Win + Shift + T opens a window that lets you select text on your screen and copy it directly into a text box.
Text Extractor is a convenient tool for copying text from anywhere on your screen.
Learn more about Text Extractor
Automatically recognizes languages with the OCR pack installed
Supported languages available
To activate this module:
Turn it On
Language: English (United States)
Text Grab
Capitalism likes to think its enemies are obvious: red flags, tanks, nuclear posturing. In reality, its greatest threat wears a tailored suit, flashes a Rolex, and calls the whole thing a business opportunity.
Here’s the trick: China doesn’t need to invade markets or wage wars. It just waits for capitalism to do it to itself. Billionaires—hungry, impatient, dazzled by valuations—are the perfect vectors. They buy media companies, fund campaigns, build empires, and somehow never pause to wonder if their golden goose might one day lay eggs for someone else’s nest.
Take Robert Murdoch. Yes, that Murdoch. The man who built an empire so sprawling it makes medieval kingdoms look like hamlets. Analysts whisper that Murdoch’s outlets have, at times, mirrored Beijing’s preferences. Why? Ownership matters. Access matters. And greed—a craving for influence, prestige, and profit—works wonders. Murdoch didn’t sign a loyalty oath. He didn’t even need to. All it took was money and ambition to bend the narrative his way.
Or look at Forbes and young Austin Russell, the 29-year-old LIDAR nerd who suddenly owns a magazine that literally names the world’s richest people. His deal wasn’t solo: foreign capital crept in, quietly, politely, and legally. Washington noticed. CFIUS noticed. And if Russell thought this was just entrepreneurial ambition, he’s playing the oldest game in the book: greed trumps national self-interest every time.
Even Donald Trump’s campaigns show this. Through a complex network of deals, investments, and entanglements, both Russian and Chinese capital had leverage points. Not because anyone was overtly conspiring, but because billionaires are spectacularly bad at thinking past the next check.
You think this is new? Think again. Post-war Italy saw media and publishers quietly funded to counter communist influence.ⁱ Post-war West Germany licensed newspapers selectively to steer public opinion.ⁱⁱ No headlines. No shouting. Just incentives doing the work. Post-Soviet Russia perfected it: energy giants, oligarchs, media investments.ⁱⁱⁱⁱ You don’t need propaganda posters when you have pipelines and stock options. Silence is far more persuasive.
China watched, learned, refined, and folded the lessons into a system. Extreme wealth concentration plus strategic foreign investment equals influence without firing a shot.
The cast is global: David Tepper, betting heavily on Chinese tech;⁶ Neville Roy Singham, funding media sympathetic to the CCP;⁷ Jack Ma, Xiao Jianhua, Li Ka-shing, Robin Zeng, Chau Chak Wing—all billionaires whose wealth, structure, and access make them tools of influence without anyone signing an NDA.⁸⁹ⁱ⁰ⁱ¹ⁱ²
Intent is irrelevant. Short-sightedness is everything. Money does the talking, perception shifts, discourse narrows. And the world reads it as “business as usual.”
China’s playbook is audaciously simple: find the greedy, follow the money, and let human nature do the rest. Billionaires prioritize profit, prestige, and growth over national interest. They invest, acquire, and expand—and, in doing so, quietly help foreign powers shape public perception, policy, and narrative. Legally. Politely. Profitably.
CFIUS understands this. Its job is not to accuse anyone of espionage. Its job is to calculate risk. Could the structure of a billionaire’s wealth matter strategically in a crisis? Increasingly, yes.
China doesn’t need to destroy capitalism from the outside. It just sits back while capitalism destroys itself from within. Billionaires are not conspirators—they are vectors. Media consolidates, narratives narrow, investments cross borders, and influence spreads. No agents. No tanks. Just greed, access, and a system that rewards both.
So, the next time someone claims the real threat is ideology, laugh a little. The real threat is greed, strutting through the corridors of power, counting its money, and occasionally buying Forbes. Capitalism hands the keys to the very people most likely to hand over influence for a good deal. And that, my friends, is how you win a war without a single shot fired.
i. Ginsborg, Paul. A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics, 1943–1988. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
ii. Frei, Norbert. Adenauer’s Germany and the Nazi Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
iii. Stern, Jonathan. The Russian Gas Matrix: How Markets Are Driving Change. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2014.
iv. Lucas, Edward. The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
v. Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
vi. Barron’s, “David Tepper’s China Moves,” 2024.
vii. Wikipedia, “Neville Roy Singham,” 2025.
viii. The Wire China, “Jack Ma and Chinese Capital Networks,” 2024.
ix. Wikipedia, “Xiao Jianhua,” 2025.
x. AP News, “Li Ka-shing: Business and Beijing,” 2024.
xi. WSJ, “Robin Zeng and CATL,” 2023.
xii. Wikipedia, “Chau Chak Wing,” 2025.
Dr Richards – Sociologist, Professor, Provocateur
Sam Richards is one of those professors whose lectures you stumble across online and immediately realize: this isn’t your typical PowerPoint snooze-fest. He’s a sociologist at Pennsylvania State University, teaching courses like SOC 119: Race, Ethnicity, and Culture, and his classroom discussions have been broadcast to the world, clipped, and shared widely.
Richards isn’t afraid to wade into controversy. Whether he’s dissecting MAGA and Trump approval, debating the weight of values in political life versus everyday choices, or challenging students to think critically about the society they inhabit, he blends data, history, and cultural commentary with a distinctly provocative style. Some viewers love him for making complex topics digestible; others bristle at the way he frames politically charged questions.
Behind the viral clips, Richards is a serious scholar — pulling from polls, sociological studies, and historical context — but he knows how to make a classroom feel like a live debate. Controversy isn’t accidental; it’s part of the method, prompting students and online audiences alike to wrestle with messy realities rather than tidy narratives.
In short: Sam Richards teaches data, culture, and politics, but he’s really teaching people to think—and sometimes to squirm a little while doing it.
Big Beautiful Bill
It would be illegal for a state to require schools to get a license before using AI tutoring systems.
It would be illegal for a state to ban AI reading-assist tools for young children.
It would be illegal for a state to restrict the use of AI that grades children’s homework automatically.
It would be illegal for a state to require safety audits for AI used in children’s math or language apps.
It would be illegal for a state to stop schools from using AI classroom-monitoring systems that track attention or behavior.
It would be illegal for a state to require parental opt-in before a school can use an AI learning platform with a child.
It would be illegal for a state to ban AI from generating personalized lesson plans for students.
It would be illegal for a state to impose transparency rules about how educational AI makes decisions.
It would be illegal for a state to regulate the training data used in children’s educational AI tools.
It would be illegal for a state to block AI speech models from being used as “teaching assistants” in classrooms.
It would be illegal for a state to restrict AI-powered behavior prediction tools used on students.
It would be illegal for a state to require that all AI tools used on children undergo mental-health or developmental-impact testing.
It would be illegal for a state to require schools to provide a non-AI alternative if a child or parent objects.
It would be illegal for a state to ban AI systems that track student progress using biometric signals (like voice patterns or typing speed).
It would be illegal for a state to limit AI usage in special-education programs or require human-only intervention.
It always starts the same way: a man asking what children ought to learn, as if the answer were fixed somewhere in the stars, or trapped inside the skull of a brain surgeon who can’t do multivariate calculus. We pretend we know the purpose of school, that grand factory of minds, but the truth is we’re improvising. The world keeps shifting under our feet and we’re still teaching as though nothing has changed since the day Euclid sharpened his quill.
Someone proposes the three essential questions — what to learn, how well, and why — and suddenly the whole discussion tilts. Because once you ask why, the floor gives out. Is the child being shaped into a worker, or into a citizen? Into an obedient technician or into a human being capable of staring reality in the face without flinching? Everyone claims they know the answer; in reality no one does.
And then the voices rise like a chorus. One says education is not just a ticket to a job but the passport to a functioning democracy. Another says the pandemic proved how brittle the public mind has become — a nation wandering through contradictory announcements, grabbing at rumors like they were life rafts. Misinformation blooms when people forget how to think, but forgetting how to think is what happens when a society stops caring about thought in the first place.
A man from Eastern Europe joins in. He remembers when an “A” burned your fingertips because you had to earn it through blood, sweat, and midnight lamps. But here, in America, As fall like confetti from a careless hand. Grades are not measures anymore — they’re decorations. Little badges for parents to brag over and administrators to tally, while knowledge itself grows thin and ghostlike.
Then come the faithful defenders of the tests — the SAT, the ACT, those stark little rites of passage. Bring them back, they say. At least tests can tell whether someone is ready for the next step. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re clinging to driftwood. Because grades are inflated, tests are attacked, and the institutions don’t know which signals to trust. If everything lies, who’s telling the truth?
Meanwhile the schools push students forward like products on a conveyor belt. No one fails; no one is held back. Entire districts exist where not a single student reads at grade level, yet everyone marches upward. Social promotion, the gentle phrase for a quiet catastrophe. Children who cannot calculate, cannot read, cannot distinguish a fact from a fable — yet somehow they graduate. The system would rather avoid embarrassment than admit collapse.
And beneath all of it, like a current under the street, lies the deeper truth: we have no shared philosophy of education anymore. No common story about what learning is for. Once it was clear — apprenticeships, civics, moral instruction. Now it's a blurred collage of job prep, political battles, test scores, and cultural panic. A nation that cannot decide what its children should know cannot decide what sort of future it wants.
In the end, everyone argues about the symptoms because no one wants to face the disease. We have built an educational world without a center, without purpose, and without memory. And until we choose what we believe in again, the children will continue to drift through the system like travelers moving through a fog — passing every milestone, yet arriving nowhere at all.
Theme: What should children learn, how well, and why?
We still aren't asking the three core questions:
What do we need children to learn?
How well do we need them to learn it?
Why?
Example: Top brain surgeons can’t do multivariate calculus — does that make them “morons”? Of course not.
So education must be aligned with purpose.
Bonus questions:
Will these answers be the same in 100 years?
What process should society use to update these answers when needed?
Education isn’t just job prep.
It builds citizens who:
Make informed decisions
Understand systems
Participate responsibly in democracy
Focusing only on “useful” skills undermines civic foundations.
Many people understand job training but not the need for informed citizens in a democracy.
Pandemic confusion showed why civic literacy matters.
Contradictory federal announcements + misinformation made the situation worse.
Social control has moved away from civic virtue, leading to “Trump and other disasters.”
Eastern Europe: getting As = hard work.
US: majority of students get As.
Too much focus on grades, not enough on actual knowledge.
Standardized tests ensure proper college placement.
Bring back the SAT/ACT requirement.
Colleges stopped accepting SAT/ACT; now they face consequences.
Problem: letting students graduate without basic skills.
Schools no longer hold back students who haven't learned the material.
Some school districts have zero students performing at grade level.
Science as Civic Duty
CITIZEN CANADA PRESENTS
🔴 “BUY, BELIEVE, OBEY: SAVE THE SCIENCE CENTRE EDITION”
November hums in fluorescent light.
Concrete corridors echo with footsteps of curious feet.
Exhibits hum with electricity, projectors beam equations onto walls, and hands reach out to touch rotating planets.
The Science Centre is alive — a cathedral of discovery in the middle of the city.
Click. Swipe. Look. Learn.
Hands-on learning is currency. Curiosity is contagious.
Interactive exhibits are sermons; workshops are rites of passage.
Even the quiet labs speak, whispering formulas into the imagination.
The silence of neglect threatens. Only advocacy hums.
Truth flickers in petitions, emails, and fundraising tabs: We cannot afford to lose this.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
🧧 “Civic Curiosity Under Threat”
Education outsourced to screens. Schools shrink budgets. Kids’ access limited.
Science centres act as public classrooms, hands-on labs, and exposure to careers that textbooks alone can’t teach.
When science is privatized or cut, curiosity is auctioned.
🪙 “The Economics of Wonder”
Admissions, memberships, gift shops — revenue streams barely cover operating costs.
Yet closing means losing millions of learning moments, countless future STEM careers, and community trust.
Investment isn’t charity. It’s building the next generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators.
🚀 “Exhibits as Experiments”
Planetariums, chemical demos, robotics, and immersive science shows.
Interactive, visceral, unreplicable online.
Removing these experiences reduces science to videos — sterile, flattened, unengaging.
📺 “Science as Civic Duty”
Public engagement builds informed citizens.
Understanding climate, health, and technology isn’t optional; it’s survival.
Science centres are trust anchors in an era of misinformation and algorithmic echo chambers.
🌍 “Community in Motion”
Programs for underserved neighborhoods, outreach initiatives, workshops for kids with limited access — these are social infrastructure.
Closing the doors breaks more than a building; it fractures a network of equity, education, and inspiration.
The magazine hums with fluorescent urgency.
Jagged lines. Capital/lowercase flips. Pings in the margins.
Every page a rally. Every article a beat.
Hyperpop reportage meets civic advocacy: chaotic, urgent, cinematic.
You read it, scroll it, sign petitions, share it.
And still you buy. Believe. Obey.
Attention wrapped in the shimmer of knowledge.
Routine masquerading as activism.
Screens ping. Emails fly. Servers hum.
The world keeps selling itself — and the Science Centre is worth saving.
#BuyBelieveObey #TorontoScience #SaveTheScienceCentre #STEMEducation #CitizenCanada
