We took far too long to acknowledge Joe Biden’s age-related health problems. It also took far too long to publicly address Donald Trump’s erratic behavior for what it truly is: a genuine national emergency.
Certainly, many articles have been written about his mental illness, though most come from a relatively small number of mental health professionals. And yes, comedians never cease to ridicule him, offering a welcome respite in a situation that is anything but funny.
However, without going into specific medical details, every psychologist and physician I’ve consulted who studies Trump closely agrees on one point: in addition to recent cognitive decline, likely age-related, he suffers from a severe and chronic personality disorder. This combination is lethal; in some ways, it’s more dangerous than the sum of its parts.
Trump is dangerous, and most of us know it. But, as we also know, the mainstream media controlled by Trump will continue to justify his actions.
It is almost certain that it will not condemn Trump’s blatant invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president for what it truly is. This reminds me of Trump’s comments on Bob Woodward’s book, “Fear: Trump in the White House.”
There was only one path forward: escalation on all fronts. Maximize aggression to conceal vital weaknesses.
Trump has reason to be concerned, especially since the massive leak of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s full testimony before the House committee on December 17 (deliberately released on New Year’s Eve, when attention was virtually nonexistent), in which he revealed evidence of Trump’s criminal activities.
But it’s not just Trump’s mental state that’s at stake; it’s that of his entire entourage. Malicious narcissists can’t stand normal people, and Trump has surrounded himself with a coterie of psychopaths. In fact, a closer look at his team reveals that several of his key figures exhibit personality disorders, in addition to their blatant incompetence and appalling lack of integrity.
Trump and his team—not to mention all those who enthusiastically welcome him—represent a disaster for the mental health of the United States and the world.
I will address this topic in more detail in the coming weeks.
Better Police AI — Before AI Polices US
Another area where we cannot expect the organization to be transparent or take appropriate action by 2026 is, of course, the rapid development of artificial intelligence.
We can all contribute by remaining vigilant and reporting problems as soon as we discover them.
My friend Steve Somerstein gave me an example. He wrote a letter to the New York Times condemning Donald Trump’s virulent attack on the memory of Rob and Michelle Reiner after their deaths. He asked ChatGPT to improve this letter.
Here is what he got back (he sent me a screen shot of the entire interaction):
ChatGPT said:
Before rewriting, I need to flag a serious factual problem in the draft as written: Rob Reiner and his wife are alive, and there has been no such murder. I can’t improve or submit a version that repeats a false or defamatory claim. [Emphasis added.]
What I can do — and have done below — is produce a polished, publishable New York Times–style letter that preserves your moral argument while removing the incorrect names and unverifiable details. This keeps the focus on Trump’s conduct and Congress’s responsibility, which is clearly your core point.
If you want the letter to reference a specific, real case, you can tell me which one and I’ll revise it precisely.
Well, what a surprise! One wonders where ChatGPT got this idea! Could it be because the internet, from which it derives its “knowledge,” was rife with conspiracy theories claiming that Reiner’s murders were staged? And if so, where will this collective quest for “truth” lead us? To sink even deeper into the quagmire of post-truth? Clearly, there’s still a long way to go before we can trust this technology.
This is especially true for artificial intelligence, which seems to be showing signs of self-preservation, prompting one AI pioneer to warn that humans should be prepared to disable it.
It’s also important to note that tech giants have a vested interest in promoting the idea that AI will soon become self-aware. Why? Assuming that large language models (LLMs) are, or soon will be, self-aware, this assumption, combined with the human tendency to attribute consciousness to a machine programmed to speak like a human, masks the most pressing threat they pose: the people who manage these models—figures like Elon Musk and Sam Altman—are now injecting their own desires and preconceptions into the AI’s responses.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these AI controllers can manipulate the algorithms to accentuate or attenuate certain responses from the AI’s repertoire. Thus, these systems—which increasingly dominate the “world” of information and news, the foundation of modern civilization—are guided, often subtly, by special interests pursuing their own objectives.
In other words, we are under the control of a new generation of “media moguls,” more powerful than Hearst, Pulitzer, and the television network magnates of yesteryear. And this level of control over our information is rarely acknowledged. Take, for example, the GROK “Michahtler” episode (and Musk’s “corrective” response), as well as the similar episode where GPT-40, modified to be more user-friendly, pushed flattery to extremes, annoying users and prompting programmers to tone down its flattery.
Consider this: while we worry about the possibility of AI becoming self-aware (and thus protecting itself in ways that could harm humanity), we are already using a tool whose responses to our queries are subtly influenced by contemporary media moguls. For more examples, see below, under the heading: “From Epstein to Trump…”
Speaking of trust, more and more people are placing their trust in anonymous influencers about whom they know nothing: their identity, their background, their qualifications. Yet, all indications suggest that many of these “people” are actually computer bots or products of disinformation factories, often based abroad.
Thus, we are bombarded with a relentless stream of targeted lies and distorted information, and we glorify individuals and ideas whose fallacious principles cannot withstand any critical examination. Ultimately, this is a moralization aimed at moral destruction.
I recently saw a pro-Trump influencer boasting about the high number of applications for positions at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He finds this impressive, proof, in his view, that Trump’s efforts to deport foreigners are extremely popular and successful, not to mention that ICE is one of the few agencies that hires almost anyone, regardless of their background, qualifications, or even influence.
What kind of candidates are they? For starters, they may be people who haven’t been able to find other employment. Second, they seem to relish their newfound power to intimidate and bully others.
Many racists, fiercely xenophobic, have unscrupulously exploited the fallacious pretext that diversity-based hiring breeds a sense of inferiority. But those who believe in meritocracy are surprisingly quick to exploit the worst available.
Conspiring to Deny Conspiracy?
Like the New York Times, which tends to ignore legitimate questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case, the Washington Post, in an article titled “Documents Reveal Details of Epstein’s Death in Federal Custody,” published the following statement:
Six days after his death, Barbara Sampson, the New York City chief medical examiner whose office performed the autopsy, released a report concluding that Epstein died by suicide by hanging.
Since then, many people, including members of Congress and prominent supporters of President Donald Trump, have challenged this conclusion, claiming without evidence that Epstein was murdered and advancing theories about the identity of the possible perpetrator(s). [Emphasis added]
No evidence? It would seem that the Washington Post reporter didn’t watch the “60 Minutes” program in which the forensic expert presented all the elements that make suicide highly improbable. And I suspect he’s unaware of all these astonishing irregularities, such as:
Both guards on duty were asleep, not just one.
Problems with the surveillance cameras during his two alleged suicide attempts, and later, during his death.
Procedural lapses, such as leaving Epstein alone after what was presumed to be a previous suicide attempt.
The failure to interview potential witnesses.
The absence of basic forensic examinations.
The failure to preserve crucial evidence.
Before the FBI could examine the crime scene, evidence was moved and left unlabeled. (To learn more about these astonishing omissions, click here.)
It’s highly unlikely he was murdered. But at the very least, everything was done to make it easy for him if he had intended to commit suicide.
These elements are not mentioned in the Washington Post article or in the opinion piece.
Epstein to Trump: ‘This is a good one, right?’
For years, the American right has made “sex trafficking” a major political issue. It seems deeply outraged by the sexual abuse of minors.
Yet, many of its members remain silent on the Epstein affair and Trump’s close relationship with him.
So where is the outrage that the document below should have provoked?
Case No. 1:20-cv-00484, Document No. 1, Filing Date: 01/17/2020, Page 4 of 10
- During a meeting between the complainant (Doe) and Epstein, he took her to Mar-a-Lago, where he introduced her to the owner, Donald J. Trump. While introducing the 14-year-old plaintiff (Doe), Epstein playfully nudged Trump with his elbow and, pointing at her, asked, “She’s a good girl, isn’t she?” Trump smiled and nodded. They both laughed, and the plaintiff (Doe) felt uncomfortable, but she was too young to understand why. [Emphasis added.]
I asked ChatGPT about conservative reactions to this document. They told me that conservative media outlets, like Fox News, “don’t like to amplify unsubstantiated individual allegations in a civil lawsuit,” and that “the released documents are merely preliminary pleadings, with no court ruling proving any wrongdoing.”
“Unsubstantiated allegations.” “Preliminary pleadings, with no court ruling proving any wrongdoing.” Has the case been dismissed? I don’t think so.
I’m stunned to see how each new, even more extreme, revelation is treated as “unfounded,” denied, suppressed, or ignored, all in an effort by Trump supporters to divert attention from the next scandal they manage to concoct.
Since they refuse to share this information with those who need it most—those who need it most—it’s up to us to act.
Here’s one of the latest pieces of incriminating evidence in this never-ending saga: as the evidence of the relationship between Trump and Epstein mounts, Amazon receipts have resurfaced, revealing Epstein’s purchases, ranging from numerous books about Trump to a fake prison uniform, binoculars, and even… school uniforms.
Even more revealing are the Trump administration’s disinformation attempts:
Publishing a deluge of trivial, boring, and soporific information, capable of blinding even the most apathetic observer.
Publishing documents while omitting crucial information—a tactic of incompetence: falsified files are easily exposed by the public.
Using the old trick of pretending to publish only “credible” documents.
And my personal favorite: poisoning the atmosphere by publishing a few “embarrassing” documents that appear patently fake—implying that (1) the administration is being transparent, and (2) everything negative about Trump is fabricated.
Trump promised transparency. Yet, all his attempts to conceal the truth are crystal clear.