One British man called Dennis Cambell who upon seeing how many carrier pilots were being killed once jets were introduced to carrier operations figured there had to be a way of eliminating all the death and mayhem. He presented his ideas to TPTB of the Royal Navy and was belittled and even told his idea was illegal. Thank goodness he didn't fold under pressure. 

Quote:In 1951, naval aviation was on the brink of collapse. Carrier pilots were dying every week, and landing a jet on a moving ship was almost suicidal. Then came Captain Dennis Cambell, a man with no engineering degree but one revolutionary idea — an angled flight deck that would change everything. This video reveals the untold story of how Cambell’s so-called “crazy landing method” transformed carrier operations forever. By simply angling the flight deck ten degrees to port, pilots who missed the arresting wires could safely go around instead of crashing into barricades or parked aircraft. The result? An 80% drop in carrier crashes and thousands of lives saved. Join us as we explore the incredible story of determination, innovation, and one man’s refusal to accept “that’s just how it’s done.”

54% of kids in the states have a chronic disease ...if true think about the ramifications

Quote:October 20, 2025 / Joseph P. Farrell

By now if you have not figured out that I am dead set against crypto-currencies (which I've nicknamed klepto-currencies), and central bank "digital 'currencies'", and the whole scam that was such an early part of the klepto-currency narrative (that they were "unhackable", were a way around the central banking monopolies on money creation, that they were guarantees of privacy and (the best one of them all) were "completely secure", then either you haven't been paying very close attention, or you're new here.

So when the following article popped into my email inbox, I was virtually certain it would be one of this week's blogs. But first, a word about the article itself. As most regular readers know, the blogs on this website are "community driven", i.e., I blog about articles that you, the readership of this site, send me. I sort through them every weekend, and try to decide if there are any discernible patterns or themes in the articles that people share, or if there is a particularly important story, and usually I blog about those. I also usually thank the individual for the article publicly by mentioning their initials in the blog. I this case, I have to thank this individual anonymously, because the individual has requested I not even use the initials to do so.

As for the story itself, it's in that "particularly important" category, and it has my high octane speculation motor running in overdrive. Here's the story:

PayPal’s crypto partner mints a whopping $300 trillion worth of stablecoins in ‘technical error’

Note this story very carefully:

Quote:Paxos, the blockchain partner of PayPal, mistakenly minted $300 trillion worth of the online payment giant’s stablecoin on Wednesday in what the company called a “technical error.” 

Market watchers had spotted the enormous injection of the PayPal PYUSD stablecoin on Etherscan — a block explorer and analytics platform for the Ethereum blockchain.
Paxos had mistakenly minted the stablecoins as part of an internal transfer, before it “immediately identified the error and burned the excess PYUSD,” the company said in a social media statement.
...
Transactions on Etherscan showed that the mistake had been fixed after about 20 minutes. 

PYUSD is advertised as a dollar-pegged stablecoin that is fully backed by U.S. dollar deposits, U.S. treasuries and similar cash equivalents. Therefore, PayPal says the tokens are always redeemable for U.S. dollars on a 1:1 basis. 
...

There aren’t enough dollars in global circulation to back $300 trillion PYUSD, which would theoretically require more than double the world’s estimated total GDP. (All italicized emphasis added)

So note the following: (1) $300,000,000,000,000.00 of "stablecoins" were "minted" by Paxos, a fact that would seem to give entirely new meanings to the definitions not only of "minting" but of "stable" and "stability"; (2) the amount of "stability" thus "minted" was approximately double the gross domestic product of the entire planet (thereby giving new potential meaning to the "derivatives crisis"); (3) the error was caught and fixed in a "mere" twenty minutes.

Woopsee.... sorry about that!... just a little accounting glitch... We fixed it! All better now! Go home, relax, have a beer, nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about!

Now, as one might imagine, I have all sorts of high octane speculations bouncing around in my tangled gray noodle about this one. Firstly, we're told very little about how this trifling error of a mere three hundred trillion dollars was made. Why, it's but a flyspeck in the pile of crud that the derivatives crisis involves. That said, and just for kicks and giggles, I'd like to assume that the mistake was made by some artificial intelligence-driven trading algorithm. In that case, that trifling error would seem to suggest all sorts of security problems with the system. So let's extend the high octane speculation a bit further. We're told in the article that all this "stability" was "mistakenly minted" as "part of an internal transfer," which is a nice, euphemistic way of saying that none of this "stability" spilled over into the "outside world" and became part of the stream of transactions.  So that, dear reader, is precisely the high octane speculation that I'd like to indulge and pursue. Let's assume that all this unhackable and completely secure "stability" spilled out into the outside world, that it became a part of the stream of transactions, that trades and deals we made on its basis, indeed, that some of these trades and deals were made on commodities or equities or securities markets by algorithmic trading programs at lightning speed, becoming parts of further trades and deals, which became parts of yet further transactions, and so on and so on.  One can imagine the cascading effect an injection of that amount of capital into the system would have... and then...

...the mistake is discovered.... What then? Is everything rolled back? If so, then why bother with the algorithmic trading platforms, and indeed, the whole blockchain and digital currency to begin with? The rollback costs time, and in this world, time is money. And if not, how does the instability and extreme volatility injected into the system create any trust among the people using it... and on and on we could go with such questions.

See you on the... oh, wait, one more thing. Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that the figure of three hundred trillion dollars is exactly the same figure that Dr. Tatiana Koryagina mentioned was available to the global cabal that was plotting terrorist acts on American soil in her Pravda article of July 2001, just a few months before 9/11...

...nah... it's just a coincidence...

See you on the flip side...

In the next 10 years if not sooner air warfare will be changed beyond most of our expectations. Notice how many companies are trying to make autonomous "loyal wingmen" ...

These things can pull up to 20+Gs or more. A manned aircraft is toast if these things lock on even with guns. 

There is no limit to what the great control freak minds can come up with. You like Beef, Bacon or any other meat product there is a gene waiting for you, compliments of the human's who hate mankind. Meat allergies can be created and there are actually those who think that is a good idea to prevent climate change... Last time I looked the climate has always been changing; sometimes for the good and sometimes Humans have a very real big problem just surviving the cold..

https://rumble.com/v70ljnw-wef-bioethici...-to-f.html

Much military movement in China... Is it because Xi is getting sacked by Coup or something else ?

Submarine hulls made of titanium can go deeper than standard steel hulls.  The Soviet Union built a series with titanium hulls but the USA did not.  Why?

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/why-...ke-russia/

Titanium brings real virtues—strength, corrosion resistance, low magnetism—but it also demands a bespoke fabrication ecosystem that chokes output and complicates repair. Steel, by contrast, supports acoustic superiority at tactically useful speeds, locks in commonality with allies, and enables rapid battle-damage recovery.

You cannot conjure up electron-beam welding cathedral-halls and titanium-purity workflows on a forward base after a near miss.

the gist is that the US went with steel as easier to work with and interchangeable with allies.  titanium work requires very special environments; fixing damage would have required taking the sub to one of a handful of facilities.

considering the track record of Soviet / Russian manufacturing, I wonder how fragile those titanium subs would have been in combat.

and of course the Titanium was much costlier than steel.

The daring daylight robbery happened this morning at 9.30 local time , 3 men had driven a lorry with a basket lift crane to the museum yesterday and seemingly left it there overnight , they returned this morning to use the lift , brake a window in the building and lower the thief into the building where he took the Crown Jewels , they then retrieved the goods made good their escape on motorbikes.

Quote:Art detective Arthur Brand told Sky News the heist is "the theft of the decade" - adding that in order to recover the "priceless" items, police will need to find the culprits in just one week.

"These crown jewels are so famous, you just cannot sell them," Mr Brand said. "The only thing they can do is melt the silver and gold down, dismantle the diamonds, try to cut them. "That's the way they will probably disappear forever.
He continued: "They [the police] have a week. If they catch the thieves, the stuff might still be there. If it takes longer, the loot is probably gone and dismantled. It's a race against time."

https://news.sky.com/story/louvre-museum...y-13453106

...or is it just another means of reset?

Quote:October 10, 2025 / Joseph P. Farrell

Even as I sat down last Sunday afternoon to comb through my emails and pull stories for blogging and honourable mentions, a story shared by A.F. popped into my inbox, and it intrigued me so much I postponed my original scheduled blog - which I had intended to title "I am Leo, Hear me roar!: The Papal Icecapades" - to blog about this story, because I have recently advanced yet another of my crazy high octane speculative scenarios that the whole Artificial Intelligence meme might be being pushed by the American government and deep state as the latest economic rope-a-dope scandal, much like Ronald Reagan's Star Wars strategic defense initiative was simultaneously a real project, but also a Potemkin village designed to ensnare the Soviet Union - and its economy - in a non-existent arms race it could not win, by getting it to invest money to try to keep pace with an American project that was more bluster than reality.

Similarly, my "artificial intelligence" scenario, I urged, might be a similar such project. For the relatively small investment of a few hundreds of millions or even a few billions of dollars in a few "megadata" centers, and for a momentary drain on the country's power grid and a little "suffering" on the part of the people trying to sustain skyrocketing energy costs, nations such as China might be fooled into committing massive monetary and energy resources into an artificial intelligence "race" and bust their economy. I even quipped that something had to be done to soak up all that excess Chinese energy production, and to syphon off the electrical output for useless artificial intelligence projects.

And then along came this paper shared by A.F. (with our thanks):

The AI Bubble and the U.S. Economy: How Long Do “Hallucinations” Last?

Why the AI, as in Artificial Information, bubble looks primed to pop soon despite it being a top bipartisan project in the US.

Now there's much in this paper to ponder, but what caught my eye is the relevance of the scenario of a "bubble" being outlined in the paper, to my recently advanced "break the tablets" scenario. The statement that concerns me occurs near the beginning of the paper:

Quote:The U.S. is undergoing an extraordinary AI-fueled economic boom: The stock market is soaring thanks to exceptionally high valuations of AI-related tech firms, which are fueling economic growth by the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars they are spending on data centers and other AI infrastructure. The AI investment boom is based on the belief that AI will make workers and firms significantly more productive, which will in turn boost corporate profits to unprecedented levels. But the summer of 2025 did not bring good news for enthusiasts of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) who were all hyped up by the inflated promise of the likes of OpenAI’s Sam Altman that “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI), the holy grail of current AI research, would be right around the corner.

Let us more closely consider the hype. Already in January 2025, Altman wrote that “we are now confident we know how to build AGI”. Altman’s optimism echoed claims by OpenAI’s partner and major financial backer Microsoft, which had put out a paper in 2023 claiming that the GPT-4 model already exhibited “sparks of AGI.” Elon Musk (in 2024) was equally confident that the Grok model developed by his company xAI would reach AGI, an intelligence “smarter than the smartest human being”, probably by 2025 or at least by 2026. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company was committed to “building full general intelligence”, and that super-intelligence is now “in sight”. Likewise, Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, said “powerful AI”, i.e., smarter than a Nobel Prize winner in any field, could come as early as 2026, and usher in a new age of health and abundance — the U.S. would become a “country of geniuses in a datacenter”, if ….. AI didn’t wind up killing us all.

For Mr. Musk and his GenAI fellow travelers, the biggest hurdle on the road to AGI is the lack of computing power (installed in data centers) to train AI bots, which, in turn, is due to a lack of sufficiently advanced computer chips. The demand for more data and more data-crunching capabilities will require about $3 trillion in capital just by 2028, in the estimation of Morgan Stanley. That would exceed the capacity of the global credit and derivative securities markets. Spurred by the imperative to win the AI-race with China, the GenAI propagandists firmly believe that the U.S. can be put on the yellow brick road to the Emerald City of AGI by building more data centers faster (an unmistakenly “accelerationist” expression). (Italicized and boldface emphases added)

Ponder that emphasized statement in the context in which it occurs very carefully. The artificial intelligence scheme being currently pursued would soak up more credit than the current credit market could sustain.

And therewith my high octane speculation of the day, for if this be true and if Morgan Stanley's evaluation of the situation is correct, then we are confronted with yet another scenario: might an artificial intelligence bubble simply be one means of soaking up all the bad paper sloshing around in the system? Is a bubble(artificial intelligence) being created to soak up a previous bubble (the derivates crisis hangover from 2008?)

Well... maybe.

But there's a huge fly in the ointment, according to the article, and that fly is so huge that it is implying the exact reverse of my artificial intelligence-Potemkin village scenario. After rehearsing a number of "letdowns" in the artificial intelligence world, from the increasing failures of large language models to the fact that 95% of generative artificial intelligence companies fail, the author closes in on the fundamental problem of the American economy and the current artificial intelligence bubble: it's all hallucination and completely unreal:

Quote:America’s High-Stakes Geopolitical Get Gone Wrong

The AI boom (bubble) developed with the support of both major political parties in the U.S. The vision of American firms pushing the AI frontier and reaching GenAI first is widely shared — in fact, there is a bipartisan consensus on how important it is that the U.S. should win the global AI race. America’s industrial capability is critically dependent on a number of potential adversary nation-states, including China. In this context, America’s lead in GenAI is considered to constitute a potential very powerful geopolitical lever: If America manages to get to AGI first, so the analysis goes, it can build up an overwhelming long-term advantage over especially China (see Farrell).

That is the reason why Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Trump administration are doubling down on the “AGI First” strategy. But astute observers highlight the costs and risks of this strategy.

Prominently, Eric Schmidt and Selina Xu worry, in the New York Times of August 19, 2025, that “Silicon Valley has grown so enamored with accomplishing this goal [of AGI] that it’s alienating the general public and, worse, bypassing crucial opportunities to use the technology that already exists. In being solely fixated on this objective, our nation risks falling behind China, which is far less concerned with creating A.I. powerful enough to surpass humans and much more focused on using the technology we have now.”

Schmidt and Xu are rightly worried. Perhaps the plight of the U.S. economy is captured best by OpenAI’s Sam Altman who fantasizes about putting his data centers in space: “Like, maybe we build a big Dyson sphere around the solar system and say, “Hey, it actually makes no sense to put these on Earth.”” For as long as such ‘hallucinations’ on using solar-collecting satellites to harvest (unlimited) star power continue to convince gullible financial investors, the government and users of the “magic” of AI and the AI industry, the U.S. economy is surely doomed. (emphasis added)

What is highly intriguing about these paragraphs is the geopolitical context in which all this artificial intelligence development is couched. Indeed, the statement that China is focused on optimizing current artificial intelligence capabilities while the USA is focused on developing the next generation capabilities is a misreading of the situation, for one only need recall all of those stories in recent years, emanating from China, of this or that breakthrough in quantum computing, or entanglement encryption, and so on. And that suggests, quite strongly, that if anyone has been erecting Potemkin villages to force an opponent to waste vast amounts of money on projects that have no immediate or mid-term benefit, it is not the United States doing so to China, but rather the opposite, China doing so to the United States.

Well, once again, that's possible in our usual high-octane-speculation way.  The problem, however, is that all that bad paper is sloshing around not just in the American financial system, but in China's as well, and that means that this financial game and the artificial intelligence Potemkin villages accompanying it may be a much more complex and complicated game than meets anyone's eye.

Even so, it's worth remembering a significant fact that I pointed out way back in my book Babylon's Banksters(see pp. 21-23): the man responsible for creating the mathematical model that led to the creation of all that bad paper - the derivatives mess with its mortgage based securities and credit default swaps and bundles of bundles of securities - was a mathematician by the name of Dr. David Li.

And, yes, he was Chinese, and after a stint with the Canadian Imperial Bank, he returned to China where he headed up a department - and no, I am not kidding here - evaluating economic risk and risk assessment strategies. Just the sort of thing one might specialize in if one wanted, perhaps, to create Potemkin village projects...

See you on the flip side...

Three sentences which i feel go far in the rabbit hole .....


Culture is not you friend   (Terence Mckenna )







And the way language affect, models our perception in to level beyond reality....






Did you ever got that odd feeling ?  What is this.....is this the matrix....is this some kind of simulation .....or something is off and you have felt that your entire life ,but cant precisely accurately define it ?


I think, much of our surroundings /  realitys  are too articifial , not true enough .Which then keeps our minds distracted and dumbed down .

I really dont feel using the word hallucination is wrong word to be used in this context related to this all ........

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)