Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Funding Disparities Rebrands American Gifted Children as Mentally Ill & Paris Hilton Doesn’t Help

America is starving for gifted education while financially rewarding psychiatric labeling. While bringing attention to the ADHD issue is appreciated, Paris Hilton’s recent Business Insider interview admitting “ADHD is my superpower” is a message wrongly pushing the alleged mental disorder as some kind of empowerment.

It is of interest that Hilton would raise the ADHD mental disorder to superpower status while, at the same time, the United States is significantly underfunding gifted education and financially incentivizing psychiatric labeling practices. High-profile figures, like Hilton, who frames ADHD as her “superpower,” contribute visibility to a growing trend in how behavioral conditions are marketed as sources of empowerment.

Hilton describes ADHD as fueling her “drive, curiosity, and creativity,” along with “a million ideas all the time.” She also mentions “rejection-sensitive dysphoria” (intense unbearable emotional pain caused by perceived rejection) as linked to ADHD, calling it “exhausting” and “painful.”

The financial disparities between ADHD funding and gifted programs are telling. The U.S. Department of Education’s appropriation for the Javits Gifted and Talented program is just $16.5 million, compared to estimates that ADHD services cost the U.S. education system $13.4 billion annually. The current system prioritizes mental health funding for diagnosis over the identification of superior educational ability.

Crucially, the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis lacks an objective biological marker… no blood test, brain scan, or X-ray. Put simply, there is no known abnormality that is the alleged ADHD. Instead, diagnoses rely on behavioral checklists and school-based screenings, broadening the label and creating pathways for the behavioral health industry and pharmaceutical market within educational settings.

This system warrants scrutiny beyond treatment facilities; it must also include how labeling pipelines shape outcomes. When behaviors are categorized as disorders, questionable mind-altering medication becomes the default intervention, steering children away from educational opportunities and toward clinical drug management.

Many gifted children, who often display heightened sensitivity and intensity, are instead mislabeled as having behavioral disorders. Characteristics such as defiance, oppositional behavior, hyperactivity, mood fluctuations, and attention difficulties—traits frequently seen in gifted individuals—are too often misinterpreted as pathology. Once labeled, these children are managed clinically rather than nurtured academically, a process perpetuated by the financial incentives inherent in current mental health policy, where the disparity between funding for education opportunities for the gifted receives a little more than $16 million, while ADHD-related programs enjoy nearly $14 billion in funding.

The widespread misdiagnosis of the nation’s gifted is consequential. When institutions classify gifted students as psychiatrically disordered, subject them to medication, and lower academic expectations, the result is lasting harm to individual lives and societal potential.

Historically, under President Eisenhower with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the U.S. prioritized identifying high-ability students, supporting guidance and testing within schools. However, legislative priorities shifted under pressure from behavioral-health and pharmaceutical interests, moving schools away from talent identification toward managing behavior through diagnostic labeling and medication.

The funding imbalance suggests that gifted students are not overlooked by happenstance and, rather, are systematically converted into patients within a lucrative behavioral management industry.

Keep reading

You Can’t Have A Secure Border Without Deportations

In the wake of the Border Patrol shooting of anti-ICE agitator Alex Pretti, Democrats — and many Republicans — are utilizing his death to call for a “de-escalation” or a complete end of deportation operations while pushing, yet again, for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.” But these politicians and pundits persistently ignore the reality that taking deportations at scale off the table undermines the entire immigration law enforcement framework President Donald Trump has so successfully implemented during his second term.

Prominent among the anti-deportation voices are, of course, Democrats Tim Walz and Jacob Frey (and their anti-ICE insurgency cells), but their numbers also include GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and editors at The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, along with Problem Solvers Caucus leaders Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., and Rep. Tom Souzzi, D-N.Y., and a cacophony of the usual legacy media suspects. WSJ editors warned that Trump’s deportation campaign has become “a moral and political debacle.” The editorial board at the Post directed Trump to “de-escalate,” because “these enforcement tactics won’t turn the tide.” Lawler bemoaned federal agents “conducting forceful operations in American communities.” (Are they just supposed to ask nicely?)

Lawler and the Problem Solvers followed up their anti-deportation admonitions with the same types of ineffectual immigration reform suggestions that proved to be the kryptonite of the obsessively pro-immigration Republicans Trump bludgeoned on his way to the White House. (Byron York of Washington Examiner provided a thorough debunking of these sorts of measures in his daily newsletter.)

As is commonly the case with America’s political and pundit classes, these “experts” overlook or deliberately ignore a basic and obvious reality in their rush to advance their agendas on the backs of the fallout from Minnesota’s anti-ICE obstructionism and sanctuary policies: Deportation is the primary penalty for unlawfully entering the United States, and it’s also the most effective deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers.

Yes, there are other consequences. Prosecutions for first-time illegal entrants are a somewhat rare possibility (with apparently little consequence). Repeat offenders can get away with something like a year in prison if caught, convicted, and sentenced, though repeated illegal crossings typically coincide with other criminal activity like drug smuggling and human trafficking, which leads to longer prison sentences. The vast majority of illegal aliens apprehended at the border — at least under the Trump administration — are simply denied entry or returned to their home country (or another country willing to take them) courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Fines and bans on reentry could come into play, and, of course, the person trying to enter America legally has wasted the money he scraped together to pay cartels to smuggle him in.

But all of that amounts to law enforcement having one hand tied behind its back if an illegal alien sneaking his way into the States and taking up residency in a Democrat-led sanctuary city (or really anywhere, if amnesty advocates have their way) has essentially made himself invulnerable to the enforcement powers of the executive branch. Once you’re in, you’re in — and it’s obvious to all thinking people how that incentive structure will play out. Crises in places like Portland, Oregon, and in California following the defanging of the justice system serve as illustrations of how particular crimes rise when authorities remove deterrents.

Border security measures essentially function as crime prevention, catching the would-be entrant in the act. Deportations are the just punishment for the crime of illegal immigration. Eliminating deportations from the toolbelt of federal law enforcement would be as illogical as a legal system in which authorities stop would-be vandals, thieves, arsonists, and rapists if caught in the act but casually “let bygones be bygones” if they aren’t able to prevent it. (Unsurprisingly, this is actually a position some leftists hold.)

Eliminating deportations, or, as is more likely, stripping them down to a mere performative husk of efficacy, would mean the nullification of immigration law — regardless of the fervor with which federal authorities apply other methods. Deportations work. While canny consumers of legacy media content will rightly dismiss much of the “huddling at home for fear of ICE” messaging as propaganda, there are nuggets of truth to be inferred: Illegal immigrants desperately want to avoid deportations. Democrats desperately want to prevent them. In fact, deportations change the entire calculus of unlawfully entering the United States and helping oneself to the government-funded gravy train of “resources.” They make breaking U.S. law legitimately risky.

Keep reading

Open-Source AI Models Vulnerable to Criminal Misuse, Researchers Warn

Hackers and other criminals can easily commandeer computers operating open-source large language models outside the guardrails and constraints of the major artificial-intelligence platforms, creating security risks and vulnerabilities, researchers said on Thursday.

Hackers could target the computers running the LLMs and direct them to carry out spam operations, phishing content creation or disinformation campaigns, evading platform security protocols, the researchers said.

The research, carried out jointly by cybersecurity companies SentinelOne and Censys over the course of 293 days and shared exclusively with Reuters, offers a new window into the scale of potentially illicit use cases for thousands of open-source LLM deployments.

These include hacking, hate speech and harassment, violent or gore content, personal data theft, scams or fraud, and in some cases child sexual abuse material, the researchers said.

While thousands of open-source LLM variants exist, a significant portion of the LLMs on the internet-accessible hosts are variants of Meta’s Llama, Google DeepMind’s Gemma, and others, according to the researchers. While some of the open-source models include guardrails, the researchers identified hundreds of instances where guardrails were explicitly removed.

AI industry conversations about security controls are “ignoring this kind of surplus capacity that is clearly being utilized for all kinds of different stuff, some of it legitimate, some obviously criminal,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, executive director for intelligence and security research at SentinelOne.

Guerrero-Saade likened the situation to an “iceberg” that is not being properly accounted for across the industry and open-source community.

The research analyzed publicly accessible deployments of open-source LLMs deployed through Ollama, a tool that allows people and organizations to run their own versions of various large-language models.

The researchers were able to see system prompts, which are the instructions that dictate how the model behaves, in roughly a quarter of the LLMs they observed. Of those, they determined that 7.5% could potentially enable harmful activity.

Roughly 30% of the hosts observed by the researchers are operating out of China, and about 20% in the U.S.

Rachel Adams, the CEO and founder of the Global Center on AI Governance, said in an email that once open models are released, responsibility for what happens next becomes shared across the ecosystem, including the originating labs.

“Labs are not responsible for every downstream misuse (which are hard to anticipate), but they retain an important duty of care to anticipate foreseeable harms, document risks, and provide mitigation tooling and guidance, particularly given uneven global enforcement capacity,” Adams said.

A spokesperson for Meta declined to respond to questions about developers’ responsibilities for addressing concerns around downstream abuse of open-source models and how concerns might be reported, but noted the company’s Llama Protection tools for Llama developers, and the company’s Meta Llama Responsible Use Guide.

Microsoft AI Red Team Lead Ram Shankar Siva Kumar said in an email that Microsoft believes open-source models “play an important role” in a variety of areas, but, “at the same time, we are clear-eyed that open models, like all transformative technologies, can be misused by adversaries if released without appropriate safeguards.”

Keep reading

How China supercharged ‘birth tourism’ and scammed American citizenship for up to 1.5 million babies

“Birth tourism” — where pregnant women have their child on America soil to become citizens — has been happening for decades. But Chinese elites have “weaponized” the practice, says author Peter Schweizer, raising a generation of legal citizens who have no loyalty to the US. In this excerpt from his new book, “The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon,” he explains how.

As we sang “Auld Lang Syne” in the early morning of Jan. 1, 2025, the first American newborn of the year arrived to much fanfare and celebration.

But this time, the baby was the progeny of Chinese citizens, and the mother had intentionally traveled to give birth on American soil, so that the child would automatically be granted US citizenship, a practice known as birth tourism. When such children turn 21, they can also apply for resident status for both of their parents.

This baby was born in the US territory of Saipan in the Pacific. More than 70% of the newborns in Saipan are Chinese birth tourist parents who utilize the territory’s 45-day visa-free visitation rules and the “Covenant of the Northern Mariana Islands” to guarantee that their children will have American citizenship.

That little child’s parents are two of many who are taking advantage of America’s birthright citizenship policies, based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. How many is anyone’s guess.

Since the US government does not directly track birth tourism, we must rely on estimates. In 2012, one nonprofit calculated that about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the United States and then left the country.

Keep reading

Ed Department: California Violated Family Rights Law By Secretly ‘Transitioning’ Students

The U.S. Department of Education found the California Department of Education (CDE) in violation of federal family rights law on Wednesday for facilitating the gender “transition” of children and hiding it from their parents.

California pressured school districts across the state to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a student privacy and parental rights law, by forcing them to conceal student records from parents about their child’s so-called “gender transition,” according to a senior department official detailing the results of an investigation Wednesday.

“FERPA requires that schools provide access to all education records upon a parent’s request. Schools do not get to choose which records they feel like providing to parents and which ones they don’t,” the official said. “As Secretary McMahon stated last year, this is not only patently unlawful, but morally reprehensible. Children do not belong to the state. They belong to their parents. Parents must know about the most sensitive information pertaining to their child’s health and well-being.”

A Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) investigation found that at least 300 students in California were put on “‘gender support plans,’ many without parental consent or knowledge.” At CDE’s direction, school officials placed the “support plans” in “separate filing systems” to keep parents in the dark about the plans.

As The Federalist reported, school personnel are often some of the first and most influential people a student interacts with regarding confusion about sex and “gender,” and many push children toward “social transition” like name and pronoun changes, which often leads to destructive medical interventions.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom shoots down claim $236M program for California’s mentally ill has helped just 22 people in four years

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s $236 million program to help those with severe mental illness who bounce between homelessness and jail has helped a measly 22 people since the its launch in 2022, a new report reveals.

Newsom’s CARE Court was billed as a “completely new paradigm” to get the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment, with up to 12,000 people expected to benefit, the Daily Mail reported.

But only 22 people have been sent to treatment over the past four years, after a state analysis found that up to 50,000 could be eligible for the program.

The 22 court-ordered cases were among roughly 3,000 petitions filed statewide as of October. Of those, only 706 were approved, including 684 voluntary agreements that never intended the meet program’s goal, according to the Daily Mail.

Newsom has denied the report.

“CARE Court has helped THOUSANDS of Californians into care to recover — not 22. Even under the most NARROW definition (court-ordered treatment plans, which is one of many treatment outcomes), the number is 600+ and growing,” his press team tweeted.

Keep reading

Not Organic: Progressive Protest Industrial Complex Fueled by Professional Activist Class

Jason Rantz said activist groups operating in Seattle remain organized and strategically coordinated but are no longer attracting the same level of public participation seen during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, arguing that public rejection of radical anti-enforcement positions has limited their growth.

During an exchange with Andrew Kolvet, Rantz was asked to explain the current state of activism in Seattle and how organized and militarized those groups have become.

“So explain to us what is going on in Seattle. Then, related to Minnesota, you have been around these communist front groups longer than just about anybody in the country. You see it up close and personal in the Pacific Northwest. How big is this movement? How militarized are they? How organized are they? Explain it for our audience, please. Jason Rantz,” Kolvet said.

Keep reading

Democrat Somali Declares Minnesota Neighborhood a ‘No-Go Zone’ for White Americans

The promise America made to us was simple but profound: E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. It’s the fundamental covenant that says, despite our different backgrounds, we are all citizens of the same nation, living under one set of laws, and deserving of the same protections. This principle is what keeps us from descending into a mess of warring tribes.

But what happens when our own elected leaders decide that the covenant is optional? What happens when officials sworn to uphold the law start carving out their own private fiefdoms, declaring entire classes of Americans unwelcome and replacing constitutional order with tribal rule? This isn’t just a thought experiment. It’s happening right now, and one Democrat just provided a chilling preview of the left’s ultimate vision for America. And trust me, you aren’t going to like it.

From ‘The Post Millennial’:

The comments were made in a series of posts on X showing Fateh standing in front of the Cedar Riverside towers alongside two other men. “Cedar Strong. White Supremacists aren’t welcome here. We protect our own,” the post read. When pressed by journalist David Marcus, who wrote that Americans do not allow “no-go zones,” Fateh doubled down, replying, “This is a No-Go zone for white supremacists.”

Don’t mistake this for a simple slip of the tongue. This wasn’t a gaffe; it was a confession from Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh. He is openly promoting the creation of an autonomous enclave on American soil, a place where his political opponents are barred from entry and where a private force, not the police, keeps order.

Keep reading

Scientists want to use self-amplifying mRNA to vaccinate those who do not want to be vaccinated

Newly published research papers demonstrate that gain-of-function research designed to investigate the effects of deadly pathogens is still continuing. In the course of research, live mice are being exposed to deadly doses of laboratory-built recombinant synthetic H5N1 viruses with codon optimisation, which boosts expression in human cells and cleavage site enhancement linked to viral virulence.  Lethal doses of synthetic viral material containing artificial DNA sequences are being forced into animals using lipid nanoparticles (“LNPs”) and electrical pulses. The aim of the research is to develop replicon mRNA vaccines and treatment strategies but alarmingly, the work is being partially funded by the US defence establishment and there are ties to multinational pharmaceutical companies.

A paper was published on 13 January 2026 in Nature Communications is entitled ‘Intranasal replicon vaccine establishes mucosal immunity and protects against H5N1 and H7N9 influenza’. It reports the development of a self-replicating mRNA vaccine targeted at H5N1 and H7N9 viruses – so-called avian or bird flu viruses. The vaccine is administered with an intranasal spray, which is designed to attach itself to the nasal mucosa via a nanostructured lipid carrier and then replicate itself like a virus in the human body. The research was funded by the Department of Defence of the US government. One of the stated aims of the research is to develop proof of concept for an mRNA vaccine delivery system, which will overcome vaccine hesitancy and reach whole populations rapidly.

In a parallel development, an international team of researchers from USA, Canada and the EU have used so-called gain-of-function methods to design, engineer and test synthetic versions of the H5N1 bird flu virus’s hemagglutinin protein – one of the key components that allows the virus to infect cells. Their results are reported in a Nature paper entitled ‘Electroporation and LNP-mediated delivery of plasmid DNA-encoded H5N1 influenza virus hemagglutinin support protection against highly pathogenic avian influenza’. In summary, the paper reports that researchers have produced synthetic versions of a dangerous flu component and injected them into mice. They then exposed the animals to very deadly strains of the H5N1 virus to see how well their synthetic constructs functioned. Their research was funded by a US federal vaccine-development initiative said to be designed to prepare for future influenza outbreaks using rapidly adaptable genetic platforms. 

Scientists are creating novel genetic viral pathogenic sequences and then saying we need to be protected from them. In other words, they are posing as saviours when they are the ultimate sinners.

The senior scientist involved, David B. Weiner, disclosed paid relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Inovio, Flagship and other commercial biotechnology and/or pharmaceutical companies.

These reports demonstrate how the type of dangerous research which likely created covid-19 is still being conducted in laboratories around the world. If New Zealand were to pass the Gene Technology Bill, it is likely that our laboratories will be co-opted by the lure of lucrative funding to participate in such collaborative research projects, despite the fact that the FBI, CIA, MI6, BND and other international intelligence organisations have confirmed that the covid pandemic was likely the result of laboratory-engineered pathogen manipulation.

Make your feelings known. Our voice is more powerful than we realise. Do not get distracted by the injustices of the past to the extent of ignoring the very real threats that are being developed around us. We need a better future than the one that is currently being planned, created and curated for us. 

Keep reading

Mike Benz exposes the dark underbelly of U2’s Bono…

We’ve been told over and over that celebrity “humanitarianism” is the purest form of goodness on the planet. Big stars, concerts, movies, emotions, giving back, bla bla bla. The message is always the same: open your heart, open your wallet, and don’t ask too many questions, because celebrities would never steer you wrong.

But every once in a while, someone comes along and does ask questions. And when they do, many uncomfortable dots start showing up.

And that’s exactly what’s happening with Bono, the frontman of U2. But beyond his lead vocals, Bono has very carefully cultivated an image as a global humanitarian icon. Nobody asked questions, because Bono had everybody convinced he was an angel, doing the purest work. However, there’s a lot more to it, according to Mike Benz.

He says Bono’s humanitarian work may not have been driven purely by compassion but by something much darker: elite power networks, intelligence operations, and narrative control.

What makes this even more disturbing is how often USAID keeps popping up in Bono’s so-called “humanitarian” work. As you likely recall, USAID spent years selling itself as a charitable force while quietly operating as a political operator overseas. Once DOGE started digging, the fraud and true mission were revealed, and Team Trump moved to gut large portions of the agency. Only now are Americans beginning to understand just how much of this so-called “aid” wasn’t what it appeared to be.

Which brings us right back to Bono and Mike Benz, the guy who just pulled back the curtain on U2’s singer.

Mike points out how celebrity activism, government agencies, and intelligence agencies all come together under the phony banner of “humanitarianism.”

Benz points to massive USAID-linked fundraising concerts, including events that were supposed to stop hunger in Somalia. The thing is, that didn’t happen, because most of the money allegedly financed CIA-backed warlords and weapons purchases.

This is where the glossy “Hollywood humanitarian” story really starts to crack.

Benz goes through how these shady operations really run. They use aid vans that can’t be inspected because “the food will spoil,” and the relief funds move through layers of contractors and other shady folks.

While the public PR stunts stir up emotions, all the sketchy stuff happens in the shadows. What’s sold to the public as compassion is actually a delivery system for covert action.

And then there’s the politics…

Keep reading