🚨 JUST IN: Trump-endorsed Byron Donalds explained why he joined the Republican Party in 2010, citing its core of thoughtful, intellectually curious people who want the country to be free @ByronDonalds: "So through all my years, first as a political activist and now as an elected official, I've always found that people in our party, for the most part, still have that same core about them." "They're intellectually curious, they're willing to have long debates, they're willing to read about the subject matter. But they just want the country to operate."

Slay the Spire and Slay the Spire 2 are still getting review bombed on Steam right now. The latest wave has spread to the first game too. The main reason is Anita Sarkeesian listed as a consultant in Slay the Spire 2 credits. Many players with hundreds of hours say they don't want a political activist's influence. Earlier waves in March and April came from Chinese players angry about balance changes. Before this, both games had very positive ratings.

🔴 'Feminism has become a byword for angry, loony-Left politics: leaching into support for dangerous political leaders and activists' | Writes Zoe Strimpel Read more about how October 7 became a turning point for Strimpel ⬇️

POLITICAL VIOLENCE: The university where Charlie Kirk was assassinated last year agreed to hold a memorial for the fallen hero with Turning Point, only to cave to pressure from far-left activists who threatened violence. Surrendering is never the answer.

Authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo are increasingly harassing and arbitrarily detaining journalists, activists, and political opposition members. Authorities should stop the clampdown on critical voices and release those wrongfully detained.

The mother of one of the girls who was attacked by Seattle Storm co-owner and players speaks out She says they were told political signs aren’t allowed however leftist activists were allowed to bring signs in while they weren’t. Her 16-year-old daughter was so excited for her dream to sit court side and left crying after being attacked. Leftists will literally destroy a girl’s dream if she doesn’t want boys in her bathroom and sports teams.

"I work for an institution that I think is the best in the business, the Manhattan Institute. I think we do good work that has a high degree of accuracy and rigor and intelligence. And I think that we’ve put up practical political victories in a way that few others have." MI is honored to work with @christopherrufo, who the New York Times described as "the most successful activist of this era, certainly on the right."

🇮🇳 | Nearly 200 people were injured during ongoing protests of India’s “Cockroach Movement.” Police cracked down on protesters trying to reach the Parliament building in New Delhi. Students, in particular, are swarming the streets to express their anger at the BJP-led government. The CJP started as an online satirical movement two months ago. It was founded in response to central government officials calling student activists and unemployed youth "cockroaches" and "parasites of society.” Now, the movement is proving capable of channeling widespread youth discontent into one of the largest street protests India has seen in recent years. One of the CJP's core demands is profound reform of India’s education system, which many see as corrupted. The party also demands the release of prominent political prisoners, such as Sonam Wangchuk. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has remained silent on the protests.

Earlier today a @Guardian journalist sent me this query: Dear Toby Young, I'm Aisha Down, a journalist at the Guardian. I'm getting in touch because we're planning to report that the US state department is considering a grant of $5m to Free Speech Union, your organisation, as part of a new grant-making scheme, and wanted to give you the chance to comment. We would appreciate receiving your comment by 14:30. We are considering reporting the following: - The grant to the FSU is part of a package to Maga aligned groups that former US officials have condemned as a misuse of public money to seek influence over foreign politics and interfere with democracy. - It is rare for the US government to fund partisan political organisations in western countries. - These grants are likely to pose a challenge to Andy Burnham, who has said he will be "very upfront" with Trump about any disagreements. - These grants - including to your organisation - are "sole source" grants, meaning they are to be awarded without any competitive process. This is unusual for a highly regulated process which usually requires grantees to show they have a track record for handling funds and clear plans for the money. - This lack of process has been criticised as "outrageous and absurd" by former US officials, and as "gross incompetence" and "horrible stewardship" of US taxpayer money. - Your organisation does not appear to have a track record of handling grants of this amount. - We describe your organisation as "a rallying point for “anti-woke” grievance" which "frequently allies itself with rightwing causes" and say that you, Toby Young, appeared on Rees-Mogg's GB news show earlier this month to warn about 'Soviet-style' censorship in the UK. - The state department says that its grant to FSU will “support campaigns promoting free speech and countering digital overregulation across the UK, Europe and Australia”. The sole-source award is justified “due to FSU’s global network of free speech activists”. We would like to fully and fairly reflect your point of view and look forward to your statement. Thank you, -- Aisha Kehoe Down Senior Tarbell Fellow, Guardian News and Media I replied as follows: It sounds like a pretty garbled story. Free Speech Union International, which is the umbrella group that FSU UK, FSU Australia, FSU New Zealand, FSU Canada, FSU South Africa and FSU Brazil sit within, has expressed interest in applying for grant funding from the US State Department. This would be to promote the right to freedom of expression in those countries, which, far from being a partisan cause, is a universal human right. But it hasn't submitted a formal application and, consequently, has been awarded no grant from the State Department or any other branch of the US Government. You've mischaracterised the FSUs, all of which are non-partisan organisations that defend people who get into trouble for exercising their right to feee speech regardless of their political views. The FSU UK, for instance, is currently paying for the legal defence of a protestor who's being prosecuted for holding up a sign saying "I support Palestine Action", as well as a protestor for wearing a t-shirt at a Unite the Kingdom rally for saying "Fuck Islam Christ is King". Yes, we helped Lucy Connolly appeal her sentence -- we thought a prison sentence of over two-and-a-half years for a single tweet was excessive -- but we also tweeted yesterday, condemning the arrest of Heather Herbert and offering our support. Yes, we came to the defence of Nigel Farage when he was debanked, but we've also offered to help the Canary in its recent debanking case. So to describe the FSU UK as a "rallying point for anti-woke grievance" is misleading. We are a rallying point for those who want to defend the right to freedom of expression. Best, Toby The @Guardian then ran this story: You be the judge of whether you think this is good journalism.

The greatest risk posed by AI may not be artificial intelligence itself; it is much more likely to be that we give politicians the power to decide who is allowed to build it, use it and benefit from it. That's the argument Marc Andreessen makes in The Techno-Optimist Manifesto - and history gives us good reason to take it seriously. Andreessen argues that technology is the primary driver of human progress and that AI represents one of the most important advances in history. Rather than treating it as an existential threat that requires state control, he sees it as a powerful tool that will expand human capability, raise living standards and solve problems that currently seem intractable. The case for heavy regulation usually rests on two claims: that AI is uniquely dangerous, and that governments are capable of guiding its development responsibly. Both are questionable. Past technologies - from electricity and automobiles to the internet and biotechnology - were also accompanied by dire warnings and calls for strict oversight. In most cases, premature regulation would have slowed or distorted progress without meaningfully reducing risk. Governments face the same knowledge problem with AI that they face with every complex, fast-moving technology. Regulators lack the information, incentives and agility to make good decisions about what should be allowed, restricted or banned. More often, regulatory systems are captured by incumbents who want to slow down competitors, or by ideological activists who are hostile to technological progress itself. The better approach is to allow innovation to proceed while holding individuals and companies accountable for actual harm under the law. Precautionary regulation based on speculative future risks tends to favour the powerful and the risk-averse at the expense of progress that benefits everyone. Andreessen’s core message is simple: the greatest danger is not that AI will advance too quickly, but that fear and political control will prevent it from advancing at all.