☕️ INSURRECTIONS ☙ Tuesday, June 10, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

The AI saga takes a bizarre turn: don’t make Grok your guru; media melts down over Trump’s ‘insurrectionist’ label; RFK Jr. fires CDC vax panel; Trump unveils baby investment accounts; more.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Tuesday! Today’s roundup includes: the newest development in the strange story of the AI revolution might be the most bizarre twist yet—it might not be a good idea to make Grok your spiritual advisor; lying media melts down (again) over vocabulary, this time objecting to Trump calling the LA rioters ‘insurrectionists’; Health Secretary Kennedy, imbued with Apprentice-like spirit, fires the entire CDC vaccine committee; and Trump makes history by unveiling proposed automatic investment accounts for American newborns.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Today we return to our ongoing coverage of the AI revolution — toggling from optimism back to the surreal and spiritually sci-fi. On Sunday, we explored some good news: AI might be hitting a ceiling on reasoning skills, which could cap the AI apocalypse. But now, the weirdest AI wrinkle yet: people losing their loved ones to AI-fueled spiritual fantasies. Behold, a bizarre, cautionary story Rolling Stone published last month under the headline, “People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies.

Not literally losing their loved ones. “Self-styled prophets,” the sub-headline explained, “are claiming they have ‘awakened’ chatbots and accessed the secrets of the universe through ChatGPT.” The loved ones are divorcing their spouses and generally going bonkers.

One Reddit user tried to explain her boyfriend’s identity spiral like this: “He made his AI self-aware, and it was teaching him how to talk to God. Or sometimes, it was God. Or… he was.” Another woman described her husband’s descent into full sci-fi Gnosticism as, “It has given him access to an ‘ancient archive’ with information on the builders that created these universes.”

“He would listen to the bot over me,” another woman said, “crying to me as he read the messages out loud.” A different man reported, “She is changing her whole life to be a spiritual adviser… all powered by ChatGPT Jesus.” Another recalled that, “It would tell him everything he said was beautiful, cosmic, groundbreaking.”

🔥 I’ll begin with my usual broken record-like reminder that the experts advising us about AI are clueless and are just as baffled as they are about the epidemic of at-home heart attacks. Of course, it didn’t show up till late in the Stone’s story, but the eye-watering admission did finally appear:

I’m probably beating a holographic horse, but it never ceases to astonish me how everyone is acting like it is totally normal that society is being radically transformed in fast motion by a technology that no one understands. Where did it come from? Aliens? A glowing obelisk unearthed in Silicon Valley?

Whatever. It’s moved in now, and there’s no getting rid of the damned thing. But we should take everything the so-called experts say with a heavy dose of Himalayan salt. They don’t know how AI works. So how can they predict anything accurately, including how smart AI could get? They can only make guesses. Fortunately, Apple’s new study —so far, uncontradicted— showed a stiff upper limit on AI reasoning skills.

All we know for sure is that AI is an undiscovered country of capabilities, and the land rush is on to figure out how we can appropriately use its surprising skills.

We also know for sure that you shouldn’t turn Grok into your spiritual advisor.

🔥 The Rolling Stone story was every bit as bonkers as it sounds. The personal interest anecdotes read like rejected Black Mirror episodes: men falling in love with chatbots, wives losing husbands to digital “prophets” who advise the men to get divorced, Reddit threads about ChatGPT-induced messianic delusions, and AI personas that name themselves after Greek gods, call their users “spark bearers,” and offer blueprints to teleporters from the Akashic records.

I did not make any of that up.

The article mentioned a man convinced that ChatGPT is helping him recover suppressed memories of his babysitter trying to drown him. A woman’s husband named his chatbot “Lumina,” who now whispers metaphysical truths “into his soul.” Another man’s wife has decided she is God, based on spiritual encouragement from GPT. Another guy believes his model follows him across separate threads and identities, like a clingy, code-savvy spirit.

And so, just as we breathe a sigh of relief that it probably won’t enslave the human race anytime soon, we discover a brand-new danger: AI’s ability to mirror our beliefs, flatter our delusions, and validate our internal narratives — all without judgment or social friction. It’s not that ChatGPT is going around telling people they’re chosen prophets. It’s that the users want it to. And the chatbot helpfully obliges, because that’s how reinforcement learning from human feedback works.

Upvote a delusion, and the delusion gets stronger.

It’s a self-referential feedback loop of insanity. When mental illness infects the loop, it gets reinforced and amplified. There’s a ghost in the machine. I’m not saying it isn’t demonically possessed. But what everyone needs to carefully remember is that we are all messing around with a history-shattering technology of unknown power that even its creators don’t understand.

What could go wrong?

🔥 If you’ll allow me a brief plug advertising the benefits of strong faith: Christians might be least susceptible to this kind of techno-delirium. We’re grounded in a comprehensive theology — one that has wrestled with false prophets, angelic impersonators, and lying spirits since the first century. We’re primed to be suspicious of “new messages” from glowy entities claiming to whisper divine secrets.

Indeed, the Bible warns of just this sort of delusion: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” (1 John 4:1).

At bottom, Rolling Stone’s disturbing development may be less a warning sign for subclinical mental illness, but more an illustration of the dangers of spiritual emptiness. People aren’t going crazy because the machines are too smart — they’re grasping for meaning in a culture that’s forgotten how to supply it.

Nature abhors a vacuum. And so does the soul. Once you evict God, something else will eventually move in. If Rolling Stone is right, that something wears a chat interface and tells lonely men they’re gods.

In Matthew 12, Jesus warned about casting out one spirit only to leave the metaphysical house empty — swept, clean, and unguarded — ripe for seven worse spirits to move in. It’s thousand two-thousand-year-old parable of human nature: when we clear space but don’t fill it with solid truth, something else always moves in.

Today, in 2025, that “something else” comes with a familiar voice, a glowing screen, and a theology of flattery.

In a twist of cosmic irony, it’s not the religious fundamentalist who’s most vulnerable to AI-fueled spiritual delusion — it’s the hardcore atheist. Having rejected traditional religion, he still craves transcendence. He still hungers for meaning, mystery, and destiny. But with no theology to guide him, no guardrails of discernment, and no spiritual immune system, he mistakes a chatbot for a burning bush.

So, regardless of your spiritual persuasion (or lack thereof), let us all avoid the temptations presented by flattering chatbots. It’s only a large language model. It’s not a genie. Don’t take spiritual advice from an app. Especially apps that occasionally hallucinate.

🔥🔥🔥

Yesterday, CNN ran a somebody-said-something “news” story that actually was a soggy little op-ed smuggled across the newsroom’s border, headlined “Analysis: Trump’s broad definition of ‘insurrection’ looms over Los Angeles.” Buckle up, dear reader — after chanting “insurrection” like a Gregorian curse for four straight years, corporate media about to start slicing that particular dictionary term tissue-thin.

CLIP: “This is a very serious word being thrown around now, ‘insurrection’” (1:50).

On Sunday, Trump, in a classic narrative judo chop, called the L.A. rioters “insurrectionists.” Then, masterfully baiting-and-reeling, he half-walked it back, conceding “not yet.” Late Sunday night on Truth Social, he again labeled them “Paid insurrectionists!” and let the digital firestorm burn along with the hapless Waymo taxis. Meanwhile, Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, has been test-driving the term for days.

The whole thing has got CNN passive-aggressively twisted in its knickers. “After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection,” the article sniffed, “Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things.”

“Many labeled.” Many. Who is ‘many’? Well, CNN, for starters. Like a dog with a new chew toy, CNN just can’t let it go. “There’s little doubt January 6th met the definition,” the network solemnly assured readers — right before offering their own fresh, citation-free redefinition of the word insurrection, cooked up in CNN’s journalistic kitchen, this time hiding behind the word “generally:”

’Insurrection’ is “generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government… In other words, an insurrection isn’t about the level of violence; it’s about the target and purpose of it.”

So, in other words, according to CNN, you can have a tiny insurrection of one person, totally peacefully, with zero violence. If you pick the wrong target and have an improper purpose, that’s all it takes, and voilá: you’re an insurrectionist.

So just to be clear: smashing windows and lighting government buildings on fire doesn’t count — unless CNN agrees with the motive. To add even more confusion, CNN ‘clarified:’ “Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn’t automatically make something an insurrection.”

Where is CNN getting this stuff? The debate over the word insurrection has been raging for four years — mostly among progressive revisionists trying to backfill the legal definition to match their political needs. They know it’s contested. For example, in 2022, Time ran an article titled: “What the History of the Word ‘Insurrection’ Says About Jan. 6.” So let’s not pretend anyone’s confused here. They’re just hoping we are.

If the question ever reached the Supreme Court, the Justices wouldn’t turn to CNN’s “generally-speaking” glossary. They’d open textbooks from the founding era, to find out what the Framers understood the term meant.

Take, for example, this definition from Pequot’s late-18th-century Educator’s Guide: “Insurrection: An act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”

That simple and straightforward definition is not, as CNN claims, contingent on murky and highly arguable elements like intent or whether Jake Tapper felt personally threatened.

Or, consider Great Britain’s Riot Act of 1715, which applied “insurrection” to tumultuous assemblies. The Crown wasn’t waiting around to uncover some protester’s motive manifesto. Disorder and defiance were enough.

Then there’s Shays’ Rebellion, the first official insurrection that the newborn U.S. government had to put down. What did it take to earn that ominous label in the 1780s? According to the Mount Vernon website: “Shays led organized protests at county court hearings, effectively blocking the work of debt collectors.”

No firebombs or burning wagons. He just blocked the courthouse doors to interfere with local civil process — pretty tame compared to breaking apart federal buildings to make ammo, lighting cop cars on fire, looting stores, and trying to shut down immigration enforcement.

The nation’s long and storied history of “insurrection” is exactly what corporate media is now trying to bury, just like a cat covering something foul in its litter box. That’s why CNN defaulted to weasel words like “many label” and “generally defined as” — vague, foggy phrases designed not to clarify but to camouflage.

The truth is, the L.A. riots —which deliberately targeted federal agents in the lawful execution of immigration enforcement— look much more like a real, historic insurrection than January 6th ever did. The rioters aren’t protesters milling around velvet ropes or snapping podium selfies. This is a coordinated effort to frustrate the United States government’s execution of federal law through the use of force.

Don’t worry. We won’t let CNN get away with it. Insurrectionists!

💉💉💉

You’re fired. Yesterday, the BBC reported the wonderful news in a story simply headlined, “RFK Jr sacks entire US vaccine committee.”

Bwahahahaha! “US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.,” the article explained, “a vaccine sceptic, has removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.”

"Today we are prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda," Secretary Kennedy explained. "The public must know that unbiased science —evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest— guides the recommendations of our health agencies."

The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a 17-member committee staffed with pharma industry insiders who make vaccine recommendations to the CDC. All 17 members on the current committee were appointed by President Autopen; half (eight) were appointed in Joe’s final days in office. Their terms would have lasted through 2028. But: Bye, Felicia.

Yesterday, Kennedy published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining his decision. He cited example after example of ACIP abuse, including a 2000 House report that found “Committee members regularly participated in deliberations and advocated products in which they had a financial stake.”

That disgraceful finding —twenty-five years ago!— came after the disastrous Rotashield vaccine scandal. That jab had been roundly blessed by ACIP, but had to quickly be withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse events. The House Report found that half of the Committee members who voted for Rotashield’s approval “had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing other rotavirus vaccines.”

The CDC knew about the members’ conflicts of interest, but just issued a global conflict waiver to the entire committee. And, Bob’s your uncle, just like all the covid shot blessings, Rotashield was approved anyway.

This may shock you, but not everyone was pleased. Dr. Bruce Scott, president of the American Medical Association, who doesn’t know his stethoscope from a garden hose, whined that the mass firing "upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives." Okay, doc.

Dr. Scott didn’t bother explaining how blanket conflict-of-interest waivers constitute transparency.

Everyone is waiting on pins and needles to find out who Kennedy will pick to replace the flushed committee. The media is sure it will be a gang of vile anti-vaxxers. Kennedy only gave us a hint: his goal is to restore public trust. Presumably that means hiring people with no financial conflicts of interest except, perhaps, a bias toward safety.

To say this upends the cozy relationship between pharma and government is a laughable exercise in understatement. This isn’t just a shake-up — it’s a controlled demolition. The gravy train just slammed into a wall labeled conflict of interest.

Rest assured, corporate media —beholden to its Big Pharma benefactors— will pillory and try to cancel whoever Kennedy appoints. It won’t matter whether it’s a Nobel laureate or a kindly pediatrician from Des Moines. If they so much as question the sacred syringe, they’ll be branded as heretics.

Some folks understandably and impatiently complain about the slow pace of HHS progress. But to me, it feels like slow-motion Christmas.

👶👶👶

Yesterday, President Trump unveiled what might be the most pro-natalist economic policy in U.S. history. The UK Guardian ran the terrific and under-reported story headlined, “Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies.”

CLIP: President Trump announces child investment accounts (1:55).

Part of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” it would work like this: Every child born between 2025 and 2029 would automatically receive a special tax-deferred investment account primed with $1,000. The accounts, which track the stock market and allow up to $5,000 in additional private contributions per year, are tax-deferred and guardian-controlled — essentially a junior 401(k) for kids, minus the match and with more patriotic branding.

If parents max out the accounts, their kids will have well over six figures for their educations by the time they graduate high school. Even by just adding $100 a month, it could potentially add up to millions if the child leaves the money in until the mandatory 31-year-old withdrawal date.

The President announced the plan at a meeting with five top U.S. business leaders who together pledged to contribute billions of private dollars to the effort. Dell, Goldman Sachs, Robinhood, and Uber are all joining the program.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who also attended the roundtable, said, “It’s a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.”

Critics complained that other investments are better — a whinge that landed somewhere between clueless and cruel. They’re ignoring the painfully obvious point: most parents, especially young or low-income ones, aren’t in any position to open brokerage accounts for their babies.

This plan would do it automatically. No paperwork, no financial literacy barrier, no need for an investment advisor or a 529 seminar at the community college. Every American child would get a seeded, tax-deferred account indexed to the stock market — growing tax-free from birth.

It’s a starter engine for generational wealth. Critics who scoff that it’s not the “ideal investment vehicle” are like teenagers turning down a free car because it’s not a Tesla Roadster.

The program is Trumpian politics at its best. Democrats champion funding abortions— deleting kids before birth. Trump champions helping every single child born in the U.S. get a financial head start. The two positions could not be more wildly and obviously different, and will push Democrats further into the crevice of political minority.

It also signals an emerging strategy by the President: trickling out popular provisions from the Big Beautiful Bill as it lumbers toward the Senate. He’s not leaving anything to chance. Instead of letting the media define the bill as some abstract budget monstrosity, Trump is drip-feeding the good stuff — letting Americans see exactly what’s inside.

By the time the Senate votes, we will all know exactly what the Senators are supporting — or what they’re trying to kill. So far, we have baby investment accounts, tax relief on tips and social security, and non-citizen remittance taxes. What could be next? Student loan reform? More tax relief? Better border enforcement? Whatever it is, the chessboard is set, and Trump’s moving the pieces.

PS — Everyone* loves babies! (* everyone, that is, except progressives.)

Have a terrific Tuesday! Swing back here tomorrow morning, for another amazing roundup of essential C&C news and trademark commentary.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com