Authored by Joaquim Couto via The Brownstone Institute,

There was a time when debates about determinism and free will belonged to philosophy departments and late-night dorm room conversations.

They were enjoyable precisely because they seemed harmless. Whatever the answer, life went on. Courts judged, doctors decided, teachers taught, and politicians were still—at least nominally—held responsible for their actions.

That era is over.

Artificial intelligence has transformed what once appeared to be an abstract philosophical question into a concrete issue of governance, power, and accountability. Determinism is no longer merely a theory about how the universe works. It is becoming an operating principle for modern institutions. And that changes everything.

AI systems are deterministic by construction. They operate through statistical inference, optimization, and probability. Even when their outputs surprise us, they remain bound by mathematical constraints. Nothing in these systems resembles judgment, interpretation, or understanding in the human sense.

AI does not deliberate.

It does not reflect.

It does not bear responsibility for outcomes.

Yet increasingly, its outputs are treated not as tools, but as decisions. This is the quiet revolution of our time.

The appeal is obvious. Institutions have always struggled with human variability. People are inconsistent, emotional, slow, and sometimes disobedient. Bureaucracies prefer predictability, and algorithms promise exactly that: standardized decisions at scale, immune to fatigue and dissent.

In healthcare, algorithms promise more efficient triage. In finance, better risk assessment. In education, objective evaluation. In public policy, “evidence-based” governance. In content moderation, neutrality. Who could object to systems that claim to remove bias and optimize outcomes? But beneath this promise lies a fundamental confusion.

Prediction is not judgment.

Optimization is not wisdom.

Consistency is not legitimacy.

Human decision-making has never been purely computational. It is interpretive by nature. People weigh context, meaning, consequence, and moral intuition. They draw on memory, experience, and a sense—however imperfect—of responsibility for what follows. This is precisely what institutions find inconvenient.

Human judgment introduces friction. It requires explanation. It exposes decision-makers to blame. Deterministic systems, by contrast, offer something far more attractive: decisions without decision-makers.

When an algorithm denies a loan, flags a citizen, deprioritizes a patient, or suppresses speech, no one appears responsible. The system did it. The data spoke. The model decided.

Determinism becomes a bureaucratic alibi.

Technology has always shaped institutions, but until recently it mostly extended human agency. Calculators assisted reasoning. Spreadsheets clarified trade-offs. Even early software left humans visibly in control. AI changes that relationship.

Systems designed to predict are now positioned to decide. Probabilities harden into policies. Risk scores become verdicts. Recommendations quietly turn into mandates. Once embedded, these systems are difficult to challenge. After all, who argues with “The science?”

This is why the old philosophical debate has become urgent.

Classical determinism was a claim about causality: given enough information, the future could be predicted. Today, determinism is turning into a governance philosophy. If outcomes can be predicted well enough, institutions ask, why allow discretion at all?

Non-determinism is often caricatured as chaos. But properly understood, it is neither randomness nor irrationality. It is the space where interpretation occurs, where values are weighed, and where responsibility attaches to a person rather than a process.

Remove that space, and decision-making does not become more rational. It becomes unaccountable.

The real danger of AI is not runaway intelligence or sentient machines. It is the slow erosion of human responsibility under the banner of efficiency.

The defining conflict of the 21st century will not be between humans and machines. It will be between two visions of intelligence: deterministic optimization versus meaning-making under uncertainty.

One is scalable.

The other is accountable.

Artificial intelligence forces us to decide which one governs our lives.

President Trump’s Western Hemisphere defense posture, including expanded gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean targeting Venezuela and, by extension, Cuba, is disrupting Venezuela-to-Asia oil flows, a U.S. foreign policy move that has angered Beijing. This friction was indirectly signaled by Chinese state media on Friday, which aired a segment featuring People’s Liberation Army wargaming simulations of hypothetical conflict scenarios in the Caribbean theater.

The South China Morning Post reported that China Central Television (CCTV) showed red (PLA) and blue (enemy) forces maneuvering aircraft and warships near Cuba and Mexico, with blue units near Houston before moving into the Gulf of Mexico.

SCMP explained further:

One screen in the report showed red and blue opposing unit “indicators” – represented by aircraft and ships – manoeuvring near the coasts of Cuba and Mexico. Some of the blue side congregated near Houston, Texas, and headed southeast into the Gulf of Mexico, while the red side was seen in the Caribbean Sea.

In a typical PLA drill, the red side usually represents the Chinese military while the blue side is the enemy.

During the CCTV report, a close-up focused on Cuba showed the lines of trajectory of aircraft and ships in the region in what was likely a simulation of a tactical operation. Chinese researchers were seen pointing to the screen and discussing the situation.

The footage was recorded at a PLA wargaming event held in Xuchang, Henan province, which was attended by 20 units from across the military and its academies. Dozens of simulation systems were demonstrated – all of them developed in China.

PLA war games are rarely revealed, and to air on state television is yet another sign Beijing is furious with the Trump administration’s gunboat diplomacy to topple regimes in Venezuela and Cuba. 

Earlier this week, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian criticized the Trump administration for its seizure of multiple crude tankers.

Context is important: China has received much of Venezuela’s seaborne crude exports in recent years, accounting for well over half of total shipments. This is facilitated through a network of “dark fleet” tankers.

PLA’s decision to publicly broadcast wargaming scenarios, an unusually rare event, constitutes an external signal directed at the Trump administration in response to U.S. gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean. The signaling reinforces the rationale for Trump’s move to secure the Caribbean basin first, thereby preempting potential Chinese naval encroachment. This U.S. military reposturing is best characterized as a shift toward Western Hemisphere defense, a framework we view in play through the 2030s (here’s how to profit).

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When you leave this earth, you want to make sure your loved ones are taken care of and that you leave behind a cherished legacy. But without a plan, you can leave your family with some serious headaches. That’s why it’s important to take some steps today to make sure this doesn’t happen. Let’s take a look at some options.

Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

Consider a Living Trust

Without a proper plan dictating how you’d like your assets distributed after your passing, your estate—that is, everything you own—would need to go through a court process known as probate to determine who gets what. This can take months and even years. And with it can come hefty court fees and other expenses. Plus, it’s all public record.

But you can bypass this with a revocable living trust. As a trust grantor or creator, you can transfer various types of assets into a trust, such as cash, real estate, and investments. In the trust document, you can clearly outline how you’d want your assets distributed and under what terms. As trustee, you can also manage the assets in your lifetime or appoint someone else. In addition, you can appoint a successor trustee to manage and distribute assets based on your direction.

A living trust doesn’t go through probate. And because it removes assets from your estate, it can potentially shield you from the estate tax.

Update Beneficiaries

Certain accounts such as retirement plans can allow for beneficiaries that you may list when you open the account. This holds a lot of weight. In fact, it overrides wills. But as time passes, your intentions may change. Maybe you set your spouse as a beneficiary, but a divorce may have you thinking you’d want to change beneficiaries to someone else, such as your child. But if you don’t act fast, the initial beneficiary designation stays. So you may want to review beneficiary designations periodically to make sure they still align with your wishes.

Set Up a Durable Power of Attorney

Nobody likes to think about it, but anyone can become incapacitated at some point in their lives. This is why it’s important to establish a durable power of attorney. This individual, also called an agent, can step in to legally handle your financial matters should you become mentally incapable to do so. This agent also can oversee assets that don’t typically fit into a trust such as retirement plans.

In the durable power of attorney document, you should clearly outline your agent’s responsibilities, powers, and limitations.

But, overall, you’d have someone competent to continue managing your finances for the benefit of your loved ones.

Write a Will

Although a trust can open the door to a smooth distribution of your assets and avoid probate, a will can still come in handy.

More importantly, it allows you to designate legal guardians for any minor children. It also can provide guidance for personal items or assets unintentionally left out of your trust.

Take Advantage of Gift Tax Exclusions

So far, we’ve discussed passing on assets to your loved ones. But you can always pass on gifts to help your loved ones during your lifetime. In fact, current tax laws give you a lot of freedom here.

For 2025, as an example, you can give up to $19,000 per individual without incurring a gift tax. And married couples can double that limit, up to $38,000. But if you go over those limits, you generally won’t owe a tax. Still, you’d need to file IRS Form 709. And the amount that spills over decreases your lifetime gift and estate tax exclusion of $13.99 million for 2025 or $27.98 million for married couples. Once you go past those limits, you may face taxes.

However, the strategy of gifting substantially can shrink the size of your estate over time and potentially reduce or avoid the estate tax as a result.

Stay Organized

Even if you have the advantages of safeguards like trusts and durable power of attorney, one thing that could force the courts to step in is lack of information.

So, make sure you keep all important digital and physical documents safe and secure. Be sure to list all assets and asset types. Keep all account numbers, pins, passwords, and other crucial data safe and accessible for your agent or a trusted family member. Keep physical documents like financial statements, deeds, and titles in fireproof safes or something just as effective.

The Bottom Line

Without a solid plan, you may leave behind some stress for your family, and your assets may not be distributed as you would have thought fit. But you can take action to prevent this today. You can look into revocable living trusts, durable powers of attorney, wills, and more to create a sound estate-planning strategy. But as these tasks can be complex, it’s crucial that you design your plan with the help of a qualified estate-planning attorney.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2025. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is furious with journalist Megyn Kelly after she accused prominent Jews in the media – Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss – of “making antisemites” through their attempts to censor criticism of Israel.”

(If you don’t care about any of these people, feel free to stop reading here… fair warning) 

To bring you up to speed: Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, podcaster Candace Owens pointed the finger at Israel, suggesting that Kirk’s shifting views on Israel made him a target – and suggesting that Israel and France plotted Kirk’s death. This drew sharp criticism from the Daily Wire‘s Ben Shapiro (Owens’ former boss), journalist Bari Weiss, and the ADL – with Shapiro further accusing Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson of amplifying ‘antisemitism’ by platforming Owens and refusing to condemn her claims, while Kelly says attempts to censor criticism of Israel is in fact ‘making’ people into antisemites. 

So – a lot going on here. Prominent Jews are condemning conservatives who haven’t condemned Candace Owens – accusing them of fueling antisemitism, while Megyn Kelly says that in general, attempts to label conservatives critical of Israeli policy as ‘antisemites’ is actually creating antisemites. 

Tensions peaked at Turning Point USA’s AmFest conference last week, where Shapiro downplayed the 1967 USS Liberty incident in which Israel attacked a US Navy ship that killed 34 Americans – calling it a ‘mistake’ that’s now largely irrelevant because it happened so long ago:

The TPUSA AmFest audience erupted in cheers after a young White attendee questioned Ben Shapiro about Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

Shapiro—who frequently invokes the Holocaust—dismissed the incident as largely irrelevant today because it occurred so long ago.… pic.twitter.com/TkuYLT6scM

— AF Post (@AFpost) December 19, 2025

To which Carlson suggested that Shapiro’s deflection the question vs. debating it wasn’t what the movement should be about: 

Tucker Carlson bashed Ben Shapiro for calling a young man who posed a question about the USS Liberty as a “Hitlerite” moments prior.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/xSEwL5nUr2

— AF Post (@AFpost) December 19, 2025

The next day, Shapiro escalated during a speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he called Carlson an “enemy of the conservative movement” for promoting conspiracies.

Meanwhile, in a concurrent Vanity Fair interview, Megyn Kelly accused Shapiro and Weiss of “making antisemites” by aggressively labeling critics, calling Shapiro “Israel first,” and criticizing their alleged efforts to “cancel” her from the movement. 

To recap the drama:

Moments after Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, opened the conference with a speech calling her late husband a “peacemaker” and urging an end to the squabbling, Shapiro issued a blistering jeremiad that recalled William F. Buckley Jr.’s attempted excommunication of the far right. “The conservative movement is in serious danger,” Shapiro said, “from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile and despair.”

He denounced Candace Owens—a podcaster he once employed at The Daily Wire, the media company he co-founded—who has emerged as the chief purveyor of conspiracy theories about Kirk’s murder. Her videos investigating the killing, infused with all the drama of a true-crime documentary, have been viewed millions of times.

Shapiro extended his criticism to those he said have “refused to condemn Candace’s truly vicious attacks,” naming Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon. A few hours later on the same stage, Carlson fired back. “To hear calls for like, de-platforming and denouncing people at a Charlie Kirk event, I’m like, what?” Carlson said, with an air of annoyed confusion. “I mean, this kind of was the whole point of Charlie Kirk’s public life, and I think that he died for it.” -Vanity Fair

And Kelly’s comments on Shapiro etc. ‘making antisemites’ for quashing criticism of Israel:

“What Charlie and I saw at the same time was that the country is turning,” Kelly said. “And young Republicans are turning on Israel.” 

She argued that figures like Shapiro and Weiss are actually fueling the rise of antisemitism through their attempts to censor criticism of Israel. “They are making antisemites,” she said. “Tucker is not making antisemites. They are.” -Vanity Fair

The ADL replied to Kelly’s in a thread on X (with replies closed to anyone they don’t mention or follow): 

1/ Megyn Kelly’s recent comments cross a dangerous line. Accusing Jews of “making antisemites” blames Jewish people for the hate directed against them—a classic victim-blaming trope. 🧵 https://t.co/OU0JCzYoEf

— ADL (@ADL) December 23, 2025

continued…

3/ Moreover, calling Ben Shapiro “Israel first” invokes the age-old antisemitic dual loyalty trope that has fueled persecution and hatred against Jews for centuries.

ADL has documented time and again how this kind of rhetoric from public figures helps normalize antisemitism and…

— ADL (@ADL) December 23, 2025

Kelly fired back, telling the ADL “Nice try but these labels don’t work anymore,” adding “Instead of attacking me they should listen to me. Or keep on keeping on & create more enemies!”

Nice try but these labels don’t work anymore. The @ADL has defanged itself. Instead of attacking me they should listen to me. Or keep on keeping on & create more enemies! https://t.co/WM6T8lNtvh

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) December 24, 2025

As a somewhat funny aside, pro-Israel accounts are calling Kelly ‘Grandma Groyper…‘

If you read this far, it’s kinda on you at this point.