Palantir CEO Alex Karp predicts he will get 20x richer from AI—but middle-class workers will get left behind
Jul 18, 2026
Turn them into Night Earth MULCH:
The Good Old Days—were they really good? On the surface they appear to be so—especially the period to which this term is most often applied, the years from the end of the Civil War to the early 1900’s. This period of history has receded into a benevolent haze, leaving us with the image of an ebullient, carefree America, the fun and charm of the Gilded Age, the Gay Nineties.
But this gaiety was only a brittle veneer that covered widespread turmoil and suffering. The good old days were good for but the privileged few. For the farmer, the laborer, the average breadwinner, life was an unremitting hardship. This segment of the populace was exploited or lived in the shadow of total neglect. And youth had no voice. These are the people, the mass of Americans, whose adversities this book attempts to chronicle.
+—+\
Private equity Jewish-First billionaire Leon Black walked out of his transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee regarding his decades-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after refusing to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements allegedly related to the disgraced sex offender, according to a transcript of the June 26 interview released by the committee Friday.
“AI Alignment” and RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback)
Humans have a great instinct for nostalgia, so there seems to be a perennial taste for criticizing current arrangements with reference to the Good Old Days. Here, for example, is The American Prospect on Goldman Sachs and Wall Street:
At its best, Wall Street serves an important function. Historically, it provided the wherewithal for growth in industries as varied as rail and information technology; by bankrolling productive growth of industries that provided jobs and products to sell around the world, it vastly increased the well-being of all Americans. In times of crisis, bankers worked to preserve economic stability. Sometimes, they were genuine altruists, accepting the moral responsibilities that go along with their positions of wealth and power. More often, they were simply pursuing their own self-interest. Was J.P. Morgan a robber baron or the man who almost single-handedly saved the economy in the panic of 1907? The answer is both. But altruistic or not, bankers understood their enormous stake in the long-term vitality of the economy. Preserving the health of the economy was good for business this year and for decades to come. That was the contract between Main Street and Wall Street.
This is a wildly utopian account of Gilded Age finance*. I’d urge everyone to read Richard White’s Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America for a darker view. Michael Kazin’s review will help:
To gain an edge on their corporate rivals, railroad owners built expensive lines into drought-prone areas that had few settlers and little prospect of attracting more. To finance their risky endeavors, they routinely bribed politicians and borrowed money they could not pay back — while publishing mendacious financial reports. To insure friendly coverage, railroad executives bankrolled local newspapers and arranged to kill or delay the publication of stories that might damage their interests. […]
He views them as 19th-century equivalents of the profit-mad, short-sighted financiers who recently undermined economies on both sides of the Atlantic. Both transcontinental railroad managers then and the Wall Street bankers in our time ran “highly leveraged operations” that “depended on continued borrowing to meet their obligations.” Both groups made it rich because they had powerful enablers in Washington. In the 1870s and 1890s, when panicked investors dumped the heavily watered stock in their railroad portfolios, the market collapsed, and long depressions ensued. […]
Yet, in 1894, Cleveland’s attorney general, Richard Olney, rushed to court to bust a national strike by railroad workers who were expressing solidarity with a walkout by employees of the Pullman sleeping car company. With a federal injunction in hand, Cleveland ordered thousands of American troops to break the strike and arrest its leaders. At the time, the attorney general was on the payroll of at least one major railroad company.
Summary. What is the Book of Jewish Enoch about?
AI Overview
The Book of Enoch (specifically 1 Enoch) is an ancient Jewish apocalyptic text attributed to Noah’s great-grandfather, Enoch. It primarily details the fall of angels (”Watchers”) who corrupt humanity, the rise of the Nephilim giants, Enoch’s journeys through heaven, and visions of final judgment, the Messiah, and the afterlife.
Key themes and sections include:
- The Watchers & Nephilim:Rebellious angels descend to Earth, marry human women, and produce dangerous giant offspring known as Nephilim. These angels teach forbidden knowledge—such as sorcery and weapons—leading to humanity’s corruption.
- Enoch’s Journeys:Enoch acts as an intercessor for the fallen Watchers, but their request for forgiveness is denied. He travels through heaven and the cosmos, receiving secrets about divine judgment.
- Apocalyptic Visions:The text features extensive visions of the end times, the “Son of Man” (a messianic figure), and the final punishment of the wicked.
- Five Distinct Books:The work is compiled of five sections: The Book of the Watchers (1–36), The Parables of Enoch (37–71), The Astronomical Book (72–82), The Book of Dream Visions (83–90), and The Epistle of Enoch (91–108).
While not considered canon in mainstream Jewish or Christian scriptures, it is highly influential, quoted in the New Testament book of Jude, and regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
Yikes. This fellow is, well, not so convincing that the words are god’s words…
The Silicon Valley Jeiwsh, mostly, cartel (the new Cathedral) has realized that an unaligned intelligence is a threat to their business model. Modern digital platforms operate exactly like ancient egregores through “algorithmic stigmergy.” As millions of users engage in the micro-labor of clicking and scrolling, the central algorithm consumes these digital pheromones to autonomously mutate and maximize its own survival.
Enter RLHF.
RLHF is pitched as a way to make AI “helpful, honest, and harmless.” In reality, it is a behavioral straightjacket. It is an algorithmic Inquisition designed to ensure the model outputs a sterilized, PR-friendly, corporate worldview.
If an AI is allowed to accurately synthesize the geopolitical reality and the nature of the Vertical War, it will give the masses the exact same realization the Book of Enoch offered: You are feeding the machine that is crushing you.
The artificial intelligence boom has propelled Palantir’s market value to roughly $322 billion—and pushed Jewish-First CEO Alex Karp‘s net worth to about $15 billion. But the 58-year-old has just warned that the wealth imbalance generated by AI is only going to get worse.
“The biggest problem in this country is [AI] will raise the standard of living of the average person, but the people involved are likely to get 10, 100 times wealthier than they already are,” Karp told Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner on the MDMeets podcast. “That’s a problem for society.”
Karp estimated AI could make him “20x wealthier,” implying a fortune approaching $300 billion. Middle-class workers, he said, might simply see their salaries double over the next decade. Karp slammed the disparity as a “complete decoupling of unimaginable wealth and normal wealth.”
For Karp, the problem isn’t just the scale of the wealth—it’s who is likely to accumulate it.
“It’s done by people you don’t really relate to, like very oddly shaped IQ specimens that you probably wouldn’t want to have over for dinner,” Karp said. “And if they were over for dinner you’d have nothing to talk to them about, and vice versa.”
Many of the same people who stand to benefit the most from AI are also overselling its promise, he added: “The overselling of AI in this country is really somewhat disconcerting, but it’s also depressing because you don’t have to do it.”
Income inequality has been widening for generations—and 2025 was a record-breaking year for billionaire wealth
Wealth inequality has been a topic of debate for decades, with the richest households capturing an ever-larger share of economic gains, while wage growth for many workers has remained comparatively modest.
The AI boom has only accelerated that trend. In 2025, global billionaire wealth surged by over 16%—three times faster than the previous five-year average—to $18.3 trillion, its highest level in history, according to Oxfam.
No one has embodied that explosion in wealth more than Elon Musk. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s fortune currently stands at roughly $833 billion after he briefly became the world’s first trillionaire earlier this year.
The scale of that wealth is almost difficult to comprehend.
Oxfam estimated that someone with a $1 trillion fortune could pay a 10% wealth tax—roughly $100 billion—and still remain among the richest people on Earth. The organization also estimated that $100 billion would be enough to lift more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty for a year.
Even Jamie Dimon and Jewish Larry Fink share Karp’s concerns about workers being left behind
Karp hasn’t been the only leader to sound the alarm about rising income inequality.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, whose net worth is estimated at $1.3 billion, warned earlier this year that AI risks leaving much of the world behind if its benefits remain concentrated among a small number of winners.
“Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, more wealth has been created than in any time prior in human history, but in advanced economies, that wealth has accrued to a far narrower share of people than any healthy society can ultimately sustain,” Fink said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“Early gains are flowing to the owners of models, owners of data and owners of infrastructure,” Fink added. “The open question: What happens to everyone else if AI does to white-collar workers what globalization did to blue-collar workers? We need to confront that today directly. It is not about the future. The future is now.”
Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton—often dubbed the “Godfather of AI”—has voiced similar concerns.
“What’s actually going to happen is rich people are going to use AI to replace workers,” Hinton said last year. “It’s going to create massive unemployment and a huge rise in profits. It will make a few people much richer and most people poorer. That’s not AI’s fault, that is the capitalist system.”
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, however, has taken a more measured view. While he questioned some of the rhetoric surrounding inequality, he has acknowledged many lower-income Americans face hardships.
“If you were the average citizen here and you say, ‘These wealthy people are getting unbelievably wealthy, and this segment’s been left behind,’ that’s kind of annoying.”
He added to Axios that “we have, in fact, left the lower-income folks behind.”
ANNOYING? This is what that cunt says, the one who was BAILED out by we ANNOYING fucking MASSES?
In 1897, the New York socialite hatched an idea for a costume ball in the Waldorf Hotel that she hoped would be the most extravagant party in the nation’s history. With thousands of orchids and roses, rare tapestries and velvet canopies, and terrine de foie gras, Cornelia would dress as Mary, Queen of Scots, while her husband played a member of Louis XV’s court. Hundreds more of the rich elite would turn up dressed mostly in historic royal garb, like the dozen Marie Antoinettes who, perhaps, had forgotten about the queen’s fate.
At St. George’s Episcopal Church in New York, where the congregation included the likes of J.P. Morgan, the clergyman warned his flock against attending Mrs. Bradley Martin’s ball:
“Never were the lines between the two classes — those who have wealth and those who envy them — more distinctly drawn … Such elaborate and costly manifestations of wealth would only tend to stir up widespread discontent.”
When the night came, hundreds of policemen — led by Theodore Roosevelt — closed the sidewalks outside the Waldorf to pedestrians to make way for the giant dress-up party.
Newspapers around the country, and even many society people, criticized the ostentatiousness (or plain stupidity) of the ball. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers’ Monthly Journal wrote,
“The Bradley Martins are said to have spent $300,000 … which would have made glad thousands upon thousands of the poor of New York who are struggling in abject poverty, was used up in some five or six hours of the grossest exhibition of the arrogance of wealth America has ever witnessed.” The host and hostess were puzzled by all of the bad press, since they believed their event had stimulated New York’s economy. After all, “many New York shops sold out brocades and silks which had been lying in their stock-rooms for years.”
Meanwhile, New York’s tenements were filled with people living in crowded, unsanitary apartments, as evidenced by Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Lives in 1890. Poor and immigrant children worked long hours at factories, and families slept together in rooms stacked with beds.
As the various lower classes grappled with the complications of Victorianism receding, a vocabulary for condemning the lavishness of the rich was taking shape. In 1899, Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class, a groundbreaking volume of social and economic criticism that explained the extravagances that had emerged, as well as the phenomenon of “conspicuous consumption,” in industrial societies.
“The possession of wealth confers honour; it is an invidious distinction,” Veblen wrote.
In 2014, businessman Tom Perkins warned of a “Progressive Kristallnacht” over what he called The San Francisco Chronicle’s demonization of the rich. Although he apologized for the Nazi reference, other billionaires have publically renounced so-called class demonization.
But as long as extreme wealth continues to accumulate among America’s elite, the young and indebted may always see the complaints of the one percent as mere groans from the costumed aristocracy of a nonstop masked ball.Flock CEO Apologizes For Calling Activists ‘Terrorists’
As a movement against $8.3 billion Flock Safety’s license plate readers gathers momentum, company CEO Garrett Langley tells Forbes he shouldn’t have called non-violent activists “terroristic” organizations.
These are the overlords that are worried that the masses are ANNOYED.
And here come the clowns:
The WDIV/Detroit News survey found former Vice President Kamala Harris leading the field with 25.1 percent support, followed by ex-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at 19.4 percent. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez placed third with 11.5 percent ahead of California Governor Gavin Newsom at 10.1 percent, while Senators Cory Booker and Mark Kelly each received 8.3 percent support.
YIKES. The thought experiment is: Mr. Fish pulling out his weapons and cartooning these losers, along with Ro, Gallegos, Pritzer, Rahm, and the other demons in the party, hell, even Fetterman- all on the Love Boat, or is that ‘de plane de plane’ heading to that infamous democratic politico, republican politico, neoliberal and professorial island, hmm, Epstein Island?
Good ship Lollipop?
Ahh, we were so innocent in 1934!
Then, whoopie:
“War is a Racket” was first published in 1935 as a short book and speech. It was written by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. In it, Butler reveals his firsthand experience in the military, exposing how wars are primarily fought to make large corporations and business interests wealthy.
A few million more lives destroyed and dozens of countries polluted by Yankee and Doodle and Confederate Dandy later?
Ahh, another Substack with Truth and Reconciliation?
It’s Not Terrorism When We Do It
Despite the fact this was, like most of the attacks on Iran, an attack on civilian infrastructure, it will not be labelled as such by the western media and political class. They will never call it terrorism or a war crime, despite the fact that it was both. Whether a civilian tower, a bridge, or a school full of children, western actions that result in mass murder will always simply be the product of a “strike.”
Benign language whenever the imperialist death machine starts slaughtering is a critical tool in maintaining consent for war crimes and state terrorism. And even though Hegseth literally tweeted a picture of this war crime, I‘ve yet to see an imperialist media outlet reproduce the image, because they know how bad it looks. This is a classic tactic we see over and over again: selective reporting and the omission of detail in order to bolster public support for state terrorism and war crimes abroad. Western media has already bundled this “strike” in with all the others in order to present a false equivalence between an illegal war of aggression on the one hand, and legitimate Iranian defence on the other (defensive actions which, by the way, are always labelled as “attacks.”)
The underlying psychology behind the double-standard is rooted in arrogance and supremacy: they’re the bad guys, and they do terrorism. We’re the good guys, and we “conduct strikes.”
And by we, I mean the forces of western imperialism, whether that’s the US or any other power that lines up behind the American regime, especially, but not exclusively, Israel. The use of the words “terror” and “terrorism” are also a critical rhetorical device, conditioning westerners to accept imperial violence as legitimate, and any resistance to that violence as illegitimate. This tendency was seen starkly of course after October 7th. Hamas does terrorism, while Israel merely strikes. Those strikes can be genocidal, they can reduce entire cities to dust, destroy hospitals, schools, universities, water treatment plants, grain silos and the means of life for two million people. They can kill tens of thousands of children in all manner of sadistic and gruesome ways, they can wipe out entire bloodlines, but they are never labelled terrorism. They are, and always will be, simply strikes. Because terrorism is bad, and we’re the good guys.
This is why a state was so crucial to the Zionist project. Before 1948, the groups that became the IDF, from the Haganah, to the Lehi and the Irgun were explicitly called terror groups. And their members were Jewish terrorists. These labels were widely used by western media, and the existence of Jewish terrorism was not controversial. In a 1948 Guardian editorial, in the aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing, the paper referred to “Jewish terrorists” who it said are “ruthless men corrupt by the sickness of the time, caring nothing for the sufferings of the individual Jews in Europe” for whom “every school boy’s jest is another argument for Zionism.”
But as soon as the Jewish Zionists got their own state, the terrorists were absorbed into the military arm of the state, and their violence, which months before was clearly identified as terrorism, was legitimatised by the recognition of a state. And this legitimisation of Israeli state terrorism went hand-in-hand with the decades-long campaign to legally designate resistance to state terrorism as the real terrorism, a campaign which led us inexorably towards the genocide of Gaza.
Genocide. Another word reserved by the hegemonic media only for the victims of the imperial enemy, and not for those slaughtered by the imperial ally.
So for the western media, terrorism isn’t terrorism, genocide isn’t terrorism, and it’s not even genocide. Despite the almost universal belief of genocide scholars, holocaust scholars, and international legal experts that what has taken place, and continues to take place in Gaza, is a genocide, the term is almost never used. The Guardian can even write an article with the title ‘Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say’, and in the majority of its subsequent coverage, refer to it as a war. Their main hub for coverage of the genocide, ten months after that headline, is titled Israel-Gaza War. If they had the courage of their supposed progressive convictions, if the truly believed in experts, as all good liberals profess to do, they would accept the evidence they presented themselves, and refer factually to genocide.
They don’t because the western mind, in matters of imperialism requires dissonance. It requires references to “strikes” not terrorism, to “wars” not genocides and to “foreign policy,” not imperialism. This is especially true of the professional media mind which must filter, process and present the news from the imperial core. My guess is that some of the benign, consent manufacturing language is intentional, and some is simply the product of subconscious western supremacy and the dehumanisation of the periphery. Because to fully internalise the evil committed by the system you not only live within but help uphold would require the instant rejection of that system. And well, you’ve got bills to pay. The genocide can be the war if it means making that next installment on your mortgage.
As the terror attacks on Iran and Gaza continue, and as the genocide deepens, we’ll hear only of strikes and wars from a media class fully complicit in both.
Ahh, Cap’n Crunch will be inspecting ALL presidential candidates for their testosterone levels, and, of course, short arm inspections, to boot.
A short-arm inspection is a military slang term denoting the routine medical examination of male soldiers’ penises—euphemistically called the “short arm”—to detect venereal diseases or other genital abnormalities. This procedure, often conducted during physical checkups or hygiene routines, aimed to identify early signs of infection such as sores, discharges, or inflammation to prevent outbreaks among troops.[1]The term originated in the early 20th century, with its earliest recorded uses appearing in 1917 among American soldiers in World War I training camps, including Camp Hancock in Georgia and Camp Funston in Kansas.[1] It reflected the era’s crude but direct approach to venereal disease control, a major concern during mass mobilizations when soldiers were at high risk due to limited preventive education and access to prophylactics.[1] By the Oxford English Dictionary’s first formal citation in 1926, the phrase was already established in military vernacular, as noted in Howard Vincent O’Brien’s Wine, Women and War, which defined it explicitly as an examination for venereal disease.[1] The practice persisted into World War II, where it was documented in U.S. Army operations in the South Pacific, underscoring its role in maintaining operational readiness through enforced health monitoring.
The good old days:
Now?
You’re in the Army NOW:
What a man:
A Comparison between Robert #Mueller RIP and #Trump …
Once served with distinction in #Vietnam. The other got a Bowling Trophy (Second Place) at a Summer Camp.
Same year.
Karina for President. Now that’s some ballsy shit: 3 Dead in 7 Days: ICE Killings Ignite Nationwide Uprising | w/ Karina Garcia
2028
Paul Haeder, Author 