NATO loses to Russia in wargame

 Read: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/13/russia-nato-wargame-germany-simulation-00778818

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/11/welt-war-games-simulation-germany-00776446

https://www.germanwargamingcenter.eu/en

This wargame occurred on December 1, 2025.

In each room, the players keep their eyes glued on a giant TV screen where, with the aid of AI, the initial action plays out in the form of short videos and a mock news show. During the course of the war game, the teams are kept apprised of the other team’s actions with written text that flashes on the screen. (An international group, including Longescu and Rathke, participate remotely from Brussels, Warsaw and Washington, keeping track of the action via a WhatsApp group text.)  The teams cannot hear one another. But they are informed of each other’s moves — broadcast on the large screens — as the simulation unfolds.

“Blue failed to do the one thing that would have forced Red to adjust its strategy: military action,” he said. The simulation ended with many questions left unanswered. Does Russia fully hold the corridor? Does NATO eventually activate its defense plans? Can Europe act without the United States? Does the German brigade ultimately fight? Would a Russian advance succeed in reality? None of this is resolved. But that was never the point of the war game. The aim was to expose German decision-making patterns and their weaknesses — and to explore what they could mean for the alliance as a whole. One thing, however, is clear: Deterrence does not fail at the moment of escalation. It fails long before.

Debt to the Public hits $31 trillion

As of today Feb 12, 2026, the debt to the public is  $31,010,830,716,181.61 .

I had previously predicted it would hit this number on 3/1/26, so this is a couple of weeks early.

This was 5 months after it hit $30 trillion in September 2025.  It was at $29 trillion just 2 months prior on July 4, 2025.

But under the 2 year pattern theory, the debt level is only growing arithmetically, not exponentially.  Let's see.

The debt was at $27 trillion on 1/23/24, just over 2 years ago.

It was at $23 trillion on 12/28/21, just over 2 years before that.

It was at $18 trillion on on 4/7/20, just under 2 years before that.  (I added an extra trillion in there to account for the COVID spending).

So since 2020 (except for the extra COVID spending) the debt has been increasing almost exactly $2 trillion per year.  And it goes in a 2 year cycle to account for hitting the debt limit.

So, it should hit $32 trillion on about August 12, 2026.

How much I feel

 

… I don't know how this whole business started
Of you thinkin' that I have been untrue
But if you think that we'd be better parted
It's gonna hurt me, but I'll break away from you
Just give me the sign and I will be gone
Yeah, yeah, yeah

… 'Cause that's how much I feel
Feel for you, baby
(How much I need) well I need your touch
(How much I live) I live for your loving
That's how much (that's how much)
That's how much, that's how much

New CBO report

 The CBO has released a new report entitled "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036".  It projects that the Debt Held by the Public will exceed 120% of GDP by 2036.  (It is currently at 99.4% as of 9/30/25).

It projects that interest will first exceed $1.5 trillion per year in 2031, and by 2036 it will be $2.1 trillion annually.

The NY Times article about this is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/business/federal-debt-record-levels-budget-office.html .  It blames Trump for making the situation worse by enacting income tax cuts and also for cracking down on immigration, which it says will reduce projected tax revenue by $500 billion over the 10 year period.

Rep Ted Lieu claims Epstein files have highly disturbing allegations against Donald Trump - provides no links

 Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1qvsksf/rep_lieu_says_epstein_files_have_allegations_of/  

https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/rep-ted-lieu-claims-president-trump-is-accused-of-raping-children-in-the-epstein-files/5191713

Yes, there is one document that collected outlandish claims, highlighted in yellow, against Trump and others, which came from anonymous tips.  The FBI did not follow up on these because they were not credible.  If someone says "the Epstein files contain ... ", they need to provide the link because there are hundreds of thousands of documents in them.

This is the document, listed twice, with different redactions on each.  Obviously the FBI did not believe any of the allegations.  

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01660651.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01660679.pdf

===================================

I typed "Ted Lieu" in to the Epstein files search engine and he is mentioned in 5 documents.  These are in intelligence bulletins which for some reason are listed in the files.  But still, if you are being vague, Ted, you should explain why you are in the Epstein files.

====================

Here is another supposedly incrimination letter.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01682027.pdf

This is all hand-written in cursive and it is a little hard to read.  It is from a certain Phyllis Morris Shaw dated June 14, 2025, and it was sent to the Assistant US Attorney for New York on 6/16/25.  In her letter she talks about her last year of high school in 1967, so she would have been born about 1949 or 1950. It starts out: "My testimony places Donald J Trump as a person involved in the sale of young women to the sex trafficking ring of Jeffrey Epstein and Saudi's."

I don't really care to read any more and the letter is 32 pages long.  This is obviously from a mentally disturbed old lady.

Ted Lieu probably believes every word is true.

Palm Beach police reports

 Palm Beach police report from 2005: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022654.pdf

 Palm Beach police report from 2006: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%204/EFTA00007157.pdf

Also see a letter from Epstein's attorneys questioning some of the statements in the police report. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00208923.pdf

Virginia Giuffre v Epstein

 Was Epstein ever accused of having sex with Virginia Guiuffre when she was under 18?

Yes — Virginia Giuffre (formerly Roberts) did publicly accuse Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her while she was under 18 and of trafficking her for sex with others when she was a minor, including in some of her accounts. However, the most widely reported lawsuits and accusations focus on her being 17 at the time of those alleged encounters, not younger than that.

Here’s the detailed picture:

🧵 1. Giuffre’s own accounts

• Virginia Giuffre said she was recruited by Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell when she was a teenager working at Mar-a-Lago and then pressured into sexual activity while she was around 17 and 18 years old.

• In legal filings and media interviews, she alleged that Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, when she was 17.

• Some lawsuits (e.g., her 2015/2016 filings) contained claims about her being sexually abused starting as a minor.

📌 2. Age specifics

• In many of the most documented allegations, Giuffre was 17 at the time of the sexual encounters she described. This is below 18 and therefore a minor under U.S. law (though age of consent varies by state and country).

• Court filings about her age have been contested and debated. Some defense filings pointed to documentary evidence suggesting she may have been older than she initially claimed at certain points, but she herself maintained that she was trafficked and abused as a teenager.

⚖️ 3. Criminal charges and accusations

• Epstein himself faced federal and state charges for sex trafficking of minors, including accusations that he solicited minors for sex acts. Separately, Giuffre’s allegations about being trafficked as a minor were part of broader public and legal controversy.

• However, Epstein was never criminally convicted specifically for having sex with Giuffre herself, because many of her detailed allegations were made in civil suits, not in the criminal prosecutions that ended with Epstein’s death in 2019.

🧠 Summary

Yes, Giuffre accused Epstein (and Maxwell) of trafficking and sexually exploiting her when she was a minor (under 18), particularly at age 17. Many of her most public allegations—including those involving Prince Andrew—hinge on her being trafficked as a teenager, which is legally significant even if not all details are identical in every filing.

If you want, I can explain how the legal outcomes differed between Epstein’s criminal cases and the civil lawsuits Giuffre filed.

=================================================

Was Epstein ever successfully sued in civil court by Virginia Giuffre for sexual abuse or sex trafficking or anything else?

Short answer: no — Virginia Giuffre never obtained a civil court judgment against Jeffrey Epstein himself for sexual abuse, sex trafficking, or related claims.

Here’s the clean breakdown, because this stuff gets muddled a lot:

---

What didn’t happen

• Epstein was never found civilly liable to Giuffre by a court.

• There was no trial verdict and no judicial finding against Epstein in her favor.

• Epstein died in 2019 before any civil case against him could reach that stage.

---

What did happen

1. Giuffre vs. Ghislaine Maxwell (civil case)

• Giuffre did sue Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation in federal court.

• That case settled in 2017 for an undisclosed amount.

• As part of that settlement, Maxwell did not admit wrongdoing.

• This was not a judgment and not against Epstein.

2. Giuffre’s claims involving Epstein

• Giuffre publicly accused Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking her.

• Those accusations appeared in:

  • sworn statements

  • civil pleadings

  • media interviews

• But her claims against Epstein himself were never resolved by a court because:

  • some were not formally litigated to judgment, and

  • Epstein died before they could be.

3. Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program (after his death)

• After Epstein died, his estate created a victims’ compensation fund (administered by Kenneth Feinberg).

• Giuffre did receive compensation from this program.

• Important legal point:

  • This was voluntary compensation from the estate

  • Not a lawsuit

  • Not an admission of liability

  • Not a court ruling

---

Why this matters legally

A lot of headlines blur these distinctions, but in strict legal terms:

• Accused ≠ sued to judgment

• Settlement ≠ court finding

• Compensation fund ≠ liability determination

So while Giuffre’s allegations were serious, public, and influential, Epstein was never “successfully sued” by her in civil court in the sense lawyers use that phrase.

======================================

In conclusion: Epstein was never criminally convicted of sexually abusing or trafficking Virginia Giuffre.  He was also never sued by her.  

Affidavit against Alan Dershowitz

 I was looking information about Maria Farmer and came across these links:

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018027.jpg

(Page 2 of 4 of Affidavit). Maria Farmer says she was a receptionist ("manning the front door and keeping records") in 1996 at the NY Epstein mansion and questioned why young girls were coming over.  Maxwell said that they were interviewing for modeling positions.  Farmer saw Dershowitz go upstairs at a time when there young girls under 18 present.

(The affidavit was apparently signed in 2019 as part of the Virginia Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz case, which was later dismissed).

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017949.jpg

(Page 15 of 28, paragraph 58).  Basically the same.

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017954.jpg

(Page 20 of 28, subparagraph (b)).  Dershowitz's claim that he had not "stayed" at Epstein's house was "proven false" by the statement of Maria Farmer (that she had seen Dershowitz go upstairs).  Subparagraph (f). Dershowitz's claim that he had never "been in the presence of young females" was "proven false" by, among other witnesses, the statement of Maria Farmer.

I am not really interested at this point in claims against Dershowitz.  I am interested in accusations from Maria Farmer and am not seeing anything yet.

=================

Dershowitz answered a lawsuit stating in part: "To the extent a response is required, the allegations Ms. Farmer makes concerning Dershowitz are false, and they are denied.  Upon information and belief, Ms. Farmer never saw Dershowitz in Epstein’s New York residence because her employment with Epstein ended months before Dershowitz ever set foot in Epstein’s New York residence.".   https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dershowtiz-Counterclaim.pdf , page 9.

Dershowitz also called Virginia Giuffre a liar, which she apparently was. "Committed to her lie, and using Dershowitz’s public invitation to sue as cover, Giuffre has now sued Dershowitz for defamation for calling her a liar. But Giuffre is a liar. She has told numerous provable lies about her age, who she has met, whether she had emails concerning Dershowitz, and other fabrications, in addition to her false accusations about sex with Dershowitz. Her lies concerning Dershowitz have caused tremendous damage to his personal and professional reputation, his business, his health and caused him emotional and physical pain and suffering. " page 21.

==============================

My tentative conclusion is that Maria Farmer is not a credible witness.  The FBI did not believe her in her 1996 complaint, which I can't find a link to.  Later, she makes statements against Dershowitz which are proven false.

Why wasn't Epstein prosecuted for conduct occuring prior to 2002?

 Please outline why earlier complaints against Epstein (before 2002) weren't prosecuted.

Here’s a clear outline of why credible complaints about Jeffrey Epstein before 2002 — especially in the late 1990s — were not prosecuted at the time, despite later revelations that they existed:

---

🔎 1. Early Complaints Existed but Did Not Result in Action

1996 FBI Report (Maria Farmer)

• Newly released federal documents confirm that a complaint was made to the FBI in 1996 alleging Epstein had stolen explicit photographs of minors and might have been involved with child pornography and related sexual misconduct.

• The complaint reportedly included alarming details — including threats — but the FBI did not open a formal investigation until about 2006.

Why this wasn’t prosecuted then:

• At the time, neither the FBI nor local prosecutors appear to have pursued the matter. It’s not publicly clear why — records show no subsequent investigative steps were taken for nearly 10 years after the 1996 complaint.

• Internal DOJ reviews later omitted any reference to this early complaint, suggesting it was not integrated into broader law enforcement efforts.

---

🧑‍⚖️ 2. Law Enforcement Interpreted or Dismissed Early Reports

Local Police and Other Reports in the Late 1990s–2001

• Other accounts suggest that Epstein faced minor local inquiries or informal reports (such as a 1997 police contact or early Palm Beach interest in 2001), but without confirmed evidence of statutory crimes at the time, these did not lead to prosecution.

• Police comments in some local cases reflected skepticism about whether offenses had actually occurred, rather than immediate action on serious charges.

Reasons prosecutors often declined to pursue charges:

• Lack of physical evidence or credible victim testimony at the time: This is a common challenge in sexual abuse cases, particularly those involving powerful individuals.

• “He said / she said” litigation concerns: Prosecutors in the 1990s often hesitated to pursue cases where evidence beyond testimony was limited, especially against wealthy or well-connected defendants.

• Institutional inertia or low prioritization of sex crimes then: Prior to the modern evolution of child-abuse prosecution approaches, some agencies did not aggressively investigate or coordinate on such matters.

---

🧩 3. Systemic Failures and Delays in Response

A combination of factors appears to have contributed to why credible early complaints were not prosecuted:

A. Lack of Prompt Investigative Follow-Up

• The FBI did not engage fully with the 1996 report until years later, and there’s no indication early leads were pursued at the time.

B. Coordination Failures Between Agencies

• Early reports to local police were sometimes deflected to federal authorities, and communication between the FBI and local law enforcement was reportedly inconsistent in the 1990s.

C. Prosecutorial Hesitation

• Prosecutors historically hesitated to bring complicated sex-abuse cases that they felt might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating physical evidence.

D. Statute and Evidentiary Standards at the Time

• The law enforcement and prosecutorial environment of the 1990s sometimes treated allegations of this nature differently than later decades, when more specialized units and awareness of trafficking emerged.

---

📌 Summary

Credible complaints — including one in 1996 alleging child pornography and threats — were made to law enforcement about Epstein well before 2002.
But none of those early reports resulted in criminal charges at the time, largely because:

1. Authorities did not open a meaningful investigation when the first federal complaint was made;

2. Local police and prosecutors often did not see overwhelming evidence or statutory violations they felt could be successfully prosecuted;

3. There were failures in communication and follow-through among law enforcement agencies.

These gaps have since been the subject of public scrutiny and legal claims against the government for neglecting early warnings. 

Was Jeffrey Epstein clean after 2005?

 Did Jeffrey Epstein engage in any conduct after 2005 which was criminal in nature? Please exclude any conduct he engaged in before 2006 for which he was later accused or charged.

Short answer:
Based on credible public records and prosecutions, there is no documented criminal conduct by Jeffrey Epstein after 2005 that was ever charged or formally pursued by prosecutors as a standalone offense separate from earlier conduct. The major federal indictment in 2019 was based on alleged sexual abuse and trafficking up to 2005, not after.

Here’s a breakdown to clarify that:

---

📌 1. 2019 Federal Charges Did Not Allege Crimes After 2005

When Epstein was arrested and federally indicted in July 2019, the indictment charged him with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking involving dozens of underage girls. However:

• The indictment specifically alleged conduct occurring from at least 2002 through at least 2005.

• Prosecutors did not allege criminal conduct after 2005 in that indictment — even though the arrest occurred more than a decade later.

So although the case was brought in 2019, it was based on earlier criminal acts, not new offenses after 2005.

---

📌 2. No New Criminal Charges After 2005

Despite extensive scrutiny of Epstein’s activities after he was released from jail in 2009 and later years:

• No new criminal charges or indictments were brought alleging that Epstein committed crimes after 2005.
  Even after the massive release of documentation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the U.S. Justice Department has stated that the materials do not establish grounds for new criminal charges related to Epstein’s conduct following the earlier period.

This means that — based on current public records and official statements — prosecutors did not find (or at least did not assert in court) credible evidence of distinct criminal acts by Epstein after 2005 that resulted in charges.

---

📌 3. Civil Litigation and Allegations

There have been civil lawsuits and allegations suggesting Epstein’s network and behavior may have continued in various forms after his 2008 conviction and 2009 release. For example:

• Some civil suits (not criminal prosecutions) have alleged continued exploitation or trafficking harms extending into the 2010s, including claims involving visits to his Virgin Islands properties.

However:

• Civil suits are not the same as criminal convictions or indictments.

• Claims in civil litigation do not mean that prosecutors found sufficient credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to pursue charges.

• Many such civil allegations remain unproven and are not part of the official criminal record.

---

🧾 Summary

• Epstein’s criminal conduct that was prosecuted or formally charged all relates to activities up through 2005 — including the 2008 plea and the 2019 federal indictment.

• There were no documented criminal charges brought for conduct occurring after 2005.

• Although civil lawsuits and publicly released evidence raise questions about broader patterns of behavior, these have not resulted in additional criminal accusations of post-2005 wrongdoing that were prosecuted

Epstein and Friends

 

This was sent to me via WhatsApp and I don't know the source.  There is Michael Jackson holding a machine gun and Jeffrey on the right.  I don't know the other people in the photo.  It is obviously AI generated and it looks very realistic.

The Epstein files

Go to: https://www.justice.gov/epstein . This has about 3 million pages.  I am interesting in the layout of the island, which is a very cool super-villain lair.  Some random stuff:

Proposed design of Cabana (14 pages):  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01078535.pdf

Pictures, drawings and maps of Little Saint James (100 pages):  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00259204.pdf

More drawings of the island (65 pages): https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00259304.pdf

Here is the civil complaint filed by the Virgin Islands against the Epstein estate: https://vicourts.hosted.civiclive.com/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16364025

Also see: epsteinsimages.com for pictures of interiors.  I don't know which house these come from and they aren't labeled.

Silver tops $103/ounce

 

It was just over $70 on 12/31/25.  It looks like it will keep going higher, maybe up to $150 in a few months.

==============

Update (1/30/25):  The price is now $86.61.  It was briefly at $121.93 yesterday (1/29), and it dropped as low as $76.85 earlier today.

Important message to Englishmen from Amelia

 

Source:  https://patriots.win/p/1ARwe7QZ4H/todays-message-from-amelia/c/4eZCtbN6nGp

This isn't on YouTube and it will probably disappear quickly.  My transcript:

England brought civilisation to the world, and the world still needs civilised England. English people are being overrun with migrant third-world layabouts and militant muslims. Englishmen I have known you for your stiff upper lip as you enjoy your replacement and the ruin of your country. What I need from you instead is to stiffen your spine, stand up and stop it from happening.

Professor Jiang Xueqin

 For further research.  Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Xueqin.

He has a BA from Yale in 1999.  He doesn't have a PhD.  He teaches Western Philosophy to high school students in Beijing, China.

Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/@PredictiveHistory  He has about 100 videos posted.

He is extremely smart.  I may go through and summarize with the help of AI what he is saying.

Amelia's Message to the lads in Britain

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA81wDTsYnQ

Did the communists just take over Virginia?

 I just read some remarks that the communists just took over Virginia and are close to taking over other states.  What happened and is this an exaggeration?  Let my ask my friend ChatGPT.

======================================

I just read that there was a quiet revolution in Virginia. What happened - was there a new governor, or change in control of the legislature, or new voting laws or guns laws passed?

Yes — what you’re referring to in Virginia really is a kind of “quiet revolution” in its politics and government, and it’s several related developments happening at once rather than just one headline-grabbing law:

🧑‍⚖️ 1. New Governor and Historic Democratic Wins

• Abigail Spanberger (D) was sworn in on January 17, 2026 as Virginia’s first woman governor after winning the 2025 election. Her inauguration was historic not just for her gender but also because Democrats also placed Ghazala F. Hashmi as lieutenant governor and Jay Jones as attorney general — both historic firsts in their own right.

• Democrats also expanded their majorities in both chambers of the Virginia legislature (House of Delegates and Senate), giving them a trifecta (control of the governor’s office and both legislative chambers).

This shift in control is widely seen as a big political change because for much of the last decade Virginia was considered a swing state with tightly contested government.

🪑 2. Legislative Control — Democrats in Charge

With the trifecta, Virginia Democrats are now in a much stronger position to pass their priorities — and that’s part of what people mean by a “quiet revolution.” Under unified control:

• The legislature moved forward on constitutional amendments that voters will decide in 2026 — including a Rights to Reproductive Freedom Amendment and other measures related to voting rights and same-sex marriage.

• Another proposed amendment would give Virginia’s legislature the power to redraw congressional districts mid-decade, a departure from the independent commission process.

🗳️ 3. Voting Law Changes & Amendments

While not all have taken effect yet, the legislature has taken steps toward other major shifts:
• A proposed voting rights restoration amendment — to automatically restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated people upon release — passed the session and is moving toward the ballot.
• Work continues on other election law changes, including studies on things like ranked-choice voting and election scheduling.

⚖️ 4. Gun Laws (and Political Debate)

There hasn’t been an immediate dramatic overhaul of gun laws — but this is a major point of contention:
• In the recent past, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed many gun-control measures passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
• Now with Democrats in unified control, there is expectation among advocates on both sides that new gun legislation may be put forward once the legislative session fully gets underway under Gov. Spanberger (with some online political commentary predicting potentially significant changes).

📌 Summary — So What’s the “Quiet Revolution”?

It’s not one single law. It’s a shift in the political balance of power in Virginia with:

• A new governor — Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat and first woman in the role.

• Democrats now controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s office — enabling policy changes that were previously blocked or vetoed.

• Major constitutional amendments being advanced on ballot questions on reproductive rights, voting rights, and redistricting.

• Ongoing policy shifts and debates on elections, civil rights, guns, and more.

So the “quiet revolution” phrase you saw likely refers to this broad transformation in how political power and priorities are shaping policy in Virginia, especially compared to the state’s recent history of more divided government.

==============================

Conclusion:  So the Democrats are now firmly in control in Virginia, the same as in 17 other states.  And 23 states have Republicans firmly in control.  So it seems like the headline is an exaggeration.  But I will update this if I see something else.

When will the Technological Singularity occur?

 The “technological singularity” is the hypothetical future point when superintelligent AI surpasses all human intelligence through a human-machine merger that irreversibly transforms civilization by transcending biological limits via neural implants, nanobots and cloud intelligence. This is fundamentally guided by a Transhumanism philosophy.

-- https://www.theburningplatform.com/2026/01/16/dream-on-elon-ai-will-not-bring-utopia/

I asked ChatGPT when the singularity will occur?

what is the "technological singularity"? do you think this will occur and if so, approximately which year do you think it will happen?

The technological singularity is a hypothetical point in the future when technological progress—especially in artificial intelligence—becomes self-accelerating and effectively uncontrollable, leading to changes so profound that human life afterward would be fundamentally different and hard to predict.

... (Skip some paragraphs)

When might it happen?

Estimates vary wildly, but here’s a grounded range based on current trends:

• AGI (human-level general intelligence): plausibly 2030–2045

• Runaway self-improving superintelligence: uncertain, possibly 2040–2070, if at all

• A practical “singularity-like” world (where AI reshapes most industries and institutions): likely by the 2030s–2040s

If forced to give a single year for a meaningful singularity-style transition—not a sci-fi instant but a point of no return—I’d put it around 2040 ± 10 years.

==============================

So, the robots will take over by 2040?  Get ready.

The Church of Climate and the Law of Unintended Consequences

 Read this excellent article: https://investor.fm/the-church-of-climate-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/

As an investor, my role is simple—my clients hire me to protect and grow their wealth. In other words, they hire me to make them money. The ESG movement, the vilification of oil companies, and the political incorrectness of investing in them have created opportunities; energy stocks were left for dead a few years ago. We took advantage of it. More importantly for this discussion, I am hired to make economic, not social decisions.

I do not apply my personal social filter when making investment decisions; I let my clients do that. We have a large, diverse client base with varying views on the world. The beauty of managing separate accounts is that we can customize portfolios to fit those views. Some clients tell us not to own tobacco, some have a beef with social media and tell us to never own Facebook (Meta), others have strong views on Elon Musk and ask us not to buy any Musk-related companies. Others ask us not to own oil companies. We even have clients who, due to their faith, don’t want us to own banks and liquor stocks. We don’t judge; we just don’t buy.

We are not allergic to investing in green energy stocks; they just have to make economic and financial sense—in other words, they have to be good investments (excluding subsidies, which are subject to political football). In the meantime, I focus on the reality of supply and demand, not the “religion” of the moment. The reality is that the world still runs on energy.

The website is called The Intellectual Investor by Vitaliy Katsenelson.

3Q 2025 GDP is $31.1 trillion

 See https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/gdp3q25-ini.pdf, page 9, line 1, where the number is 31,095.1 billion. This is up from 30,485.7 at the end of Q2 2025. 

They don't make it easy to find.  Instead the summary reads: Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025 (July, August, and September).  To me, it looks like GDP increased by 2% during the quarter (31,095 / 30,486), so I don't know how they calculate their numbers, or how they separate "real" GDP from "current-dollar" GDP. Anyways, the increase is good.

So what is the ratio of debt to GDP?  Total national debt was $37.6 trillion as of 9/30/25, for a ratio of  121%.  This is down from 122% a year ago, so that is good.

For debt to the public, it was $30.3 trillion, for a ratio of 97.5%, up from 96.9% a year ago.