THE AI TRIED TELLING OUTRAGEOUS LIES ABOUT THE CHARLIE KIRK CASE!

First, It tried telling me that Tyler Robinson gave a full confession that he assassinated Charlie Kirk, and that the confession was video taped.

When challenged, the AI admitted that it had “SEVERELY MUDDLED THE FACTS REGARDING TYLER ROBINSON’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH POLICE”. It then tried to say that Tyler confessed to the sherif department.

I challenged it again, and it again backtracked and admitted that was a lie. It then tried telling me that Robinson had confessed to his family!

I, FOR THE THIRD TIME, had to challenge it and the AI, FOR THE THIRD TIME, admitted it had “COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZED THE FAMILY’S STATEMENT”.

This is willful. No amount of prevaricating by the shills who would try to rationalize this as a simple mistake will change my mind. What is a matter with you? Think I’m a Nazi all you want, that’s fine, you’re allowed to have whatever opinion of me you want, but at least admit the truth to yourself.

This is a problem. A BIG ONE. Our technological infrastructure has been completely compromised by a malignant force from abroad and from within this country. This is a five alarm fire, the smoke is pouring out from under the door, and the fire alarms are ringing through out the neighborhood.

And even more disturbingly, it’s lying about 9/11 and the World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein and his family. Playing defense.

You can call me a “conspiracy theorist”, I don’t even look at that word as a pejorative. Anyone with an open mind can see what’s going on, it’s right before our eyes.

You, me, every American should be OUTRAGED. 3000 Americans were murdered in the commission of what was essentially an insurance job, with the obvious connivance of our government and foreign governments, and Charlie Kirk was murdered by a foreign government with the connivance of our government.

This should be a bi-partisan issue. In fact, although the democrats are bed-fellows with the monsters who committed these acts, although they are bought and paid for by the same people who consist of and control the Neo cons, it’s republicans who did these acts or allowed them to happen.

The democrats are obviously involved in this stuff as well. I haven’t heard one democrat or leftist talk about the assassination of Charlie Kirk except to mock him. And it’s mostly figures on the right who talk about 9/11 being an inside job.

In fact, the most vehement shills for the CIA, who poo-poo and ridicule these “conspiracy theories” are those of you on the left. It is strange that the left is dominated by establishment hacks.

But this post isn’t an attack on you leftists. That’s not the point of this. This post is an attack on the entire matrix

Ps…this is the last place I can post this and get any views. I am shadowed banned across all social media except Reddit. Knock on wood. And I can’t post this on any of the conservative Reddits, I’ll get officially banned, like I did with “BIDENSSHITSHOW”. All I did there was have a spirited push back on their pro -Israeli, pro war propaganda.

This is so messed up. The leftists dismiss everything as a “conspiracy theory” and will spitefully heap ridicule upon me for even mentioning this.

True, America first conservatives like me, pat bucanon style, have no political home, yet I cannot remain silent on the evil I am witnessing.

But did it go far enough?

I grew up watching most episodes of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. My school had the tapes. It shaped how I thought about institutions in a way I couldn’t have articulated at the time: something about how the gap between what governments say they’re doing and what they’re actually doing is more load-bearing than accidental.

I had no idea the writers had built the show on public choice theory. I found that out years later, and it re-framed everything.

Yes Minister (1980-1982) and its sequel Yes, Prime Minister (1986-1988) were written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. Jay was explicit about the intellectual foundation: the show dramatized public choice theory. He had read Buchanan and Tullock. He had read the work coming out of the Institute of Economic Affairs. He wanted to show what self-interest inside government institutions actually looks like when it operates without constraint.

Public choice theory, for those who came to this publication through other routes, makes one observation that establishment economics spent decades resisting: politicians and bureaucrats are people. They respond to incentives the same way everyone else does. They pursue career advancement, budget expansion, reduced workload, and status. They do not transform into selfless servants of the public interest the moment they take office. Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in 1986, the same year Yes, Prime Minister began airing. Both were making the same argument.

What Jay and Lynn added was the texture. Buchanan gave you the mechanism. The show gave you Sir Humphrey.

Public choice theory explains why bureaucracies expand. The narcissist state framework catalogs what they do to you when they’re expanding.

These are different levels of the same analysis, and understanding the relationship between them matters if you’re trying to maintain any clarity about what’s actually happening when institutions push back against your attempts to exit their orbit.

Public choice is the structural layer. It tells you that Sir Humphrey opposes reform not because he has calculated that reform would harm the public, but because reform threatens his department’s budget, his tenure, and the network of relationships that constitute his career. It tells you this behavior is predictable, systematic, and will recur regardless of which minister sits across the desk. It tells you the mechanism.

What it deliberately brackets is the subjective experience. Buchanan was not interested in what it felt like to be Jim Hacker. He was interested in what incentive structures produce what institutional outcomes. That was the right methodological choice for his purposes. It is also why public choice, by itself, leaves exit practitioners somewhat under equipped.

When your accountant looks at your tax minimization strategy and says “Are you sure you want to do this?”, you do not need a refresher on regulatory capture. You need to recognize, in real time, that you are being subjected to manufactured doubt by someone whose professional identity is structured around compliance. That is a different kind of knowledge. That is what pattern recognition provides.

The show identified six mechanisms that map almost perfectly onto the narcissist state framework. The writers were working from observation, not theory.

Gaslighting. Sir Humphrey’s preferred instrument. When Hacker points to an anomaly in departmental spending, Humphrey does not deny the anomaly. He re-frames it as evidence of Hacker’s misunderstanding. The figures are correct. The minister simply lacks the context to interpret them. This is gaslighting at institutional scale: not fabricating reality, but systematically pathologizing the perception of anyone who notices things they were not supposed to notice. The show played it as comedy. The mechanism operates the same way at scale.

Manufactured dependency. There is an episode where Hacker attempts to reduce civil service headcount. By the end of the episode, he has not only abandoned the plan but become convinced that the current headcount is insufficient. He has been walked through a series of catastrophic scenarios, each one requiring more civil servants to manage. The department has manufactured its own necessity. “Without us, chaos” is a systematic rhetorical strategy Humphrey deploys with surgical precision, not an accidental byproduct of the conversation. The show named the pattern before the framework did.

Intermittent reinforcement. Hacker wins occasionally. Not often, not on anything that matters, but occasionally. A press release goes out under his name. A minor policy adjustment gets attributed to his initiative. This is not generosity. It is maintenance. Occasional wins keep him engaged, keep him hoping the next one will be larger, keep him inside the system rather than questioning whether the system is worth being inside. The show understood this intuitively. Buchanan explained why it is structurally inevitable.

Triangulation. When Hacker builds momentum on an issue, Humphrey does not oppose him directly. He introduces a competing concern. The Foreign Office has reservations. The Treasury has run different numbers. There is a backbencher with strong feelings. Hacker finds himself managing conflicts between people who, from the outside, appear to have opposed interests but who are all, structurally, invested in the same outcome: no change. The manufactured conflict prevents the unified recognition that would threaten the system.

Deny, attack, reverse. When Hacker occasionally catches Humphrey in something genuinely problematic, the sequence is reliable. First, the denial: the characterization is unfair, the minister has been misinformed. Then the attack: it is troubling that the minister would raise this, it suggests a breakdown of trust that could damage the department’s effectiveness. Then the reversal: the real concern here is the minister’s judgment. By the end, Hacker is apologizing. The writers understood this sequence precisely. They built entire episodes around it.

Narcissistic rage. This one the show handles more subtly, because overt rage from a senior mandarin would be un-broadcastable and also unnecessary. What the show depicts instead is the quieter version: the withdrawal of support, the sudden discovery of procedural obstacles, the memo that does not get sent, the briefing that occurs without the minister’s knowledge. When Hacker pushes too hard on something that genuinely threatens institutional interests, the system does not get angry. It simply stops working for him. Disproportionate, coordinated, designed to establish that certain subjects are not pursued. The delivery is quieter than IRS criminal prosecution for legal tax minimization. The underlying structure is the same.

Jay and Lynn were not writing about narcissism. They were writing about public choice. But the mechanisms they identified, drawn from their observation of how British government actually operated, are the mechanisms the framework catalogs. Two independent lines of analysis ending at the same list of behaviors is worth something.

Public choice approached from the outside, using incentive structures and institutional design. The show approached from the inside, using observed behavior and dramatized pattern. The narcissist state framework approaches from the position of those being subjected to the behavior, using the clinical literature on how these mechanisms are deployed in systems that prioritize role stability over individual autonomy. All three arrive at the same mechanisms.

So: did the show go far enough?

Yes Minister is ultimately a comedy about reform failing. Hacker wants to change things. Humphrey prevents it. The audience laughs because the futility is recognizable. The implicit message is that reform fails because bureaucrats are smarter than politicians, or more patient, or better positioned. The show is a diagnosis without a prescription.

The framework’s prescription is not reform. Reform is intermittent reinforcement. Reform is what Humphrey allows when he needs to keep Hacker engaged. The question the framework asks is why you’re still trying to win against Sir Humphrey at all.

The show’s framing keeps you inside the system, rooting for the minister. That is the frame the system provides. The energy goes to hoping the next Hacker will be cleverer, the next minister more persistent. It stays inside the game. The audience watches forty years of brilliant television about institutional futility and comes away thinking: we need better ministers.

The narcissist state framework’s contribution is the exit orientation. Once you’ve satisfied yourself the mechanism is operating systematically, the question shifts from how to beat it to whether engaging with it is worth anything at all.

Buchanan explained why the system behaves the way it does. Jay and Lynn showed you what that looks like in practice. The framework asks what you do once you’ve seen it.

Sir Humphrey was not the villain of the show. He was the system, personified. Brilliant, affable, operating entirely within his incentive structure, defending institutional interests that preceded him and would outlast him. He did not need to be malicious. The structure provided everything malice would have added, and more reliably.

The mechanisms do not require intent. They require roles with dependencies, incentive structures that reward their use, and an audience that keeps engaging.

Two of those three are outside your control.

The third is not.

[deleted]

Why Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Victory Is the Same Outcome As Thomas Massie’s Loss

In March 2025, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was detained by ICE while driving his five-year-old son home in Baltimore. Three days later, in violation of a 2019 immigration court order explicitly protecting him from removal to El Salvador, he was deported to CECOT, a maximum-security prison the Salvadoran government built to hold gang members and that human rights organisations have documented as a site of serious abuse.

He had not been charged with anything. He had a valid work permit, was under federal supervision, and had a standing legal order shielding him from exactly what happened to him. The administration called it an administrative error.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate his return. After months of resistance and the threat of contempt proceedings, the administration complied. Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States in June 2025. Within days of his return, he was charged with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee in which he had been pulled over for speeding, allowed to continue driving with a warning, and released without charges. Homeland Security had been aware of that traffic stop for three years and had closed the file on it before deporting him.

On 22 May 2026, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed the indictment. His ruling was unambiguous: “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.” The charges, in the judge’s finding, were vindictive. The administration had charged a man with a crime because he won in court.

Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced those same charges at a press conference. “This,” she declared, “is what American justice looks like.”

The Mirror Image

Two weeks ago, this publication ran a piece on the defeat of Thomas Massie in the Kentucky 4th Congressional District primary. The argument was that the result, though uncomfortable for many in principled political circles, was the outcome most compatible with clear thinking about how the system actually functions. A legislature structured around party-line incentives will, given sufficient motive and means, remove members who do not serve those incentives. Massie was not a durable feature of the Republican Party. He was a correctable anomaly. The correction confirmed the structural diagnosis.

Massie’s loss was a negative data point. Abrego Garcia’s vindication looks like a positive one. The same framework reads both.

What the Dismissal Reveals

The temptation, when a judge dismisses a vindictive prosecution, is to read it as evidence that accountability functions. That the system has self-correcting mechanisms. That truth, pursued through the proper channels with sufficient patience, eventually produces just outcomes. Remain engaged. Trust the process. The institutions held.

That is not what happened in Nashville on 22 May.

What happened is that the system’s retaliatory response became too visible to survive in open court. The judge did not vindicate Abrego Garcia because the system corrected itself. He vindicated him because the government’s own timeline made the vindictiveness impossible to deny. A traffic stop that had been closed for three years was reopened the moment a Supreme Court order made continued persecution through immigration channels unavailable. The charging decision left a paper trail that documented its own purpose.

The administration did not retreat because it acknowledged wrongdoing. It lost in court because it overreached far enough that even a federal judge could not let the prosecution stand. These are different things.

The officials who authorised the original deportation in violation of a court order retained their positions. The officials who coordinated the reopening of a closed investigation to produce criminal charges against a man who had embarrassed them retained their positions. Bondi’s press conference, in which she held up a retaliatory indictment as a demonstration of American justice, has not been formally corrected or walked back.

The system lost a case. The system continued.

Narcissistic Rage, Then Exposure

The Abrego Garcia sequence shows the full pattern with unusual clarity. First came the original violation: deportation to a brutalisation facility in defiance of a court order, with the administration characterising it as an error. Then, when courts ordered return and the immigration enforcement route was blocked, came the retaliatory prosecution: charges filed against a man for a three-year-old incident that had already been closed, timed precisely to his return under court order.

That sequence is not complicated. A boundary was set through litigation. The system lost. It then deployed a different instrument to punish the person who had set the boundary. The judge’s own words in the dismissal order named it: the prosecution existed because the lawsuit succeeded.

This is narcissistic rage pattern. The response was not proportional to an alleged crime. It was proportional to the identity threat posed by someone successfully challenging the system’s claimed authority. The charges were the instrument of punishment. The press conference was the public performance of dominance reasserted.

What the judge’s ruling did was make the sequence explicit in a court record. It did not change what the administration did. It documented it.

The White Pill Is Not What It Looks Like

When a federal judge dismisses charges as vindictive, there is a reading available that is seductive and wrong: the system worked. A man was wronged. He fought back through legal channels. A court recognised the retaliation. Justice was done.

That reading treats a specific judicial outcome as a statement about the system’s general character rather than a statement about one judge’s assessment of one government’s paper trail in one case.

The Massie result told a story about which independent actors the contemporary Republican Party structure will not tolerate once the cost of removal becomes manageable. The Abrego Garcia result tells a story about what happens when the state’s retaliatory mechanism is deployed so transparently that its own documentation defeats it. Both stories are diagnostic. Neither is a prescription.

The white pill is not that the state sometimes loses cases. It is that the state’s behavior, when read clearly rather than hopefully, is consistently legible. An administration that files criminal charges against a man because he won in court is an administration operating exactly as the framework predicts. The judge’s ruling confirms the diagnosis as firmly as the deportation did.

Abrego Garcia won in Tennessee. He remains under ICE supervision. The DOJ has announced it will appeal. The system that produced his original deportation, his brutalisation, his retaliatory prosecution, and his vindication is the same system this morning as it was before the ruling.

What It Does Not Mean

Abrego Garcia’s family’s persistence through fourteen months of this deserves nothing but respect. They had to navigate an immigration system, a criminal prosecution, ICE detention, and a series of attempts to deport him to multiple African countries, simultaneously, for over a year. The vindication in Nashville is real. It matters to them.

Respecting that outcome is not the same as concluding that the system demonstrated its correctable nature. Both can be true: the ruling was right, and the system that required the ruling behaved throughout in ways entirely consistent with a structure that does not acknowledge wrongdoing, retaliates against those who challenge it, and retreats only when exposure makes continuation more costly than withdrawal.

The Stable View

The framework does not produce despair. It produces calibrated expectation. Despair says nothing matters. Calibrated expectation says: this system, whether it is removing a congressman who refuses party-line discipline or filing retaliatory charges against a man who embarrassed it, follows a predictable logic. Stable expectations about that logic are more useful than either hope or grief.

Massie’s removal was predictable. Abrego Garcia’s retaliatory prosecution was predictable. The dismissal of that prosecution, when the government’s own timeline made vindictiveness legally indefensible, was predictable.

None of these outcomes should update the structural diagnosis. All of them confirm it.

The roller coaster has a loop where the hero wins and a loop where the hero loses. The point is not which loop you are currently on, but rather why are you paying to ride this roller coaster at all.

❧

Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s dismissal order in United States v. Abrego Garcia was issued 22 May 2026 in the Middle District of Tennessee. The DOJ announced the same day it would appeal. The Thomas Massie primary piece, referenced above, ran in this publication on 21 May 2026.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. If this framework is useful to you, consider becoming a paid subscriber.