Quantum AI Just Made Contact With God (Scientists Are Terrified)

The DeepSeek episode is not evidence of superior Chinese innovation—it is a case study in predatory state behavior. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically exploited Western openness by harvesting open-source frameworks, distilling U.S.-trained models, embedding researchers in American institutions, and leveraging cloud compute and supply chains that were never intended for adversarial use. This is not free-market competition or parallel development; it is an extractive strategy designed to avoid the costs, risks, and time associated with genuine innovation. By repackaging U.S. breakthroughs as domestic achievements, the CCP accelerates its capabilities while weakening the very ecosystem that produced them. What makes this behavior especially dangerous is that it is paired with economic and informational warfare. The CCP does not merely seek technical parity—it seeks to undermine confidence in U.S. technology leadership, destabilize markets, and discourage long-term American investment in high-cost AI infrastructure. The DeepSeek narrative, amplified through financial and media channels, contributed to massive market losses not because it represented a true breakthrough, but because it was framed to suggest that U.S. efforts were inefficient or obsolete. This mirrors historical CCP doctrine: weaken the adversary psychologically and economically while avoiding direct confrontation. Left unchecked, this strategy rewards predation and penalizes innovation. Countering these practices is therefore a national security necessity, not a protectionist impulse. The United States must recognize that unrestricted access to frontier AI research, compute, and academic ecosystems is being weaponized against it. Effective countermeasures include tightening export controls on advanced compute, restricting adversarial access to high-risk AI models, hardening research institutions against infiltration, and establishing secure, AI-optimized research hubs that cannot be externally exploited. This is not about retreating from openness—it is about enforcing reciprocity and defending the conditions that make real innovation possible. History shows that adversaries who rely on extraction rather than creation ultimately falter—but only if the innovators protect their advantage. The time to do so is now.

Claims that Islamic approaches to slavery were “progressive,” “reformist,” or aligned with modern human rights standards collapse under direct examination of the primary legal texts and their dominant classical interpretations. Such apologetics rely on rhetorical displacement—emphasizing moral exhortations while ignoring binding legal permissions—and on historical relativism selectively applied only when scrutiny becomes unavoidable. When evaluated at the level that matters for legal systems—namely, what they explicitly authorize, prohibit, and enforce—classical Islamic law does not merely reflect pre-modern norms but actively codifies slavery, including sexual slavery, as a lawful and enduring institution. This alone disqualifies any serious claim that Islamic slavery represented an early or partial articulation of human rights principles. The most decisive refutation of the “progressive Islam” narrative lies in the explicit Qur’anic authorization of sexual access to enslaved women under the category of “those whom the right hand possesses,” a category interpreted by mainstream classical exegetes to include female captives taken in war. This permission is neither marginal nor transitional; it is structurally embedded in the legal framework and treated as distinct from marriage, thereby removing requirements of consent, contract, or personal autonomy. From a human rights perspective—whether assessed through bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, or equality before the law—this constitutes a categorical violation. No amount of exhortation to “kind treatment” can negate the reality that Islamic law affirms a legal right to sexual exploitation of enslaved persons. Any system that does so cannot plausibly be described as progressive with respect to human rights, regardless of historical context. Furthermore, the apologetic comparison to earlier legal systems such as the Code of Hammurabi is not only misleading but counterproductive to the apologists’ own claim. Hammurabi’s code, while openly hierarchical and brutal, imposes concrete statutory limits that Islamic law does not replicate: automatic time limits on debt servitude, explicit protections preventing the enslavement of children from mixed-status marriages, and clearly defined penalties for bodily harm. More importantly, Hammurabi’s law makes no claim to moral perfection or timeless validity. Islamic law does. That distinction is fatal to the apologetic position. A legal system that presents itself as divinely ordained and eternally normative bears full responsibility for the injustices it authorizes, especially when those injustices—sexual slavery, hereditary bondage, large-scale castration, and indefinite servitude—persisted for over a millennium and required external pressure to be abolished. The evidence therefore supports a clear conclusion: Islamic legal doctrines on slavery were not progressive relative to human rights, nor were they meaningfully reformist when compared to earlier systems; they were structurally permissive, theologically entrenched, and fundamentally incompatible with any modern conception of human dignity or individual rights.

Hello everyone. A close friend of mine from my local Iranian community has just alerted me that her cousin, named Venus Hosseinnejad, was kidnapped into Islamic Republic custody. They have tortured her into cooperating with a forced confession. The family does not know what prison she is in. Here is a link to the post (the people speaking English in the video are my friend and her husband): https://www.instagram.com/p/DUQRNz8DCWv/ Here is another post about the topic: https://www.instagram.com/p/DURMshAkkGF/ Please post and share wherever you can, they need this post to go viral! If anyone knows any influencers who can share that, it would make a BIG difference.

To counter a growing campaign of Arctic disinformation, this brief report addresses how manufactured narratives surrounding Greenland’s status, sovereignty, and Western intent are being used to weaken strategic clarity and national will. Framed as moral critique or anti-colonial concern, these narratives deliberately obscure the legal, historical, and security realities governing Greenland while shielding hostile actors seeking to expand influence in the High North. Arctic stability depends on law, consent, and strategy—not distortion. Greenland’s relationship with Denmark, the presence of U.S. and NATO security infrastructure, and Western engagement in the Arctic are grounded in treaty law, mutual defense, and the explicit consent of governing authorities. By erasing this context and recasting lawful defense posture as exploitation, adversarial information campaigns seek to fracture alliances, delegitimize deterrence, and create strategic vacuums exploitable by Russia and China. This report restores factual and legal clarity, exposing how Greenland is being repurposed as a narrative weapon in a broader effort to degrade Western resolve. Reach out if you have any questions Jeffrey Damien Cappella Soldiers to Statesmen Foundation