mewetree
Thursday, 14 May 2026
Iran Needs To be Stopped
Friday, 1 May 2026
Alberta Oil
Alberta is Canada's energy powerhouse.
In 2025, Alberta exported about 3.56 million barrels per day (bpd). There are numerous export expansions in the works including an expansion by Enbridge which will optimize its mainline oil pipe operations in Canada adding up to 150,000 bpd by 2026-2027 and potentially another 250,000 bpd by late 2028, and the TMX pipeline will see additional growth via an expansion beyond the existing 890,000 bpd to a "Phase 2" pump station expansion could add another 360,000 bpd by 2028.
Together, these changes will expand Alberta's exports to about 4.35 million bpd by 2028.
President Trump has approved an expansion to the Bridger Pipeline from Albert to Wyoming that could add another 550,000 bpd to exports. The governments of Alberta and Canada are working on another pipeline to move Alberta oil to the West Coast of Canada that could see up to 1 million bpd more oil exported from Alberta by 2035.
If these planned pipeline expansions come to fruition, Alberta could be exporting about 5.9 million bpd day by 2035. That would make Alberta the third largest exporter of oil on the planet after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and ahead of the USA and Iraq, assuming the war in Ukraine ceases and Russia can again export oil as it did prior to the war.
For context, it is worth noting that in 2015 Alberta only exported 2.5 million bpd. If planned pipeline expansions and construction goes ahead, by 2035 it would be exporting 235% more oil than it exported two decades prior.
There is an independence movement in Alberta that has complained loudly that Alberta's economic potential has been purposely quashed by federal government policies that have seen the cancellation of pipelines and the implementation of climate change policies. This sentiment is widely shared by the majority of Albertans who want Alberta to remain in Canada. One would hope that the planned expansions of Alberta's oil exporting capacity noted above will go a very long way to address these concerns.
Saturday, 14 March 2026
The British Monarchy On The Tropes
The Epstein thing has rocked the very foundations of the British Monarchy. A summary, so far...
Tuesday, 3 March 2026
Understanding Venezuela and Iran
There is a new war on!
It's the USA and Israel, and likely others versus Iran!
What is this all about?
The previous American attack on Venezuela resulted in opening up the country to private investment in the oil sector, reversing decades of national control.
The negotiations with the Iranians likely involve removing the nuclear threat, but also some private ownership and control of Iran's oil reserves. Iran was about to allow what would have amounted to limited joint ventures between private firms and the national oil company, but it would still have banned outright private ownership of Iran's oil. I suspect that this will be lifted once there is a deal in place after the war is over.
The key here is that the odious Venezuelan regime was left in charge, with some sops to democracy via release of political prisoners etc. The Mullahs will likely be left in charge as well. There is no plan for regime change because they aren't serious about regime change if they can get at the oil.
This is about colonialism, not freedom.
The wild-card here is Israel which wants to see Iran's regime utterly destroyed. They want the Mullahs gone, so behind the scenes there is likely a debate between those who favour colonization of Iran with the Mullahs in charge - a.k.a. the Americans - and the Israelis who don't care about oil, but who want this existential threat eliminated. The debate will likely end in an all-around agreement on killing as many Iranian leaders as possible, within a defined time frame.
These wars were and are clearly illegal. Illegal in international law, and illegal in American law. This isn't even debatable.
Canada's PM Carney has read the room correctly - stick to Canada's previous position against the Iranians getting the Bomb, and say nothing about the illegality, which is consistent with his "end of the world order as we know it" speech in Davos.
Query - if the Americans and Israelis can do this, why pre tell, could Russia not invade Ukraine, or China not invade Taiwan?
"Might is Right" and "The Law of the Jungle" and Hobbes' view of "The State of Nature" all rule again.
Is every small country on the menu?
Tuesday, 6 January 2026
British WW2 Military Travesties
British tank crews had to take on a few of these German tanks....
Low and Slow: This is what the British sent out to try to torpedo Japanese warships and transports during their invasion of Malaya in December, 1941.
This is a Vickers Vildebeest. Top speed was 143 mph, with a defensive armament of two .303 caliber machine guns. It had no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks which had become standard at least a year earlier on all British combat aircraft.
Cannon Fodder: Here are the two primary fighter aircraft that the British used through 1941 and 1942 to try to defeat the German Me-109, which was the primary German fighter aircraft in the theatre...
The British did have an aircraft that could compete with the ME-109 F; the Spitfire Mark V. They didn't send this plane to North Africa and Malta until March 1942. The Luftwaffe arrived in North Africa in April, 1941. This meant the Brits left their fighter pilots to take on Me-109's in their Hurricanes and P-40s for almost a year before a really competitive fighter plane was sent.
The Venerable .303!: In the 1930's the British had to decide what weapon they would use to arm their bombers and fighters for future wars. They looked at the .303 machine gun, .50 calibre machine gun, and 20 mm cannon. They decided that Browning machine guns using the .303 bullet would be used to arm their fighter aircraft and their bombers to defend against enemy fighter aircraft.
Can Anyone In This Country Design A Tank?: The British didn't field a really competitive medium tank - the Comet - until 1945, in spite of having been in the war for six years! Tanks require a balance of armour protection, firepower and speed. They also need to be mechanically reliable. Every single British medium tank the British produced in WW2 failed to meet one or many of these requirements throughout almost the entire war!
Again, as with the A9 and A10, these tanks look very similar. The difference is in turret design to provide armour sloping in the Cruiser IV, and armour protection which was increased from 14 mm in the Cruiser III to 30 mm in the Cruiser IV.
Tuesday, 30 December 2025
Artificial Intelligence (AI) - The Monsters, The Fraud, and The Conspiracy
Do you remember this?
https://aistatement.com/
This statement. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”, was issued by AI experts in 2023, including CEOs of AI behemoths such as Open AI and Anthropic, as well as Geoffrey Hinton, who is considered the Godfather of AI.
While some form of AI has existed for decades – Siri came in 2012 - AI in the form of a generative large language model (LLM) was released into the world as Chat GPT in 2022. Other such iterations of AI such as Anthropic and Open AI soon followed.
So all of us were told by AI scientists who worked on the development of AI in establishments like Open AI and Chat GPT, as well as the CEOs of those companies, that AI could evolve so that it could kill all Humans at some point. The clearly stated risk is from AI itself, not from the use of AI. They must have known of this risk when they approved the release. Of course, the end of Humanity hasn’t happened yet, and it will never happen courtesy of AI in and of itself, for reasons outlined below. Before dealing with AI’s significant limitations, we need to ask this question…
How was it that something that was considered a risk to the existence of Humanity by its developers, and by those in charge of the related private companies that led its development, was released into the world without massive and sustained testing to make sure, to the degree possible, that this risk could not manifest itself in the actual elimination of all Humans, everywhere?
These companies didn’t have to release generative LLM AI into the world. They rushed to do so to try to beat each other to the promised massive profits that they thought would ensue should the world adopt AI, much as we adopted the internet itself. The answer to this question seems clear…
Generative LLM AI was released into the world by CEO’s of companies that had a clear understanding that they could be risking the existence of Humanity, solely in pursuit of profit.
The term you are looking for is “monster”, although that doesn’t quite do it. This wasn’t just criminal negligence. In fact, we don’t have a crime to fit what these people did. To make money, as far as they knew, they knowingly risked killing all of us.
Incidentally, the board here at Mewetree.blogspot.com asked Chat GPT if there are any examples from history where a single decision made only in pursuit of profit resulted in a risk to the lives of all Humans. Chat GPT could only come up with one example - the release of generative LLM AI. Fair is fair - we here at Mewetree.blogspot.com do hereby give AI a nod for honesty.
It will never happen, and here’s why…
The Fraud:
Artificial Intelligence isn’t intelligent.
Applying the word “intelligence” to AI, and with that, using words like "reason" and "know" to describe what it does, to the extent that this implies that Artificial Intelligence actually is intelligent and that it reasons and knows anything at all, is completely fraudulent.
Words mean things. Here is what “intelligence” means – “the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason.”
“Learn” means, “to get new knowledge or skill in a subject or activity.” AI doesn’t do this. It accesses the changing and evolving mass of human knowledge available on the internet and spits out data in the form of arranged words and data that responds to whatever question it has been asked. Learning requires volition (i.e. “to get”.) AI has no volition. Without the questions being asked, it is entirely at stasis.
“Understand” means, “to know the meaning of something that someone says”. The key term here is “to know” which means “to have information in your mind.” AI doesn’t have information in its mind because AI doesn’t have a mind (confirmed by Chat GPT), so it does not, and cannot “know”. Ergo, it cannot “understand”.
“Make Judgements” means, “to make a decision or form an opinion about someone or something after thinking carefully.” The key term here is “thinking” which means “activity of using your mind to consider something.” As we have seen, AI doesn’t have a mind. Ergo, it cannot think, so it cannot make judgments.
“Have opinions” means, to have “a thought or belief about something or someone”. The key terms here are “thought” and “belief”. Thought means thinking, and we have seen that thinking requires a mind. “Belief” means “the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.” AI does not have a mind so it cannot think, and it also cannot feel so it can’t have beliefs, therefore it cannot have opinions.
“Reason” means, “the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts”. As we have seen, AI does not have a mind. It doesn’t do anything based on reason, nor does it reason.
AI does literally nothing that constitutes the core elements of the definition of “intelligence”. It is not intelligent. Again, it does not reason and it doesn't know anything. Any suggestion to the contrary, and the use of words like "thinking", or even "hallucinating" to describe what it does when it is in error, is entirely fraudulent.
The Conspiracy:
AI can be tremendously helpful if kept within this realm…
"The best uses of AI involve automating mundane tasks, boosting creativity, enhancing data analysis, and improving decision-making across daily life and work, from summarizing emails and generating code to diagnosing diseases, creating art, and tackling global issues like climate change and hunger. AI excels at personalizing experiences (recommendations, chatbots), optimizing complex systems (manufacturing, cybersecurity), and providing powerful tools for education, healthcare (cancer screening, drug discovery), and accessibility for people with disabilities." (Google AI)
When it comes to this stuff, AI has no equal. This is massive progress. AI may not be intelligent, but the people who developed this tool are geniuses. Any intelligence here is Human, not Artificial.
Without an active intelligence AI on its own will never smite all Humans. The AI developers and CEOs of AI companies must know this. They took the supposed risk inherent to all Humanity in releasing AI because they knew there was no such risk. Why? Because they know that AI isn’t actually intelligent, and only an "intelligence" can go forth and smite us all. There was no crime committed here, but maybe there was something else that was entirely normal.
Query - Why did they issue the dire warning noted at the start of this blog, and many other similar warnings?
AI was released into a world with no regulations whatsoever. A declaration by AI developers and CEOs of AI companies that their product could kill everyone on the planet will get them a very important seat at the table when regulations are being drafted to deal with the supposed threat. Having portrayed themselves both as the subject matter experts regarding AI, as well as the harbingers of doom, were they setting themselves up for a profitable round of regulatory capture?
“Regulatory capture” is this, “Regulatory capture is when a government agency, meant to serve the public interest, starts acting in favor of the industry it's supposed to regulate, often due to close relationships, lobbying, and the "revolving door" of personnel between industry and government, resulting in rules that benefit the industry over consumers or the public. This leads to policies that protect established firms, stifle competition, or ignore public welfare for private gain, as seen with examples like financial or pharmaceutical industries.” (Google AI)
The key points are in bold. Companies that seek regulatory capture try to co-opt government into killing their competition, enabling them to maximize profits.
Is this what AI companies have been doing?
Monday, 15 December 2025
Understanding War and Society
The previous post looked at France and the Second World War, and explored a possible march to war by France in 1939, meaning that France actually sought war with Germany in 1939.
If this turns out to be true (i.e. once we can read internal French archives in another 100 years or so and discern what the French were really up to) what are we to make of this French march to war from the point of view of war as a policy choice and of society generally? What lessons may this have for us today?
One way to consider France’s march is to realize that there were likely two marches underway at the same time, each feeding off the other – France and Germany locked in a dance of death. The “tit-for-tat” build-up to aggression leading to war in situations like this, which sees each side issue threats and commit aggressive acts against the other ostensibly in response to the other side’s threats and aggressive acts, worked in 1939 for both parties, and it works even today. Leaders who play this game, and who issue threats or order aggressive acts “in response” can assess full well what the other side’s response will most likely be well in advance. It is a response expected and even hoped-for on the road to an escalation to war that is often desired by both parties.
Encouraging one side to resist the temptation to respond even in the face of the gravest of atrocities, and exposing purposeful escalation as a “march to war” would obviously assist in halting that very march in its tracks. Halting escalation is, in fact, the essence of peace-keeping – a real contribution to world peace. This would have availed the world nothing in 1939 however, as, assuming the French were also on the march, both sides were intent on aggression.
What to do about war? There seem to be two basic philosophical approaches to the problem.
The first approach could look at the history of marches to war for a contribution to our understanding of how nations go to war, and assert that by better understanding this process – how decisions are made, by whom and for what purpose, and how these are then translated into the mobilization of the population - perhaps we can learn how to avoid war in the future. In light of this, future questions worthy of exploration could include how information is gathered and assessed within the intelligence bureaucracies that served the French leaders who led France into war in the years leading up to 1939. In looking at this, historians would be seeking access to the “secret nation” which existed outside of public scrutiny, and to delve into how this world operates in the search for answers and possible proscriptions for the future. Should such an exploration reveal patterns of behavior common to all societies that inevitably lead to war, and methods by which these may be expunged, the service to humanity that such a turn of events would present is obvious.
A second approach could suggest otherwise - at least a modification. It may be that as the history of this period is further explored, historians may come to understand better how leaders manipulate their peoples in order to march to war, but also that as every politician - democrat and tyrant alike – knows, people can only be lead where they are willing to go. In other words, that the “secret nation” can only manipulate to a limited extent. Regarding France, note that it appeared at times that the leadership was often behind the people in terms of the march to war, not ahead of them. Was this by design, or did it represent a leadership out of control? In light of this, the questions to be explored further could center on the psychology of peoples, not the machinations of leaders and their advisors. The answers to the Human curse of war may therefore lie not at the head of society, but within its soul.
In that respect, it should be obvious that both tyrants and democrats need to justify their actions, especially over such matters as war, because popular opinion always matters to every politician, everywhere. The tremendous advantage that democratic politicians have over tyrants is a mandate to govern that permits them to set aside worry about what the people are thinking, and to just get on with the job of governing. More than that, should they lose an election and thereby lose power, they are always free to try to come back again another day – losing power for a democrat does not mean non-existence.
Democrats then, having the luxury of a mandate, have nothing to fear from letting liberty and the best in humanity flourish, including what may be a natural human pacifism. Perhaps this is the essential explanation for the fact that, generally-speaking, liberal democracies do not fight wars against one another, nor do they experience famine. In short, liberty is liberating for leaders and citizens alike, and the results benefit everyone.
Tyrants, on the other hand, who never assess the will of the people in any meaningful way, must always worry. To stay in power, they must manufacture the illusion of the positive while at the same time emphasizing the negatives that support their control, and especially the triumvirate of “fear, national crises, and enemies of the people”. This approach must always lead to a war of some sort, whether it is a war against some internal societal scourge, or actual external aggression. In matters of external aggression, tyrants mobilize their people by playing on the natural divisions and hatreds that burn in the soul of many a nation. These divisions and hatreds immediately come to be the essence of the wars that are subsequently fought, and they seriously limit the ability of tyrants to control the events that follow. In a tyranny, not even the tyrant is free.
In considering the various democratic and tyrannical motivations that both sparked the Second World War, and which governed its progress, it may be trite to say that this was much more than just a war. Once launched, it quickly became a battle between the negativity needed and encouraged by tyranny on the one side – culminating in horror that will always exist where one finds humanity led by those who are operating absent a higher morality - and the common human decency of the liberal democracies that sought to stop it.
The tragedy of the pre-war years may not be that democratic politicians sought to lead a march to war. It may be that those who could have, and who should have mobilized citizens who were willing to be led in the name of this same common human decency - that is the democratic politicians of the West - simply abandoned their duty, and in doing so permitted horror and hatred to grow and flourish, culminating in war that could have been stopped long before it happened.
Along with a better understanding of the psychology of peoples then – and, it is suggested, such an analysis should look closely at the psychology of people absent the direction of a higher morality - it may also be worth exploring how leaders in democracies sometimes come to forget their most essential duties, and the most obvious national security interests of their citizens. Interests that are easily understood by the citizens themselves.


