thirty years.

So your question, "Is proliferation good?", would be more interesting if you directed it at the countries that have been proliferating, continuously, for eighty years, while telling everyone else that the capacity they are expanding for themselves is too dangerous for others to possess.

The question is not whether nuclear weapons are good.

The question is why the word "proliferation" only applies to the countries that don't already have them.

That asymmetry is the argument.

You haven't addressed it.

[dollar store kirk hammett @olivesagan]

nobody is in control, not even billionaires. everyone is acting according to their own self-interest in the context of an unstoppable profit-maximizing algorithm that overrides all human preferences about the future.

[Jahmeir D. ✭ @JDCowboys2]

Oh that’s Grok having esex on my TL

[IT Guy @T3chFalcon]

A 22-year-old student teacher in Illinois sent a private Snapchat message to her boyfriend and two roommates.

A student had walked up to her laptop and deleted her lesson plan mid-class. frustrated, she typed something like "should I shoot him" with a gun emoji. venting. four people. private group chat.

An hour later, police walked into her school and arrested her.

here's what happened in between.

Snapchat's AI scanned the private message. flagged it as a potential threat. automatically reported it to the FBI. the FBI forwarded it to local law enforcement. deputies arrived at the school within the hour.

she cooperated immediately. handed over her phone. when shown the message she said: "oh yes. okay. yeah. i'm realizing that was a bad joke. i did not mean it at all serious at all."

police determined she was not a threat. school officials determined she was not a threat. prosecutors reviewed and issued a disorderly conduct charge. she was released the next morning. she lost her student teaching placement.

This means:

Snapchat scans private messages.

Not just public posts or stories. private group chats between you and your closest contacts. automated AI. no human reviewed it first, got flagged and reported.

Snapchat AI → FBI → local police → school → arrest.

in under an hour.

Snapchat's privacy policy says it may share your information with law enforcement when it believes there is a risk of harm. the definition of "risk of harm" is determined by an algorithm.

you are not told when a message is flagged.
you are not told when a report is filed.
you find out when the police arrive.

the message was private.

it wasn't.

[nacho @nachoeveryday]

I wish it was more common knowledge that almost all regulations exist because companies weren’t doing these things on their own and bad things were happening because of it.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

Take any population on earth.

For several generations, remove their most physically capable members by force and sell them abroad.

Destroy their existing political institutions and replace them with administrative structures designed to extract rather than develop.

Draw their borders to maximize ethnic conflict and minimize political coherence.

Extract their mineral and agricultural wealth for a century at prices you set unilaterally.

When you leave, install governments that serve your economic interests rather than their populations.

Fund civil wars when those governments are threatened by leaders who want to redirect resource revenues toward domestic development.

Then, three generations later, administer a cognitive test.

Compare the scores to those of the populations who spent the same period accumulating capital, building universities, developing public health infrastructure, and compounding the advantages of political stability.

Put the results on a map.

Call the map a "nature documentary."

Tell yourself the scores show something biological.

Tell yourself the history had nothing to do with it.

Tell yourself you arrived at this conclusion by following the evidence.

You did not follow the evidence.

You followed the map to the place you had already decided to go.

And the evidence, the entire, documented, sourced, cross-disciplinary evidence, is the invoice you refused to open.