American Economic ‘Apocalypse Now’: Default

Now that the national debt has reached an eye-popping $40 trillion, my fear is not simply that America has accumulated an enormous amount of debt. My greater fear is that, when the moment comes when something finally has to be done about it, the political system will be so polarized that Washington will be incapable of doing what is necessary.

And that is where things could get genuinely frightening.

The United States has now crossed a fiscal threshold that would have seemed almost incomprehensible to previous generations. The Treasury reported that gross federal debt surpassed $40 trillion in August 2026, with roughly $32.3 trillion held by the public and another $7.8 trillion in intragovernmental holdings. The gross debt has doubled since 2017. Meanwhile, annual interest payments on the debt have risen above $1 trillion and have become one of the largest items in the federal budget.

Yet $40 trillion, by itself, does not mean that the United States is about to go bankrupt. America is not a household that has somehow accumulated a $40 trillion credit-card bill. The federal government has enormous taxing power, controls the world’s most important reserve currency, and issues the securities that have traditionally been regarded as the foundation of the global financial system.

The more immediate danger is political.

A sovereign debt crisis can happen because a government is genuinely unable to pay its debts. But the United States has a peculiar additional vulnerability: Congress periodically has to authorize the government to borrow the money necessary to meet obligations that Congress has already incurred.

That means America can theoretically default on its debt not because it lacks the economic capacity to pay, but because its political institutions refuse to authorize the borrowing necessary to pay it.

That is an extraordinary situation.

And it becomes considerably more dangerous in an era in which the two American political coalitions increasingly regard one another not merely as political opponents but as existential threats to the country.

The Debt Ceiling Is the Loaded Gun

This is the part of the American fiscal system that has always struck me as particularly bizarre.

Suppose Congress passes legislation spending $100 billion. The government then spends the money. Later, Congress reaches the statutory limit on how much the Treasury is allowed to borrow. At that point, Congress can effectively say: We authorized the spending, but we aren’t going to authorize the borrowing necessary to pay for it.

That is not a normal fiscal-policy disagreement. It is a hostage situation built into the machinery of government.

Historically, Washington has repeatedly approached the edge of this cliff and then backed away. Financial markets have generally assumed that, at the last moment, political leaders will recognize that actually defaulting on U.S. Treasury obligations would be catastrophically stupid.

But there is an obvious problem with relying on that assumption forever.

Eventually, somebody might actually be willing to find out what happens.

The Federal Reserve has previously warned that even a temporary federal default could produce sharply higher Treasury yields, higher private borrowing costs and substantial financial-market disruption. A prolonged confrontation could impair markets that depend on Treasury securities as collateral and could create liquidity problems in money-market funds and other financial institutions. The Fed has also emphasized that a U.S. default would be fundamentally unprecedented because Treasury securities occupy a unique position in the global financial system.

That last point is worth dwelling on.

The United States is not simply another country with a lot of government debt. Treasury securities are woven into the plumbing of global finance. They are held by banks, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign governments, corporations, investment funds and ordinary Americans. They are used as collateral. They serve as a benchmark for pricing other forms of debt.

The dollar itself is the principal reserve currency of the world.

So if the United States voluntarily demonstrated that its government could be prevented from paying its debts because Congress had reached a political impasse, the damage would extend far beyond Washington.

The $40 Trillion Problem Is Bigger Than the Debt Ceiling

There is another reason I think the $40 trillion milestone deserves attention.

The real problem is not the number itself. It is the trajectory.

America has been running large structural deficits even when the economy is growing. Aging demographics are increasing spending on Social Security and Medicare. Defense spending is enormous. And now the government is paying more than $1 trillion a year simply in interest on money it has already borrowed.

This creates a nasty feedback loop.

The more debt the government accumulates, the more interest it has to pay. The more interest it pays, the larger the deficit becomes. The larger the deficit becomes, the more it has to borrow. And the more Treasury securities it has to issue, the more important interest rates become.

This is particularly uncomfortable because investors are already demanding higher yields on U.S. government debt. Reuters reported this week that foreign demand for Treasuries has been weakening while borrowing costs have risen toward levels not seen in many years.

That does not mean a debt crisis is inevitable.

But it does mean the margin for political stupidity is becoming smaller.

A government carrying relatively little debt can survive a few years of foolish fiscal policy. A government carrying $40 trillion in debt and paying more than a trillion dollars a year in interest has considerably less room for error.

And America’s political system is currently demonstrating rather a lot of enthusiasm for error.

What Would an Actual Default Look Like?

The word “default” makes people imagine something like Greece during the eurozone crisis or Argentina repeatedly failing to meet its obligations.

An American default would be different.

It could begin as a technical failure to make a scheduled payment on Treasury securities. Or it could involve the government being forced to delay payments to contractors, federal employees, beneficiaries or other creditors because it no longer has sufficient legal authority to borrow.

The exact sequence is difficult to predict because the United States has never experienced anything comparable.

That uncertainty is itself dangerous.

Financial markets do not particularly enjoy experiments.

Imagine that investors suddenly began wondering whether a Treasury security maturing next week would actually be paid on time. Even if everyone eventually concluded that the United States would make good on the obligation, the mere possibility of delay would introduce a risk premium into an asset that has traditionally been treated as essentially risk-free.

That could raise interest rates throughout the economy.

Mortgages could become more expensive. Corporate borrowing could become more expensive. State and local governments could face higher financing costs. Stock markets could fall. Banks and investment funds could suddenly find that assets they regarded as exceptionally safe were behaving in unexpected ways.

And because Treasury securities are embedded in the international financial system, the shock would not stop at America’s borders.

The Federal Reserve has explicitly noted that disruption to Treasury markets can transmit stress through dollar funding markets, asset markets, financial institutions and international trade and commodity markets.

In other words, a U.S. default would not merely be an American government having trouble paying its bills.

It could become a global financial event.

And Then There Is the Political Fallout

This is where my concern becomes less economic and more historical.

A financial crisis is bad enough.

A financial crisis occurring in a country already experiencing extreme political polarization is something else entirely.

Imagine a scenario in which Washington actually defaults.

The stock market falls. Interest rates spike. Retirement accounts lose value. Businesses begin laying people off. Banks become nervous. The dollar comes under pressure. Government payments are delayed. Politicians immediately begin blaming one another.

The MAGA movement says the establishment caused it.

Democrats say Republicans deliberately sabotaged the economy.

Republicans say Democrats spent the country into insolvency.

Democrats say Republicans refused to pay America’s bills.

Everyone has an audience willing to believe them.

And suddenly a technical fiscal crisis becomes a battle over the legitimacy of the American political system itself.

That is the part that worries me.

America has historically been remarkably resilient because, beneath our enormous political disagreements, there has generally been an assumption that the basic machinery of government will continue to function.

That assumption is more important than it looks.

People can tolerate losing elections. They can tolerate unpopular presidents. They can tolerate recessions. They can even tolerate periods of extraordinary political conflict.

What becomes much more dangerous is when large numbers of people conclude that the institutions themselves are illegitimate and that the opposing political coalition has no legitimate right to govern.

A default could become a catalyst for precisely that kind of crisis.

Could It Actually Lead to Revolution or Civil War?

I want to be careful here, because I don’t think a U.S. debt default would automatically produce a revolution or another American Civil War.

That would be an enormous leap.

America is not currently in a condition where a financial crisis would necessarily translate into organized armed conflict between competing governments or armies. There are many intermediate possibilities: recession, political realignment, mass protests, strikes, electoral upheaval, constitutional crises, institutional reform and a prolonged period of political instability.

But history teaches us something important about political crises: the consequences are rarely limited to the original problem.

A financial crisis can become a political crisis.

A political crisis can become a crisis of legitimacy.

And a crisis of legitimacy can become something much harder to control.

The danger would be especially pronounced if a default occurred simultaneously with another major shock: a recession, an international war, a banking crisis, a major cyberattack, a severe AI-driven labor disruption or some other event that caused ordinary Americans to feel that the basic social contract was collapsing.

That is when seemingly abstract fiscal problems can suddenly become existential political problems.

People generally do not riot because the national debt has reached $40 trillion.

They riot because they cannot pay their rent.

They lose their jobs.

Their savings disappear.

Their government stops functioning.

They believe somebody stole their future.

And then somebody comes along and tells them exactly who is responsible.

The Global Consequences Could Be Even Worse

The international implications are potentially enormous.

For decades, the United States has enjoyed what is sometimes called an “exorbitant privilege”: the world wants dollars and Treasury securities, allowing the United States to borrow at enormous scale.

That arrangement is not simply a financial convenience. It is one of the foundations of American geopolitical power.

If Washington were to demonstrate that Treasury securities could become political hostages, foreign governments and financial institutions would have an additional reason to diversify away from American assets.

That would not mean that China, Europe or some other power could simply replace the dollar overnight. There is no obvious alternative with the same combination of liquidity, scale, political stability and financial infrastructure.

But reserve-currency status is ultimately based on confidence.

And confidence is much easier to destroy than to create.

The Federal Reserve has already modeled scenarios involving higher Treasury yields, global recession and substantial declines in asset prices. Its 2026 stress scenarios demonstrate just how interconnected higher interest rates, inflation, commodity prices and global financial markets have become.

A genuine U.S. default would be something else entirely: an event for which there is very little historical precedent.

The terrifying question is therefore not simply, “What would happen if America defaulted?”

It is:

What happens to the world when the country whose debt has traditionally been considered the safest asset on Earth demonstrates that its own political system can no longer guarantee payment?

Nobody really knows.

And that uncertainty is precisely what makes the prospect so dangerous.

The $40 Trillion Number Should Be a Warning, Not a Prophecy

There is a temptation whenever the national debt reaches another psychologically significant number to declare that America is about to collapse.

I don’t think that’s particularly useful.

The United States is still an extraordinarily wealthy country with enormous productive capacity, a huge economy, deep capital markets, world-leading companies, a powerful military and the world’s dominant reserve currency.

There is no economic law saying that $40 trillion in debt automatically causes national bankruptcy.

The danger is subtler.

The danger is that America’s fiscal problems are becoming increasingly difficult to solve while America’s political system is becoming increasingly incapable of reaching compromises.

Eventually, something has to give.

Perhaps Washington will eventually undertake a serious combination of spending reductions, tax increases and entitlement reforms. Perhaps economic growth will make the problem more manageable. Perhaps inflation will reduce the real burden of some of the debt. Perhaps technological advances, including artificial intelligence, will dramatically increase productivity and tax revenues.

There are many possible ways out.

What worries me is the possibility that the political system will refuse to choose any of them until the markets choose for us.

And that is the nightmare scenario.

The United States could spend decades arguing about whether the debt is a Republican problem, a Democratic problem, a spending problem, a taxation problem, a welfare problem, a military problem or an interest-rate problem.

But the bond market doesn’t care which political tribe is morally correct.

Eventually, somebody has to pay the bill.

And if Washington reaches the point where Republicans and Democrats would rather allow the United States to default than give the other side a political victory, the resulting crisis could be vastly larger than the original disagreement.

That is why the $40 trillion milestone bothers me.

Not because I think America is about to collapse.

But because $40 trillion is a reminder that the United States is accumulating enormous financial obligations at precisely the moment when its political institutions appear least capable of dealing with them rationally.

A debt crisis would not necessarily cause an American revolution.

It might not even cause a recession.

But if the worst political circumstances converged with the worst possible fiscal circumstances, it could produce something much more dangerous than either side currently imagines.

The great American experiment has survived wars, depressions, assassinations, political scandals and extraordinary social upheavals.

I would prefer not to discover whether it can survive a crisis in which Americans simultaneously lose faith in their money, their government and one another..

2027 Is Going To Be A Dark Year

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

In the Mel Brook’s classic, History of the World Part 1, there is the famous quote, “How does the Senate vote?”
“Fuck the poor!”

I think because of Trump’s fucking “Big Beautiful Bill,” 2027 will be the year it sinks in how fucking back things are specifically and directly because of fucking Trump.

A lot of people are going to lose their Medicaid and as such, a lot of them are just going to…die. And a lot of rural hospitals will be forced to close, endangering the lives of many more people.

And it wasn’t like these drastic cuts in Medicaid were done for any good reason. They were done specifically so Trump could grease the palms of his ultra wealthy friends. That’s it. Nothing else. No higher purpose, nothing.

What’s more, I just don’t think Trump is going to allow free-and-fair elections this fall, even though Republicans are on track to probably keep both houses of Congress. So, it could be there will be a “Stop The Steal” movement on the part of Blues starting in early November and that will roll over into the winter of 2027.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think this is it, guys. I think as of November, we’ll officially be a “managed democracy” like they have in Russia and elsewhere and MAGA Republicans will control the United States until Something Drastic happens.

These are macro forces, so whatever that “Something Drastic” is would be pretty big!

Stop The Steal 2026: There’s A Greater-Than-Zero Chance Of Civil War or Revolution If Trump Fucks With The Midterms

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Oh boy. Trump is totally going to fuck with the 2026 midterms in some way and if Blues stop dicking around long enough to notice, the country may collapse. But that’s a big, big “IF.”

It could all be a lulz.

Trump declares martial law, or SCOTUS gives him some of the Executive Order power he craves, or maybe even the SAVE Act passes. But I, regardless, I got a bad feeling about what happens this fall.

If Trump goes as far as we all fear, Blues may get so angry that Something Bad happens. What that might be, I can’t fathom. But it’s definitely a possibility.

‘Stop The Steal’ 2026 (Blues This Time)

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

All signs point to Trump fucking with the 2026 mid-terms. I don’t quite know what to tell you. People continue to be too distracted to hit the streets or whatever to demand this not happen.

So, probably what will happen is Trump will fuck with the 2026 midterms and THEN there will be a lot of protests that will come to no effect. And if they do come to any effect the country will get very close to a civil war.

I know have repeatedly predicted that over the years, and this time is no different — it probably won’t happen. But it is something to think about, something to ponder.

It will be interesting to see how things work out if Trump literally does fuck with the 2026 midterms to the point that it changes the obvious outcome.

‘Nothing To Report’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I think some crazed hater of mine was looking for proof that I was some sort of danger to society so they could report me to the FBI. I’m not in anyway any such thing. I’m very harmless. I don’t hate Trump personally, I just hate what he stands for and MAGA in general.

So, there’s nothing to tell the FBI or ICE about me.

I *am* a loudmouth crank who goes off the handle sometimes in a fit of pique. But that’s still legal, right?

Republicans Will Do Fine This Fall

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Because of things like the “K-Shaped” Economy, and a lot of financial ineptitude on the part of Democrats, Republicans are going to probably keep the House and Senate this fall.

So, the Trump Revolution will continue apace, whipping through the government at an alarming rate. Now, 2028 is interesting because there is at least a small chance that either we will be in the Singularity or we will really begin to feel the effects of AI on the job market.

That will put a lot of pressure on our managed democracy and it’s possible that things will be so bad — or just different — that Democrats will win despite themselves.

Or it could be the AI advancements will slow down significantly and it will all be a lulz. I just don’t know at the moment. But I do know that I wouldn’t hold your breath when it comes to Democrats being very successful in the near term.

The Intelligence Monopoly: Recursive Self-Improvement and the Geopolitics of the ASI Breakout

The pursuit of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) has transitioned from the realm of speculative philosophy to the centerpiece of a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation. At the heart of this transition is Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI)—the theoretical “holy grail” of computer science where an AI system begins to autonomously refine its own architecture and algorithms. As the United States and China race toward this “intelligence explosion,” the path is being increasingly obstructed by a sophisticated layer of regulatory capture. This essay examines how the narrative of AI safety is being leveraged to consolidate control over the means of ASI production, potentially creating a global “intelligence monopoly” that prioritizes corporate and state power over the democratization of superintelligence.

RSI and the Acceleration toward AGI

Recursive Self-Improvement represents a fundamental shift in the AI development paradigm. Traditionally, improvements in model performance have been driven by human engineers and massive compute scaling. However, recent milestones—such as Anthropic’s Mythos and Xiaomi’s MiMo—suggest that we are entering an era where AI can participate in its own R&D. When a model becomes capable of writing its own training code or discovering more efficient neural architectures, the timeline from Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) to ASI may compress from decades to months.

MilestoneDeveloperStrategic FocusProjected Impact
MythosAnthropic (US)Automated R&D & State VerificationEarly RSI-lite capabilities
PhD Super-AgentsOpenAI (US)Specialized Autonomous ResearchAcceleration of the AGI-to-ASI path
MiMo (Self-Evolution)Xiaomi (China)Algorithmic “Self-Evolution”Closing the compute gap with efficiency
Open-Source ASI PathGlobal CommunityDecentralized RSI CyclesDemocratization vs. Centralized Control

For the United States, RSI is seen as a way to maintain a qualitative edge over China despite the latter’s massive data advantages. Conversely, Chinese researchers view “self-evolution” as a critical tool for overcoming US-led chip export restrictions by maximizing the intelligence output of available hardware.

The Regulatory Hammer: Safety as a Moat

As the technical feasibility of RSI becomes clearer, the rhetoric surrounding “AI safety” has intensified. Leading US AI labs have increasingly advocated for stringent regulatory frameworks that would mandate government oversight for any model capable of significant self-improvement. While the risks of an unaligned ASI are undeniable, the proposed solutions—such as “licensing regimes” and “mandatory review periods”—curiously align with the business models of the incumbents.

“The first country or company to achieve RSI would leave its competitors in the dust, cementing an unassailable lead.”

By lobbying for regulations that effectively ban or indefinitely delay the release of high-capability open-source models, domestic giants are engaging in a classic form of regulatory capture. They are using the state’s legitimate concern over “national security” to “pull up the ladder” behind them. If the “right to review” becomes a prerequisite for RSI research, only the most heavily capitalized and politically connected firms will be permitted to proceed toward ASI, leaving the open-source community—and by extension, the rest of the world—in a state of permanent “intelligence debt.”

Geopolitical Fallout: The “Silicon Curtain” of ASI

The US government’s efforts to “spook” enterprises away from Chinese AI models are not merely about cybersecurity; they are about control over the ASI breakout. The narrative that Chinese-origin models are “sleeper agents” or inherently unsafe provides a convenient geopolitical justification for domestic protectionism. This creates a “Silicon Curtain” where the path to superintelligence is bifurcated:

  1. The Western Closed-Loop: A centralized, highly regulated environment where ASI is developed behind closed doors by a handful of “verified” labs under state supervision.
  2. The Global Open-Source Frontier: A decentralized, transparent, but increasingly marginalized ecosystem that China is actively courting to bypass Western restrictions.

The risk of this fragmentation is profound. If the US succeeds in centralizing ASI development through regulatory capture, it may achieve “safety” at the cost of stagnation and global resentment. Meanwhile, if China successfully leverages open-source RSI to achieve an ASI breakout first, the US’s regulatory walls will have served only to ensure its own obsolescence.

The AGI-to-ASI Transition: A Public or Private Utility?

The fundamental question of our era is whether ASI will be a public utility or a private monopoly. The current trend toward regulatory capture suggests the latter. By framing RSI as a “national security threat” that only a few “trusted” corporations can manage, we are drifting toward a future where the most powerful technology in human history is owned and operated by a tiny elite.

This centralization is inherently fragile. A single “aligned” ASI owned by a corporation is still a tool of that corporation’s interests. True safety and security in the age of ASI may not come from closed-loop regulation, but from a robust, transparent, and decentralized ecosystem where no single entity can monopolize the “intelligence explosion.”

Conclusion: Beyond the Monopoly

The race for ASI is not just a technical competition; it is a battle over the future of global power. The collision of RSI’s potential with the machinery of regulatory capture threatens to turn the most significant breakthrough in human history into a tool of narrow corporate and state interests. To avoid an “intelligence monopoly,” we must look past the fear-mongering and recognize that the safest path to ASI is one that is open, transparent, and globally collaborative. True intelligence cannot be captured; it can only be shared.

The Silicon Curtain: Regulatory Capture and the Geopolitics of Open-Source Intelligence

The recent unveiling of Kimi 3 (K3) by the Beijing-based startup Moonshot AI represents more than a mere technical milestone; it serves as a definitive catalyst for a burgeoning collision between American regulatory strategy and the global democratization of artificial intelligence. As a 2.8-trillion-parameter model with open-weight commitments, Kimi 3 has effectively closed the performance gap between open-source initiatives and the proprietary “frontier” models maintained by Silicon Valley’s incumbents. This convergence arrives at a precarious moment when the United States government is increasingly leveraging “national security” narratives to dissuade American enterprises from adopting Chinese-origin technology, a move that critics argue aligns suspiciously well with the interests of domestic AI giants seeking to cement their market dominance through regulatory capture.

The Kimi 3 Milestone: A Shift in Global Gravity

Moonshot AI’s release of Kimi 3 has fundamentally recalibrated the expectations for open-source Large Language Models (LLMs). Boasting a 1-million-token context window and a native “thinking mode” for advanced reasoning, the model rivals the capabilities of the most sophisticated closed-source systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 and Anthropic’s Claude 4.8. By providing a high-performance, cost-effective alternative that is compatible with existing US-based developer SDKs, Kimi 3 challenges the narrative that frontier-level intelligence is the exclusive domain of a few heavily capitalized Western firms.

FeatureKimi 3 (Moonshot AI)Typical US Frontier (Closed)
Parameter Scale2.8 TrillionEstimated 1.8T – 3T+
Access ModelOpen-Weights (Scheduled)Proprietary API Only
Context Window1,000,000 Tokens200,000 – 1,000,000+ Tokens
Primary InnovationHybrid Linear AttentionTransformer / MoE Variants
Cost StructureHigh Efficiency / Self-HostablePremium API Pricing / Lock-in

The strategic timing of this release, occurring just ahead of the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference, underscores a broader Chinese strategy: using open-source contributions to build global developer ecosystems that bypass US-led restrictions. For American enterprises, the allure of Kimi 3 lies in its transparency and the ability to self-host, which offers a level of control and data privacy that proprietary APIs cannot match.

The Architecture of Capture: “Safety” as a Barrier to Entry

In the United States, the response to this shifting landscape has been a dual-track effort of legislative and executive maneuvering. Prominent AI labs have consistently lobbied for “safety frameworks” and “licensing regimes” that, while framed as necessary to prevent existential risks, effectively act as a ladder-pulling mechanism. By advocating for regulations that mandate expensive “right to review” periods and complex compliance audits for any model exceeding certain compute or capability thresholds, incumbents are creating a regulatory environment where only the most well-funded organizations can survive.

“Regulatory capture occurs when a state agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.”

This phenomenon is particularly evident in the recent White House discussions regarding a new Executive Order aimed at “managing” open-source AI. By focusing on “Chinese-origin models” and “distillation risks,” the proposed regulations would impose significant friction on any US firm attempting to utilize powerful open-source alternatives. This alignment between the state’s geopolitical goals and the industry’s desire for closed-model dominance suggests a synergistic form of protectionism that threatens the very innovation it claims to protect.

The Geopolitics of Fear: “Spooking” the Enterprise

Parallel to formal regulation is a more subtle, yet equally effective, strategy of geopolitical discouragement. The US government, supported by reports from defense-linked consultancies, has begun a systematic campaign to “spook” American enterprises away from Chinese AI. Narratives surrounding “sleeper agent” vulnerabilities—claims that Chinese models might be trained to produce subtly flawed code or leak data when used in US contexts—have proliferated in Congressional hearings and national security briefings.

  1. Sleeper Agent Narratives: Assertions that models like Kimi 3 or DeepSeek contain latent triggers that could compromise critical infrastructure.
  2. Congressional Probes: High-profile investigations into the use of PRC-origin AI within American firms, creating a “chilling effect” on procurement.
  3. Export Control Extensions: Using the rescission of previous diffusion rules to warn that any firm using US chips to run or fine-tune Chinese models may face future sanctions.

These tactics create a significant reputational and legal risk for US CEOs. Even if a Chinese model is technically superior or more cost-effective, the threat of being labeled a “national security risk” by the Department of Commerce is often enough to force a retreat into the arms of domestic, closed-source providers.

The Enterprise Dilemma: Innovation vs. Compliance

American enterprises now find themselves at a crossroads. On one hand, the competitive pressure to integrate the most advanced AI is immense; on the other, the path to using the most accessible and efficient tools is being systematically blocked. This creates an innovation tax, where US firms must pay a premium for domestic proprietary models while their global competitors—unburdened by such “Silicon Curtain” restrictions—leverage the best open-source intelligence from across the globe.

The long-term risk is a fragmented AI ecosystem where the United States becomes an island of expensive, highly regulated, and closed-source intelligence, while the rest of the world builds upon a transparent, collaborative, and rapidly evolving open-source foundation led by Chinese innovation. If the current trajectory of regulatory capture and geopolitical fear-mongering continues, the US may find that in its attempt to “secure” the frontier, it has inadvertently ceded the lead to those who chose to leave the gates open.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Open Frontier

The collision of Kimi 3’s technical brilliance with the machinery of US regulatory capture highlights a fundamental tension in modern industrial policy. While the desire to protect national security is legitimate, using it as a pretext to enforce market monopolies for a handful of Silicon Valley firms is a strategy fraught with peril. For the American enterprise to remain competitive, it must have the freedom to choose the best tools for the job, regardless of their origin. True security lies not in the height of the walls we build, but in the speed at which we can innovate within an open and transparent global community.

Stop The Steal! (2026)

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Trump is going to steal the 2026 midterms. And I fear he may even go so far as to use extra-legal means to do it. The question, of course, is what we’re going to do in response once he does it.

I fear we’re either do nothing or we’re going to have a civil war / revolution.

I really would prefer not to have a civil war or revolution — I have a novel to query at a minimum — but…I suppose what will happen is…nothing. People will get really mad but ultimately nothing will happen and Trump will push and push to the point that him running for an illegal third term might be a done deal by the time 2028 rolls around.

When ‘It’ Happens

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Now that Linsey Graham has suddenly died, it makes you think about what happens when “it” happens in regards to Trump. A lot the issue is how it happens. If Trump just shuffles off this mortal coil after a brief illness, I suspect we probably don’t know for a long time, maybe weeks.

The people around Trump are so shifty and untrustworthy that they would spend weeks struggling to figure out how to position themselves in a way that gives them the most power.

The thing I worry about, of course, is a civil war. MAGA is so paranoid that it seems like there would be riots in the streets if Trump leaves us anytime before he has successfully destroy the United States to the fullest extend possible.

Anyway, live long and prosper? At this point, I just be happy if Trump left office on time and if we had free and fair elections.