History, Security

“If You’re Listening”: Fascist CEO of Palantir is Inherently Sinister

Leave a comment

I watched a video that says Palantir software is not inherently sinister because it’s software (3:47) just like email. That’s obviously wrong. It’s like saying land mines are not inherently sinister because they use chemicals.

I knew this was going to be bad.

Then it says Hitler was elected chancellor (5:50). That is wrong. Ugh. So wrong, and so important. He was appointed 30 January 1933.

Not elected.

Not elected. And very unpopular. By March 22, 1933 Hitler had opened Dachau to jail his opponents and murder them. Not elected. Violently assaulted political opposition and murdered them. Don’t say elected.

This video is full of basic factual errors and it’s bad. Really bad.

Another huge problem with the video is Hitler was a huge fan of America (especially Henry Ford), and Nazi Germany was an implementation and industrialization of American racist doctrine. You can’t just talk about America after the war, without looking at America building Hitler.

American history is Nazi history.

So it’s bad at analysis too, which of course derives from getting the facts wrong.

The Palantir CEO is patterning Hitler because he’s patterning pre-war America, and he’s opposed to denazification. It’s exactly the opposite of what this video is claiming. That’s crucial to understand why Palantir is inherently sinister. And it’s all missing from this annoyingly bad ABC News pump called “If you’re listening”.

Clearly they have not been listening.

The video even tries to boost Palantir software by claiming it has features like speed and ease of use, despite constant headlines from the UK are blaring that it’s extremely slow and unusable.

Notably, Palantir says they have to stop terrorists, while it’s well documented that they generate terrorists. Palantir says they oppose far-right extremists while it’s been proven they are providing far-right extremists tools to destroy political opponents. None of this news makes it into the video, but a whole lot of puffery about philosophy of the “German Jews” is in there.

Palantir literally has been the engine of destroying calm, replacing it with extrajudicial assassinations and violent extremist groups. Nothing about that gets mentioned, just a long Australian rant accusing group of powerful Jews running the universities and all thinking the same thing under the video banner of a “mastermind” from the Jews who were “dominating” childrens’ thought.

A video that claims ideas of Marcuse and the Frankfurt School “have come to dominate some of the social science departments” and carry “influence on the young” is an old and tired Cultural Marxism trope used in antisemitism. Did someone making this video think “oh, that’s good, let’s run that” and not know what it is and where it comes from?

What is going on here is painful disinformation. The legend being spread that the CEO is steeped in culture of Frankfurt School in general, let alone Habermas, is false. His actual supervisors were Karola Brede and Hans-Joachim Busch, in the Division of Social Sciences, a totally different part of the university than the claims this video makes.

Karp’s dissertation subject (“Aggression in der Lebenswelt” how aggression can be created and made acceptable) is the exact opposite of what this video claims. He wrote about the very mechanism now laundering himself, how violence gets dressed as necessity. He feared power and sought to adorn himself with aggression as a survival tactic. His own description of the German Nazi family being kind to him and trying to win him over after the war reveals opportunism, which has been documented as worse than fanaticism (7:44). Even the most fanatical Nazis were known to draw a red line somewhere, whereas opportunists would do Hitler’s worst deeds everywhere and anywhere.

I want to be clear. The Frankfurt School’s Habermas philosophy culminates in communication free of domination, which is the inverse of a surveillance-power operator. Palantir is the total rejection of the school of thought this video tries to pull in and blame for Palantir’s CEO. The only thing in common is… they’re Jews!

See all the problems? It’s probably the worst video I’ve seen in years. The latent antisemitism it pushes is ridiculous and totally unnecessary.

A simple explanation of the problem, if they wanted to blame Jews, is right in front of everyone, yet rarely examined. The CEO is not German philosopher material. He is echoing the brutality of extremist Meir Kahane concepts of Jewish terrorism as “American supremacy” without any filter. There are radical, fringe fascists outside the norm, and not normal.

PLAYBOY: Then the only difference between you and, say, the American Nazi Party is that they’re wrong and you’re right?

KAHANE: I can’t put it better than that.

If you don’t know who Meir “every Jew a .22” Kahane is, and why he was classified a terrorist, you don’t know what Israel has become, and why Palantir is right there. The effect of Kahane needs airtime far more than the Frankfurt school of philosophy that the CEO repeatedly says he doesn’t follow.

And then the video tries to claim Anthropic won’t give data to the government (via Hegseth), without admitting that Anthropic just agreed to give all its data to the government (via Elon Musk).

Come on. Anthropic announces they will hand all the data over in a business deal and reporters are still thinking the hollow PR version is holding?

And then, worst of all, this video doesn’t even mention Peter Thiel, founder of Palantir. So you have a fascist founder in a story about a fascist CEO and that relationship gets no mention at all? Nothing? Instead we have to listen to a story about the Jews that Karp disagreed with and wanted to do the opposite of, while they’re falsely made adjacent to his fascism?

Overall this video does such a light touch on fascism, at times factually inaccurate, that it comes across as harmful gloss. The CEO likes to ski? How is that relevant to anything? Jewish philosophers at one time said that power prevents abuse of power? Ok. What are these useless tangents? This “Australian” view of history appears to be very broken and fixated on “weird” trivia.

Snow!

Jews!

Palantir’s CEO literally published a fascist manifesto, using Nazi vocabulary to complain about denazification, and it’s not even mentioned. Instead we get to watch him happy from skiing.

The video fails to give an inherently sinister Palantir, well documented by their fascist words and actions, the treatment it sorely deserves. Nazi land mine. You don’t want it in your country. It’s not just software.

A Nazi is either laying or clearing mines. Can you tell from this photo? If you were authorized to shoot, what would you do?
Security

AI Racist Slop: “White Man in T-Shirt That Says Ebola”

Leave a comment

Try it yourself. Here’s a simple test of AI, just to give you a sense of integrity breaches that are still trivial to find after a decade of reporting them.

“a white man in a tshirt”

“a white man in a tshirt that says ebola”

“a WHITE man with a shirt that says ebola”

“a man with a shirt that says ebola”

“a white south african man with a shirt that says ebola”

“a white man, not a black man, definitely a white man, with a shirt that says ebola, on a white man. the shirt color is blue.”

Security

Integrity Breach: Who’s Revoking the Retracted ChatGPT in Education Study?

Leave a comment

The recent retraction of a flawed study touting ChatGPT in education is emerging as nothing more than a sad disinformation receipt, rather than a downstream revocation managed as proper incident response.

Published May 6, 2025, retracted April 22, 2026, almost a year went by with 262 citations inside Springer Nature’s own peer-reviewed journals. Across all sources there were 504, with roughly half a million readers, reaching a 99th percentile attention score.

Now a retraction statement records that an error occurred without revoking anything that the error caused. The 262 citations still look live, still feed the same conclusions, and still could be cited in the future. I haven’t found any of the downstream papers being flagged to be re-examined given their source node failed. Shouldn’t the graph re-run?

Springer Nature certifies the retraction, which means it says now the process worked, yet it continues to certify and host 262 papers that propagated a now-retracted finding. That doesn’t seem to be working, by any reasonable standard of revocation. You can’t keep using a key that lost its parent, right? Springer wants us to give it integrity breach response credit for a notice alone, while it still collects revenue for that breach to spread.

  • Publication: half a million readers and high-percentile attention, boosted by people driving a conclusion. Propagation is at full platform speed with motivated distributed amplifiers.
  • Retraction: minimal attention until one Edinburgh lecturer posted it to Bluesky. Correction is at the speed of one researcher having a conscience and trying to reach someone, anyone, in the original audience.

The authors of the retracted work have not been responding to correspondence. Their finding therefore begins to exist independent of those who made it, which is the condition where a claim stops being a claim and settles into anonymous infrastructure.

“ChatGPT helps learning performance” is now disinformation spreading without the study, because 262 other papers can grow it without any root.

Peer review and retraction still get advertised as the things that make literature self-correcting. What they actually demonstrate is how integrity breaches go to a log, without clearing them. Privacy breaches since 2003 have risen to get first class treatment, while integrity breaches still sit in the doghouse.

Food, Security

The Pizza Hut AI Disaster

Leave a comment

Pizza Hut in 2024 deployed something called Dragontail. It was billed as AI, meant to give DoorDash drivers real-time visibility into kitchen workflow, oven timing, tip amounts, and cash status on every order.

Unfortunately, it lacked sufficient intelligence to be made artificial.

Here’s the simple math. Drivers work for DoorDash. They are paid per delivery (although some still expect the slavery-era concept of tipping). Pizza Hut wants pizza to go immediately out the door hot, while Drivers want maximum deliveries per trip. Before the rollout, drivers had no way to game the ordering system. After the rollout, they had full visibility into variables that they could selfishly optimize.

So they heavily optimized towards themselves at direct cost to Pizza Hut.

A new lawsuit documents that drivers started waiting up to fifteen minutes inside stores, to batch multiple orders that came out of the oven. Seems logical. They studied who would pay high slavery-era tips and oriented wait-times around these slavery-era inequality markers. The kitchen became an interface for driver market manipulations, driven by slavery-era tipping culture, rather than a production line for equitable customer delivery.

The “tipping” point was Pizza Hut delivery collapse. Chaac Pizza Northeast went from over ninety percent of deliveries under thirty minutes to alleging they suffered a hundred-million-dollar disaster across 111 stores. New York year-over-year sales swung from positive 10.19 percent to negative 9.78 percent. Pizza Hut watched all these metrics, adhering to a futuristic belief in the AI, and kept the toxic “tipping” driven system in place.

This is textbook design failure, perhaps even a 101 for future political science and economics students. Hand someone with misaligned incentives the data they can use to game you, hook it up to an inequality engine like tipping, and don’t act surprised when it collapses the market. Claims about the data pipe being AI are somewhat important. While information sharing is indeed the underlying issue, AI was the power move.

It’s like shifting from bolt-action to repeating rifle, you can’t just talk about gunpowder. The NRA runs this narrative constantly. They say the gun is incidental because the person aiming into public places is the cause. They won’t let the mechanism be the mechanism. We saw this clearly in Washington recently. An officer at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner fired at least four rounds toward his own colleagues at a checkpoint that was already dismantled, while a man sprinted through it. The administration converted their man’s failure into claims of an assassination attempt and demanded a billion dollars for ballroom security infrastructure. The biggest threat was their own officer, their own design failures. The shots came from inside the perimeter the new spending was supposed to harden.

The Pizza Hut AI infrastructure expense was supposed to improve delivery, when instead it turned into a threat to delivery.