The actual title is "Trump's War on the City of London".
Sometimes a book can be judged by its cover. But this video is really about London's War on the USA---long before Trump arrived on the scene. This goes back 125 years.
So the title of my post doesn't square with the video's title.
I jipped to this bit about Canada's elbows up attitude, and how it squares with London's interests in keeping America under its thumb.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Wednesday, October 7, 2026
Oh Cana-duh
10/7/26:
Canada is a train wreck, but the commies are plotting with them in America's mid-terms. How does the Canadian model help our economy here? Quebec wants to separate from Canada. Alberta votes soon on the same subject.
10/5/26:
Failing Canada and Britain blame Trump and "White Supremacy"
Comment:
A Zero-Hedge reprint of an American Thinker column
The commies are trying to win with propaganda and a gullible public. The same is being tried in the USA. At least we still have the 1st Amendment, and you can still say what you think without being punished for it.
If James Carville gets his wish, a packed Supreme Court can dictate the end of the Bill of Rights. A couple of Democrat states would seal the Presidency forever, and there would be no way out but violence.
But I repeat myself. I am amazed how hard it is to get some people focused on what really matters.
5/12/25: The original post follows:
Canada is a train wreck, but the commies are plotting with them in America's mid-terms. How does the Canadian model help our economy here? Quebec wants to separate from Canada. Alberta votes soon on the same subject.
10/5/26:
Failing Canada and Britain blame Trump and "White Supremacy"
Comment:
A Zero-Hedge reprint of an American Thinker column
The commies are trying to win with propaganda and a gullible public. The same is being tried in the USA. At least we still have the 1st Amendment, and you can still say what you think without being punished for it.
If James Carville gets his wish, a packed Supreme Court can dictate the end of the Bill of Rights. A couple of Democrat states would seal the Presidency forever, and there would be no way out but violence.
But I repeat myself. I am amazed how hard it is to get some people focused on what really matters.
5/12/25: The original post follows:
In my opinion, the Liberals of Canada are doing it to themselves. Pollyview coulda been a better candidate, and maybe he could have won. If Canada falls apart, it will be Carney and the Liberals' fault.
America produces the oil, but can't refine it. This may explain why
10/7/26:
The commies run on "affordability". But how is it more "affordable" to shut down refineries?
The tweet below was about California's regulatory environment forcing a couple of refineries to shut down. California is deep blue, and has the highest pump prices in the nation. How does a war against oil help prices come down? Why would the left join the terrorist sponsoring state of Iran and support their shutdown of the Persian Gulf? In order to bring down prices at the pump?
10/26/24: The original post is below:
The commies run on "affordability". But how is it more "affordable" to shut down refineries?
The tweet below was about California's regulatory environment forcing a couple of refineries to shut down. California is deep blue, and has the highest pump prices in the nation. How does a war against oil help prices come down? Why would the left join the terrorist sponsoring state of Iran and support their shutdown of the Persian Gulf? In order to bring down prices at the pump?
10/26/24: The original post is below:
California may lose two more refineries, would have to rely on gas from abroad https://t.co/FfNGyR2xTv via @JustTheNews
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) October 26, 2024
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
Greenbacks galore
10/7/26:
More rate hikes? The Fed is a hazard. The Fed is not our friends, fellow Americans.
10/6/26:
There was a video that I watched that seemed pretty persuasive to me at the time. It's probably in the posts somewhere, but I haven't looked for it exactly. What it said amounted to a denuniciation of the Federal Reserve Bank.
That may be applicable now in this election season. It seems to me that the Federal Reserve is really a scheme to deprive America of its sovereignty. There really is no need for its existence, other than to be a banker of last resort.
But like so many other things, the Federal Reserve is political. In my opinion, high oil prices are not a cause of inflation. I'm with Milton Friedman on that one. Friedman says inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Therefore, if there's inflation, it is only because the Federal Reserve caused it. If there's a recession, it is only because the Federal Reserve caused it. Friedman suggested an auto-pilot for the Federal Reserve.
If that works, then fine. The idea that the Federal Reserve is "independent" is bunk. It MIGHT be independent in a sense, but it serves the politicians well by off-loading the voter's wrath upon some entity that remains outside any accountability. The politicians can just blame others besides themselves, and call that independence.
So what can you do about it? You can't make people be honest nor good. You can't make people into angels. It's an imperfect world full of imperfect people. Maybe you can pray, and hope for a rescue of some sort. Or just curl up into a fetal position and suck your thumb. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
4/7/25:
There may be other options on the table than this one. It may become clearer in the coming months. That is, unless what I saw yesterday was bravo sierra. In this day and age, most things appear to be.
As a general rule, things aren't always the way they appear to be. Or what somebody claims it to be. For instance, the thing I'm referring to in the above paragraph. If what I saw is true, there's nothing to worry about. Supposedly, their exists some little known reservoir of assets that can be accessed. If such actually exists, there won't be a problem going forward. Supposedly, this will be mentioned soon.
Most fears may be based upon ignorance. But why should there be any ignorance? Because certain people get an advantage that way. Therefore, ignorance is their tool to gain power. If knowledge is power, then ignorance must result in the lack of it.
2/16/25:
In his book, Free to Choose, Milton Friedman said that money has taken many forms over the years. The natural thing is to create a currency in order to facilitate trade, as people are inclined to trade with each other. This can be observed in prisons, where cigarettes are used as a currency between inmates. If it isn't cigarettes, it would be something. This is an inevitability, because something is going to be used as a currency. It doesn't have to be gold, it can be anything that will be accepted.
For those who feel nervous about a greenback currency, there is a way to back it. But if you use gold, the gold will be manipulated in order to gain control over the currency. Hence, a type of serfdom will be imposed by the banksters. At this very time, the price of gold is being manipulated It is ALWAYS being manipulated, to serve the purposes of the banksters. We are enthralled to the banksters. A greenback currency that is backed by something that cannot be easily manipulated is the way of freedom from the banksters.
I would suggest that we lock out the banksters, and take over our own currency. We need to take precautions to stop an attempt to take it back over. For short periods, the USA had currency freedom. It had it prior to the Revolution. It had it after the Jackson years. It had it briefly during the Lincoln years. For most of the years after Lincoln, there was some limited control of the currency, as the banksters wore it down until they took over again with the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters are relentless in their attempts to enthrall us all.
How to do this in such a way that the banksters will not easily get their power back? That is the question.
2/15/25:
How to slash $1 trillion from spending in one year
The concept is simple. Just replace the currency with Federal Notes, as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes. It may not seem like a difference, but there'd be one BIG difference. A Federal Note will not pay interest because it isn't created through debt. No debt, no interest due on bonds. It's the bonds that cause the interest on the debt. If there's no bonds, then there will be no debt. If there's no debt, there will be no payments on the debt, which costs the Treasury $1 trillion per year.
Would this be inflationary? I don't know, but somebody thinks it wouldn't be. It would be seamless. The only difference is how the money is brought into existence. The way we do it now is by debt. The debt is owed to investors in bonds.
This was done during the Civil War, and the currency was called "greenbacks". We'd be going on Lincoln's greenback system.
The only ones to suffer would be the central banks who now get interest paid to them through the debt incurred in creating the money. No new laws need to be written, but you may have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and perhaps a Civil War Era law that replaced the greenback. Lincoln had to abandon the greenback under duress from the central banks.
The central banks are not our friends, ya'll. This would probably work, but there'd be a lot of resistance. Backing the buck with gold won't do the trick. Gold is too easily manipulated. It'd have to be the greenback. Discontinue the Federal Reserve Bank, and use Federal Notes issued directly by the Treasury, and save a lot of money in interest.
More rate hikes? The Fed is a hazard. The Fed is not our friends, fellow Americans.
10/6/26:
There was a video that I watched that seemed pretty persuasive to me at the time. It's probably in the posts somewhere, but I haven't looked for it exactly. What it said amounted to a denuniciation of the Federal Reserve Bank.
That may be applicable now in this election season. It seems to me that the Federal Reserve is really a scheme to deprive America of its sovereignty. There really is no need for its existence, other than to be a banker of last resort.
But like so many other things, the Federal Reserve is political. In my opinion, high oil prices are not a cause of inflation. I'm with Milton Friedman on that one. Friedman says inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Therefore, if there's inflation, it is only because the Federal Reserve caused it. If there's a recession, it is only because the Federal Reserve caused it. Friedman suggested an auto-pilot for the Federal Reserve.
If that works, then fine. The idea that the Federal Reserve is "independent" is bunk. It MIGHT be independent in a sense, but it serves the politicians well by off-loading the voter's wrath upon some entity that remains outside any accountability. The politicians can just blame others besides themselves, and call that independence.
So what can you do about it? You can't make people be honest nor good. You can't make people into angels. It's an imperfect world full of imperfect people. Maybe you can pray, and hope for a rescue of some sort. Or just curl up into a fetal position and suck your thumb. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
4/7/25:
2/16/25:
In his book, Free to Choose, Milton Friedman said that money has taken many forms over the years. The natural thing is to create a currency in order to facilitate trade, as people are inclined to trade with each other. This can be observed in prisons, where cigarettes are used as a currency between inmates. If it isn't cigarettes, it would be something. This is an inevitability, because something is going to be used as a currency. It doesn't have to be gold, it can be anything that will be accepted.
For those who feel nervous about a greenback currency, there is a way to back it. But if you use gold, the gold will be manipulated in order to gain control over the currency. Hence, a type of serfdom will be imposed by the banksters. At this very time, the price of gold is being manipulated It is ALWAYS being manipulated, to serve the purposes of the banksters. We are enthralled to the banksters. A greenback currency that is backed by something that cannot be easily manipulated is the way of freedom from the banksters.
I would suggest that we lock out the banksters, and take over our own currency. We need to take precautions to stop an attempt to take it back over. For short periods, the USA had currency freedom. It had it prior to the Revolution. It had it after the Jackson years. It had it briefly during the Lincoln years. For most of the years after Lincoln, there was some limited control of the currency, as the banksters wore it down until they took over again with the Federal Reserve Act. The banksters are relentless in their attempts to enthrall us all.
How to do this in such a way that the banksters will not easily get their power back? That is the question.
2/15/25:
How to slash $1 trillion from spending in one year
The concept is simple. Just replace the currency with Federal Notes, as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes. It may not seem like a difference, but there'd be one BIG difference. A Federal Note will not pay interest because it isn't created through debt. No debt, no interest due on bonds. It's the bonds that cause the interest on the debt. If there's no bonds, then there will be no debt. If there's no debt, there will be no payments on the debt, which costs the Treasury $1 trillion per year.
Would this be inflationary? I don't know, but somebody thinks it wouldn't be. It would be seamless. The only difference is how the money is brought into existence. The way we do it now is by debt. The debt is owed to investors in bonds.
This was done during the Civil War, and the currency was called "greenbacks". We'd be going on Lincoln's greenback system.
The only ones to suffer would be the central banks who now get interest paid to them through the debt incurred in creating the money. No new laws need to be written, but you may have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and perhaps a Civil War Era law that replaced the greenback. Lincoln had to abandon the greenback under duress from the central banks.
The central banks are not our friends, ya'll. This would probably work, but there'd be a lot of resistance. Backing the buck with gold won't do the trick. Gold is too easily manipulated. It'd have to be the greenback. Discontinue the Federal Reserve Bank, and use Federal Notes issued directly by the Treasury, and save a lot of money in interest.
Monday, October 5, 2026
Susan Kokinda Gives Background Context for the IRGC Appeal to the West for Defense Against Trump
Conservative Tree House
Comment:
This should be like the kiss of death for the commies. We sure have sunk a long, long way down for the Iranians to take comfort in any American politician.
Jimmy Carter was POTUS when these clowns got into power in Iran.
Note: There's a history lesson from Susan Kokinda. It's well worth the time to watch it.
Comment:
This should be like the kiss of death for the commies. We sure have sunk a long, long way down for the Iranians to take comfort in any American politician.
Jimmy Carter was POTUS when these clowns got into power in Iran.
Note: There's a history lesson from Susan Kokinda. It's well worth the time to watch it.
What are the limits for human beings?
10/5/26:
The premise for this question is the Kardeshevian Scale. I would posit that the Kardshevian Scale is erroneous based upon a proposition that energy is not as important as that theory suggests.
Albert Einstein thought it was imagination that mattered. Imagination doesn't require harnessing the energy of a star or a galaxy.
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity without a huge science project backing up his work. That theory updated Newton's Law of Gravitation. Newton didn't need a huge science project either. He just asked himself why the apple fell to the ground. Einstein just asked a few questions too, about why Newton's Law of Gravitation had a few problems with it. His answer was the Theory of Relativity. Maybe you just need to ask the right questions?
10/1/26: The original post is below:
The limits question:
Limits to Growth is one of the areas that I find objectionable. After this Q&A, will that opinion change?
Question:
Are there limits to scientific discovery?
Answer:
Yes, both fundamental and practical.
First, you have hard physical and mathematical boundaries. Quantum mechanics introduces limits like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning certain pairs of physical properties cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision. Information theory and thermodynamics impose limits on computation and energy extraction—you can't build a perpetual motion machine or process infinite data in a finite universe. Cosmology presents another absolute wall: the speed of light and the expansion of the universe mean that parts of the cosmos are permanently causally disconnected from us. We will never receive signals from or interact with galaxies beyond our cosmological horizon.
Second, there are computational and cognitive limits. Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that in any sufficiently complex formal system (like mathematics), there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system. Translating that to science, there may be truths about reality that are simply uncomputable or beyond the architecture of human cognition. Asking the human brain to fully comprehend the totality of existence might be like asking a dog to understand calculus.
Finally, there are practical and economic constraints. The energy required to probe smaller and smaller scales (think particle physics beyond the Large Hadron Collider) scales exponentially. Eventually, we hit economic, material, and energetic limits that make certain empirical investigations practically impossible, even if they aren't forbidden by fundamental physics.
Follow up question:
Can AI help us overcome these cognitive limits?
Answer:
Yes, but with a major catch: it might surpass our limits rather than upgrade us.
AI can act as a massive cognitive prosthesis. Human brains are wired for a hunter- gatherer scale—we struggle inherently with high-dimensional mathematics, non-linear dynamics, and vast oceans of disparate data. AI doesn't have those biological bottlenecks. Tools like AlphaFold didn't just iterate on human biology; they solved a 50-year-old protein folding problem by navigating a complexity space humans simply lacked the neural architecture to map. In that sense, AI routinely pushes past our cognitive limits.
However, this creates a strange paradox regarding your "dog and calculus" analogy. If we develop an artificial general intelligence (or superintelligence) that finally cracks these incomprehensible problems, did we overcome our cognitive limits, or did we just build a tool that leaves us behind?
If an AI comprehends a truth about the universe that human biological hardware can never genuinely grasp, the limit hasn't been overcome for us. We are just trusting the output of an oracle we can't fully follow, much like a dog sitting quietly while a human solves an integral.
And finally, AI cannot bypass the hard physical and mathematical walls. No matter how advanced the neural network is, it still has to obey thermodynamics, compute within finite energy constraints, and respect Gödel's theorems. AI can optimize our journey right up to the edge of the cliff, but it can't wish the cliff away.
The premise for this question is the Kardeshevian Scale. I would posit that the Kardshevian Scale is erroneous based upon a proposition that energy is not as important as that theory suggests.
Albert Einstein thought it was imagination that mattered. Imagination doesn't require harnessing the energy of a star or a galaxy.
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity without a huge science project backing up his work. That theory updated Newton's Law of Gravitation. Newton didn't need a huge science project either. He just asked himself why the apple fell to the ground. Einstein just asked a few questions too, about why Newton's Law of Gravitation had a few problems with it. His answer was the Theory of Relativity. Maybe you just need to ask the right questions?
10/1/26: The original post is below:
The limits question:
Limits to Growth is one of the areas that I find objectionable. After this Q&A, will that opinion change?
Question:
Are there limits to scientific discovery?
Answer:
Yes, both fundamental and practical.
First, you have hard physical and mathematical boundaries. Quantum mechanics introduces limits like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meaning certain pairs of physical properties cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision. Information theory and thermodynamics impose limits on computation and energy extraction—you can't build a perpetual motion machine or process infinite data in a finite universe. Cosmology presents another absolute wall: the speed of light and the expansion of the universe mean that parts of the cosmos are permanently causally disconnected from us. We will never receive signals from or interact with galaxies beyond our cosmological horizon.
Second, there are computational and cognitive limits. Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that in any sufficiently complex formal system (like mathematics), there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system. Translating that to science, there may be truths about reality that are simply uncomputable or beyond the architecture of human cognition. Asking the human brain to fully comprehend the totality of existence might be like asking a dog to understand calculus.
Finally, there are practical and economic constraints. The energy required to probe smaller and smaller scales (think particle physics beyond the Large Hadron Collider) scales exponentially. Eventually, we hit economic, material, and energetic limits that make certain empirical investigations practically impossible, even if they aren't forbidden by fundamental physics.
Follow up question:
Can AI help us overcome these cognitive limits?
Answer:
Yes, but with a major catch: it might surpass our limits rather than upgrade us.
AI can act as a massive cognitive prosthesis. Human brains are wired for a hunter- gatherer scale—we struggle inherently with high-dimensional mathematics, non-linear dynamics, and vast oceans of disparate data. AI doesn't have those biological bottlenecks. Tools like AlphaFold didn't just iterate on human biology; they solved a 50-year-old protein folding problem by navigating a complexity space humans simply lacked the neural architecture to map. In that sense, AI routinely pushes past our cognitive limits.
However, this creates a strange paradox regarding your "dog and calculus" analogy. If we develop an artificial general intelligence (or superintelligence) that finally cracks these incomprehensible problems, did we overcome our cognitive limits, or did we just build a tool that leaves us behind?
If an AI comprehends a truth about the universe that human biological hardware can never genuinely grasp, the limit hasn't been overcome for us. We are just trusting the output of an oracle we can't fully follow, much like a dog sitting quietly while a human solves an integral.
And finally, AI cannot bypass the hard physical and mathematical walls. No matter how advanced the neural network is, it still has to obey thermodynamics, compute within finite energy constraints, and respect Gödel's theorems. AI can optimize our journey right up to the edge of the cliff, but it can't wish the cliff away.
Comment:
It doesn't change my mind. I can accept limits, but not limits that are arbitrarily decided upon in a political way.
Politicians cannot be trusted. But who can? The limits will likely be set by political structures as opposed to natural constraints. This is what I oppose.
Sunday, October 4, 2026
Wet Blanket Power
An example of what Wet Blanket Power is.
Flight 14 was an amazing success, yet there are people out there calling it a failure because the rocket exploded out in the Pacific.
There's power in being hyper-negative, or the New York Times wouldn't be doing it.
SpaceX will make money off Flight 14. Not bad for an experimental rocket still in development.
Flight 14 was an amazing success, yet there are people out there calling it a failure because the rocket exploded out in the Pacific.
There's power in being hyper-negative, or the New York Times wouldn't be doing it.
SpaceX will make money off Flight 14. Not bad for an experimental rocket still in development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)