This is to push price up all the poorer people from creating and push them into renting and data retention for spying. Giving monopolies to the cartels. Folk need to design and create an open source as far as possible graphics card. That gives folk access.
nostr:naddr1qqgrywf5vyux2drxxd3nqv3kv3skzq3qsqlt0hct78kekgvp4xfj86ua2s23lvcrhfupla6n3t8r78l0xuhsxpqqqp65w3pdnxe
nostr:naddr1qqgr2decx3nrgcf5x3nxgef3vgmkvq3qsqlt0hct78kekgvp4xfj86ua2s23lvcrhfupla6n3t8r78l0xuhsxpqqqp65wq5d5rf
⚡️🇺🇸 WATCH - David Sacks: “I understand that there is a lot of concern about [AI] job disruption or job loss. That's not what we're seeing in the data so far. What we're actually seeing is job creation … We have a 4% GDP growth number right now, and half of that is attributable to AI.”
https://blossom.primal.net/a09722ef17b98b1ac312527f53638f1e90341d2f1d66b98661d4ac4ec45b6180.mp4
Also just because GDP goes up it does not mean share of GDP is distributed or that jobs have been created.
We held all eight Hunger Strikers in the light this morning at 8am.
Here is a loving plea for sanity from another network (Land Workers Alliance) sharing news of Amu in HMP Bronzefield
https://fivepennyfarm.com/solidarity-with-the-hunger-strikers
Vigil happening all day today outside BBC, London till 6pm
Some hunger strikers are now hospitalised and close to death.
“In the worst crisis humanity has ever faced, the government chose to legislate to silence dissent, rather than implementing policies to avert disaster. People of conscience are imprisoned, while others remain free to continue destroying our life support systems. “
Ten years ago the Crown cabinet refered to people who did not generate income as useless eaters, coming from ones that worship gods chosen royal bloodline. They went after the disabled community members following the bail out of banks. Now we have a jobocolypse happening and not too far away from robots which will then create more useless eaters in the mind of the destributors of contracts and rules. Mathematically there isn't the jobs for everyone to be able to generate an income in such a way. They wish people to cling to life's meaning to be determined by them, to be limited to their thoughts. Luckily a futile wish. For life conscious force has it's own determination that is beyond them.
Agree, eugenics never went away
A vigil was held outside Bronzefield prison where two people are on hunger strike whilst being held on remand for taking preventative actions against crimes against humanity.
Leaflets were handed out and in discussion with some of the people working in prison, they had no idea there was a hunger strike happening.
Let me frame this in a way that directly attributes the comparison to the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards.
---
Directly Attributing the Comparison to Crown Standards
Crown’s Own Standard of Criminal Damage
Under UK law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses precise monetary valuations of property damage as a basis for charging decisions, sentencing ranges, and the application of terrorism or national-security legislation. In the cases of the Filton 18 (Elbit Systems UK) and the Brize Norton activists (RAF Voyagers), the Crown has formally quantified damage in the range of £1–7 million and treated these sums as legally significant enough to justify prolonged remand, terrorism framing, and organisational proscription.
Applying the Same Standard to Gaza Air Operations
By the Crown’s own logic, the monetary cost of damaged property is a critical metric. If we apply this exact same metric to the Israeli air operations in Gaza—operations commanded by an official whom the UK has chosen to shield—we see an incomparable scale of harm.
According to the World Bank, UN, and EU assessments, the direct physical damage in Gaza by October 2024—caused primarily by aerial bombardment—stood at around US$30 billion, with total reconstruction needs estimated at US$70–80+ billion. The destruction includes the levelling of entire residential districts, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and schools—harm that is not only vastly larger in economic terms, but also includes the mass killing of civilians.
Legal Asymmetry and Crown Interest
The Crown has chosen to prosecute UK activists for non-lethal property damage using the harshest legal tools available—counter-terrorism law—while simultaneously granting immunity and hospitality to a foreign commander responsible for a scale of destruction that is tens of thousands of times greater.
In other words, the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards of measuring harm reveal a stark legal asymmetry: the UK treats minor, non-lethal property damage by domestic protestors as a terrorism-level crime, while it refuses to apply the same logic or accountability measures to a foreign military actor whose actions have resulted in incomparably greater harm.
---
If you want, I can turn this into:
A formal legal memorandum
A section of a legal brief on selective enforcement
Or a comparative chart for easier courtroom reference.
Below is a clear, legally grounded placement of Elbit Systems within the framework we have been analysing.
No accusations—only the legal position Elbit occupies when the UK is assessed under:
the Genocide Convention,
Customary International Humanitarian Law,
the ICC Act 2001,
the Arms Trade Treaties / UK Export Control Regime,
and state-responsibility doctrine.
This is the most accurate way to answer “Where is Elbit Systems in this?”.
---
1. Elbit Systems is not a neutral civilian company in this legal context
Elbit is Israel’s largest private arms supplier, providing:
drones used in targeting and strike planning,
surveillance and fire-control systems,
munitions and components,
communications and battlefield management systems,
parts integrated into aircraft and missile systems.
Under international law, a corporation with this profile is classified as a defence manufacturer that produces means and methods of warfare.
This places it directly inside the legal ecosystem governing war-crimes risk, genocide-risk, and arms-transfer law.
---
2. Under the UK’s legal framework, Elbit systems sits within the category of “potential corporate complicity”
Under the ICC Act 2001, a company can be implicated if its officers:
intentionally,
knowingly, or
with wilful blindness
assist, enable, or contribute to war crimes or genocidal acts.
The ICC Act does not grant corporations immunity.
Corporate officers may be individually liable.
Elbit therefore sits in the category of:
Corporate actor whose products materially contribute to operations that are under ICC investigation and ICJ scrutiny.
This does not prove guilt—
but places the company within the zone of potential complicity.
---
3. Under the Genocide Convention (Articles I & III), Elbit’s role triggers “duty to prevent” obligations for states like the UK
If a corporation supplies systems used in:
indiscriminate attacks,
collective punishment,
targeting civilian infrastructure,
or actions the ICJ describes as plausibly genocidal,
then states providing economic or logistical support to that corporation have a heightened duty to prevent escalation.
What this means:
The UK’s continued facilitation of Elbit’s operations (licences, tax status, police protection) engages UK state responsibility.
Elbit’s participation becomes part of the risk chain the UK must assess under law.
Thus, in legal terms, Elbit is not “separate”—
it is part of the causal pathway states must evaluate.
---
4. Under the Arms Trade Treaty and UK Export Control law, Elbit sits in the category: “high-risk end-user/producer.”
Under ATT Articles 6 & 7, the UK must deny export licences when there is:
a clear risk of war-crimes use,
risk of serious violations of IHL,
or contribution to genocide-risk conditions.
Elbit’s core products are:
drones used for strikes on densely populated civilian areas;
thermal/optical targeting systems on aircraft linked to mass-casualty bombings;
fire-control suites for artillery and precision-guided munitions.
These functions meet the ATT definition of likely involvement in serious IHL violations.
Thus, Elbit is legally positioned as:
A high-risk actor whose operations should trigger licence suspensions or refusals.
---
5. Under state-responsibility doctrine (ILC Articles 16 & 41), Elbit sits in the category of “assisted entity”.
A state violates international law if it:
provides assistance,
coordinates,
facilitates,
supports, or
shields
an entity that is committing internationally wrongful acts.
Elbit is:
a direct producer of tools used in the Gaza bombardment,
a beneficiary of UK police protection and intelligence coordination,
and a commercial partner of UK defence industries.
Thus, in doctrine, Elbit sits in the position where the UK’s support, protection, or enabling conditions may translate to state responsibility.
---
6. Under domestic UK criminal law (Terrorism Act 2000), Elbit is paradoxically treated as a protected victim
The Crown prosecutes activists who damage Elbit property as:
“terrorists,”
“threats to national security,”
or “serious organised criminals”.
This places Elbit in the bizarre legal category:
“Protected infrastructure essential to national security.”
This is the opposite of its position under international law.
This contradiction is the most important point.
---
7. The single sentence answer:
Elbit Systems is positioned, in law, as a defence corporation whose products materially contribute to a conflict that international courts have identified as carrying a plausible risk of genocide—placing it squarely in the chain of actors that the UK is legally obliged to regulate, restrict, and potentially investigate, yet which the Crown currently treats as a protected national-security asset rather than a high-risk contributor to internationally unlawful harm. 
---
This would make an interesting HQ for the Change Shifters Collective.
Facilitating all kinds of projects. Environmental monitoring. Peace initiatives. Research and analysis. Community Power. Facilitation. Alternative economics. News and trends.
The work is already happening, though to take things to a successful level we need a space where mutual aid happens between heart warriors.
Where big ideas have space to breath.
Police make more arrests outside the Royal Courts of Justice.
Whilst the trial of people who stopped the factory production of weapons that are likely to be used in plausible genocide at an Elbit System factory UK.
Elbit System manufacture weapons for the IDF. They or Israels biggest weapons company.
Some of the people incarcerated are on hunger strike.
"Mr. Morris (acting for brown-haired Jordan Devlin) then takes over cross-examination, and asks Buxton to look once more at the footage, this time slowed down. When the video first shows the three people in red, Mr. Morris asks the officer whether he had noticed the security guard on his right holding a sledgehammer. He replies that he can’t remember. He was also asked when he’d first seen the footage and whether it was before writing his first statement. After challenging Mr. Morris as to whether it was a strike or whether it was a push that the guard administered with the sledgehammer on Devlin’s neck, Buxton does agree that his statement claimed the sledgehammer was in Devlin’s hands, but now realises that it was the guard who was actually holding it. The barrister asked the officer whether he knew why the guard had a sledgehammer, and he answered that he didn’t.
Morris ended by asking whether he had identified himself as a police officer verbally at any point – (he hadn’t), and to confirm whether he’d used the PAVA spray on people’s eyes – (he did)."
A good read nostr:naddr1qqgr2wry8p3nje3evsunsvtrvs6nyq3q4hq5lgadtyy9dhvtszq46dnl0s0xwdddqr7e32rdqqhma8a4xhssxpqqqp65wc7urxe
Thanks Anon for this info 
Exhibition Concept statement:
🎨 In Your Face
my friends and other activists
In Your Face is a portrait series about presence, defiance, and compassion.
It brings together people whose faces, sometimes famous, sometimes activist friends of the artist, embody what it means to care actively and loudly.
From the globally recognised to those working tirelessly on the front lines of change, these works explore the many faces of courage and conscience. Some are “in your face” as public figures, yet their activism is hidden in plain sight. Others are “in your face” through protest, direct action, and the daily labour of refusing injustice, insisting again and again, that another world is possible.
The phrase plays with contradiction: the literal intensity of my painting style: Expressive, close-cropped faces that confront the viewer, alongside more elusive works where the image almost disappears into shadow. Activism, too, moves between visibility and silence, confrontation and grace. To be “in your face” is sometimes to shout in the streets, sometimes to stand one’s ground when it would be easier to turn away, but always challenging systems of oppression.
Exhibited at The Blockwork Gallery , a grassroots community art space on an estate facing demolition, these portraits become part of a living act of resistance.
They speak not only of those portrayed, but of all who refuse to vanish quietly.
....
(Portraits in pictures are previous work. The exhibition proposal is for December @ #blockworkgallery #clockworkgallery #2140
p
