Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Rumours swirl as Ed Miliband’s position looks uncertain amid net zero controversies. Tony Blair’s critique adds to the storm, questioning Labour’s environmental strategies. How much longer can Miliband last with internal and public pressures mounting? — Patrick Christys

GB News

949,349 subscribers

46,973 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & Wellness News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨Ed Miliband faces the axe in starmer’s cabinet reshuffle amid shift from net zero to growth. “How much longer can we indulge Ed Miliband? Only in the best of peacetime could we afford to indulge a guy like this.” Kevin O'Sullivan | Russell Quirk

🚨Ed Miliband faces the axe in starmer’s cabinet reshuffle amid shift from net zero to growth. “How much longer can we indulge Ed Miliband? Only in the best of peacetime could we afford to indulge a guy like this.” Kevin O'Sullivan | Russell Quirk

Talk

17,003 views • 1 year ago

From the mouth of babes… Imagine my shock. The boss of Octopus Energy has just revealed we’ve spaffed £250 million THIS YEAR paying to switch off wind farms because, brace yourself… the energy’s too cheap to flog. Too much wind, apparently. Can’t be having that, pet. And last year? A mere £1 BILLION to keep those virtuous eco-fans idle, all while you’re sat in the dark wondering if you can stretch to putting the heating on before April. This is Net Zero Britain, folks: where we pay through the nose for nothing, freeze in our homes, and clap like seals as politicians tell us it’s "the future". It's not a plan, it's a pantomime, with Ed Miliband as the dame. And you're footing the bill.

From the mouth of babes… Imagine my shock. The boss of Octopus Energy has just revealed we’ve spaffed £250 million THIS YEAR paying to switch off wind farms because, brace yourself… the energy’s too cheap to flog. Too much wind, apparently. Can’t be having that, pet. And last year? A mere £1 BILLION to keep those virtuous eco-fans idle, all while you’re sat in the dark wondering if you can stretch to putting the heating on before April. This is Net Zero Britain, folks: where we pay through the nose for nothing, freeze in our homes, and clap like seals as politicians tell us it’s "the future". It's not a plan, it's a pantomime, with Ed Miliband as the dame. And you're footing the bill.

Darren Grimes

343,651 views • 1 year ago

🚨 Miliband Crumbles When Asked the One Question That Matters: How Much Would UK Net Zero Cool the Planet? Lee Anderson asked Energy Secretary Ed Miliband a simple, direct question in Parliament: “If Britain went Net Zero tomorrow, by how much would global temperatures fall?” As the man in charge of our energy policy and one of the most vocal champions of Net Zero, Miliband should have had the answer at his fingertips. Instead, he stood up and delivered pure waffle, dodging the question entirely with vague rhetoric about “British leadership” and how the 2008 Climate Change Act supposedly inspired the world. No numbers. No data. Just ideology. The truth is uncomfortable: it would make virtually no difference. The UK accounts for less than 1% of global CO₂ emissions. Even if we shut down every emitting industry, household, and vehicle overnight, the impact on the planet’s temperature would be negligible, too small to measure meaningfully. Meanwhile, the world’s biggest emitters aren’t playing along: China (1st), United States (2nd), and India (3rd). Together they dwarf our output. While we’re crippling our own energy costs, driving up bills, closing industries, and exporting jobs and businesses overseas, they continue expanding fossil fuel use to lift their populations out of poverty. This isn’t “saving the planet.” It’s self-harm dressed up as virtue. We’re sacrificing competitiveness, energy security, and working people’s livelihoods on an evidence-free fantasy.

🚨 Miliband Crumbles When Asked the One Question That Matters: How Much Would UK Net Zero Cool the Planet? Lee Anderson asked Energy Secretary Ed Miliband a simple, direct question in Parliament: “If Britain went Net Zero tomorrow, by how much would global temperatures fall?” As the man in charge of our energy policy and one of the most vocal champions of Net Zero, Miliband should have had the answer at his fingertips. Instead, he stood up and delivered pure waffle, dodging the question entirely with vague rhetoric about “British leadership” and how the 2008 Climate Change Act supposedly inspired the world. No numbers. No data. Just ideology. The truth is uncomfortable: it would make virtually no difference. The UK accounts for less than 1% of global CO₂ emissions. Even if we shut down every emitting industry, household, and vehicle overnight, the impact on the planet’s temperature would be negligible, too small to measure meaningfully. Meanwhile, the world’s biggest emitters aren’t playing along: China (1st), United States (2nd), and India (3rd). Together they dwarf our output. While we’re crippling our own energy costs, driving up bills, closing industries, and exporting jobs and businesses overseas, they continue expanding fossil fuel use to lift their populations out of poverty. This isn’t “saving the planet.” It’s self-harm dressed up as virtue. We’re sacrificing competitiveness, energy security, and working people’s livelihoods on an evidence-free fantasy.

Skint Eastwood

238,538 views • 2 months ago

Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband and the Labour government are indulging in crazy net zero policies that are putting our economic and energy security at risk with enormous cost to the taxpayer. Plastering solar panels on prime farmland while reportedly spending £50m on sun dimming experiments is a prime example of this juxtaposition stupidity. Spending £billions on importing oil and gas from Norway while blocking new UK oil and gas exploration in the North Sea is another example of this ridiculousness. And spending £30bn on carbon capture machines while winter fuel payments are cut from pensioners and welfare benefits are cut from the disabled simply highlights a Labour government that is drunk on power but without any credible understanding of how to govern effectively by spending our tax revenues in the most effective and efficient way. It’s a total shambles and ultimately it’s the public that will pay the heaviest price for this net zero nonsense. As I discussed with Alex Phillips | Talk.

Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband and the Labour government are indulging in crazy net zero policies that are putting our economic and energy security at risk with enormous cost to the taxpayer. Plastering solar panels on prime farmland while reportedly spending £50m on sun dimming experiments is a prime example of this juxtaposition stupidity. Spending £billions on importing oil and gas from Norway while blocking new UK oil and gas exploration in the North Sea is another example of this ridiculousness. And spending £30bn on carbon capture machines while winter fuel payments are cut from pensioners and welfare benefits are cut from the disabled simply highlights a Labour government that is drunk on power but without any credible understanding of how to govern effectively by spending our tax revenues in the most effective and efficient way. It’s a total shambles and ultimately it’s the public that will pay the heaviest price for this net zero nonsense. As I discussed with Alex Phillips | Talk.

James Melville 🚜

72,379 views • 1 year ago

🚨🇬🇧 RUPERT LOWE RESPONDS TO LABOUR’S BUDGET BETRAYAL Rupert Lowe has delivered a blistering verdict on Rachel Reeves’s Budget, calling out exactly what millions of hardworking Britons can see with their own eyes. 🔴 “We are rewarding indolence and welfarism.” 🔴 “British politics now puts the party above the interests of the country.” 🔴 “They want to give people money because it buys their votes.” Labour’s entire economic strategy is clear: punish the workers, reward the dependants, and keep the public trapped in a system designed to secure Labour votes for life. While British families are squeezed with record taxation, migrants with huge families on benefits are the real winners of Reeves’s policies. How much longer will Britain tolerate a government that sees taxpayers as cash machines and welfare as a vote-harvesting tool?

🚨🇬🇧 RUPERT LOWE RESPONDS TO LABOUR’S BUDGET BETRAYAL Rupert Lowe has delivered a blistering verdict on Rachel Reeves’s Budget, calling out exactly what millions of hardworking Britons can see with their own eyes. 🔴 “We are rewarding indolence and welfarism.” 🔴 “British politics now puts the party above the interests of the country.” 🔴 “They want to give people money because it buys their votes.” Labour’s entire economic strategy is clear: punish the workers, reward the dependants, and keep the public trapped in a system designed to secure Labour votes for life. While British families are squeezed with record taxation, migrants with huge families on benefits are the real winners of Reeves’s policies. How much longer will Britain tolerate a government that sees taxpayers as cash machines and welfare as a vote-harvesting tool?

British Intel

45,671 views • 8 months ago

The latest episode of our podcast The State of It: • Exclusive from Patrick Maguire : Sir Keir Starmer's allies say he could remain in Downing Street until early next year. They say he has no plans to step down before Labour conference in September and is unlikely to relinquish office before Christmas • Inside yesterday's surreal Cabinet on 'delivery': Ed Miliband said to be unable to look at Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, as he spoke. He 'almost performatively turned away' • There is bad blood on all sides. Starmer is furious with senior members of his Cabinet; he feels betrayed. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, and Miliband are the subject of his opprobrium. As obviously is Wes Streeting • But it goes both ways. Even some loyalists have had enough and are sympathetic to the withering critique Wes Streeting set out in his resignation letter • The last of the Starmer loyalists: Steve Reed, Anna Turley, Richard Hermer and Heidi Alexander were in the bunker last week along with Chris Ward and Jenny Chapman • How radical will Andy Burnham be? He has now ruled out pushing for a second referendum. He has adopted the government's fiscal rules in full. It will limit his room for manoeuvre unless he raises taxes significantly With Patrick Maguire and Lara Spirit

The latest episode of our podcast The State of It: • Exclusive from Patrick Maguire : Sir Keir Starmer's allies say he could remain in Downing Street until early next year. They say he has no plans to step down before Labour conference in September and is unlikely to relinquish office before Christmas • Inside yesterday's surreal Cabinet on 'delivery': Ed Miliband said to be unable to look at Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, as he spoke. He 'almost performatively turned away' • There is bad blood on all sides. Starmer is furious with senior members of his Cabinet; he feels betrayed. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, and Miliband are the subject of his opprobrium. As obviously is Wes Streeting • But it goes both ways. Even some loyalists have had enough and are sympathetic to the withering critique Wes Streeting set out in his resignation letter • The last of the Starmer loyalists: Steve Reed, Anna Turley, Richard Hermer and Heidi Alexander were in the bunker last week along with Chris Ward and Jenny Chapman • How radical will Andy Burnham be? He has now ruled out pushing for a second referendum. He has adopted the government's fiscal rules in full. It will limit his room for manoeuvre unless he raises taxes significantly With Patrick Maguire and Lara Spirit

Steven Swinford

14,471 views • 2 months ago

Brits and Europeans visiting America for the World Cup have discovered air conditioning and are asking why we don't have it this side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, our stringent net zero policies mean air conditioning is illegal in a lot of places. One place air conditioning is allowed is in the offices of top European Union bureaucrats who decide the rules, banning it for other people - even their underlings on the floors below them. Compare this to China, where even pigs can have air conditioning. It's almost as if the oppressive communist regime with corrupt, self-serving leaders is Europe. The thing is, air conditioning could support net zero. Air conditioners run when it's very hot, and it's very hot when the sun is shining, and when the sun is shining, all the solar panels Ed Miliband forced us to install make lots of power. Too much power, in fact. There's an increasingly common phenomenon where the grid gets overloaded by electricity produced by renewables, and then electricity has to be given a negative price (paying people to use it) to encourage people to use it to syphon off this extra power so it doesn't damage the grid. Meanwhile, the usual uninformed lefty windbags appear on the BBC to spout off nonsense about evil Britain using lots of air-conditioning while countries such as India and Nigeria don't use it at all. This is nonsense. 20% of Nigerians and 10% of Indians have air conditioning in their homes, compared to only 3-4% in Britain. It's almost as if Net Zero isn't about efficient energy use at all, but it's just about making us suffer.

Brits and Europeans visiting America for the World Cup have discovered air conditioning and are asking why we don't have it this side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, our stringent net zero policies mean air conditioning is illegal in a lot of places. One place air conditioning is allowed is in the offices of top European Union bureaucrats who decide the rules, banning it for other people - even their underlings on the floors below them. Compare this to China, where even pigs can have air conditioning. It's almost as if the oppressive communist regime with corrupt, self-serving leaders is Europe. The thing is, air conditioning could support net zero. Air conditioners run when it's very hot, and it's very hot when the sun is shining, and when the sun is shining, all the solar panels Ed Miliband forced us to install make lots of power. Too much power, in fact. There's an increasingly common phenomenon where the grid gets overloaded by electricity produced by renewables, and then electricity has to be given a negative price (paying people to use it) to encourage people to use it to syphon off this extra power so it doesn't damage the grid. Meanwhile, the usual uninformed lefty windbags appear on the BBC to spout off nonsense about evil Britain using lots of air-conditioning while countries such as India and Nigeria don't use it at all. This is nonsense. 20% of Nigerians and 10% of Indians have air conditioning in their homes, compared to only 3-4% in Britain. It's almost as if Net Zero isn't about efficient energy use at all, but it's just about making us suffer.

Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio

17,636 views • 1 month ago

This week's episode of our podcast The State of It: * David Miliband is coming back, possibly as foreign secretary, but is there really room for two Milibands in great offices of state? As one Cabinet minister put it to my colleague Oliver Wright “You cannot have more Milibands than women in the top jobs. That kind of thing matters." * Relations between the two brothers have improved markedly since Ed killed David's hopes of being Labour leader. Patrick Maguire reveals that it was Ed who was one of the first people to suggest David for a Cabinet role to Burnham, saying that he had much to offer * Allies of David say he wants to comeback to frontline politics and would 'definitely' be interested in returning as foreign secretary. There is political logic to it too - Burnham wants to be a domestic-focused prime minister, meaning he needs a heavyweight foreign secretary * One source who knows both brothers said we could end up with the ultimate irony - David thwarting Ed in his ambition to become the chancellor if Burnham chooses him as foreign secretary' * “Ed would welcome him back — provided it doesn’t impact on what Ed wants to do,” they said. “If it did then that would be a different matter altogether. You can see a world where Burnham has to choose between Ed and David and he chooses David and suddenly he’s not a fan of it any more.” * One former cabinet minister who served alongside both men in cabinet said: “It would be nice to see David back in cabinet, but can you really have both Milibands? Neither are loved by the public and both are pretty high-handed towards colleagues. It seems odd.”

This week's episode of our podcast The State of It: * David Miliband is coming back, possibly as foreign secretary, but is there really room for two Milibands in great offices of state? As one Cabinet minister put it to my colleague Oliver Wright “You cannot have more Milibands than women in the top jobs. That kind of thing matters." * Relations between the two brothers have improved markedly since Ed killed David's hopes of being Labour leader. Patrick Maguire reveals that it was Ed who was one of the first people to suggest David for a Cabinet role to Burnham, saying that he had much to offer * Allies of David say he wants to comeback to frontline politics and would 'definitely' be interested in returning as foreign secretary. There is political logic to it too - Burnham wants to be a domestic-focused prime minister, meaning he needs a heavyweight foreign secretary * One source who knows both brothers said we could end up with the ultimate irony - David thwarting Ed in his ambition to become the chancellor if Burnham chooses him as foreign secretary' * “Ed would welcome him back — provided it doesn’t impact on what Ed wants to do,” they said. “If it did then that would be a different matter altogether. You can see a world where Burnham has to choose between Ed and David and he chooses David and suddenly he’s not a fan of it any more.” * One former cabinet minister who served alongside both men in cabinet said: “It would be nice to see David back in cabinet, but can you really have both Milibands? Neither are loved by the public and both are pretty high-handed towards colleagues. It seems odd.”

Steven Swinford

90,676 views • 1 month ago

Full video and transcript: “So the first step to becoming indistractable is realizing that most of our distractions begin from within. We tend to blame the pings, dings, and rings, but that only accounts for 10% of our distractions. 90% of our distractions begin from uncomfortable internal states. Boredom, loneliness, fatigue, anxiety. What that means is that we have to learn how to master those internal triggers before they become our master. So whether it's too much news, too much booze, too much football, too much Facebook, you are always going to get distracted from something unless you understand what is that uncomfortable sensation you are trying to escape. Remember, time management is pain management. Step number two to becoming indistractable is making time for traction. You cannot say you got distracted from something unless you know what it distracted you from. So if you don't put something in your calendar that is traction, there's no such thing as distraction. If you have a blank open calendar, you have no right to say you got distracted, because what did you get distracted from? You have to plan your time. The third step to becoming indistractable is to ask ourselves this critical question around external triggers. Is this external trigger serving me or am I serving it? And then to systematically remove, hack back, all those external triggers on your phone or your computer, the pointless meetings, the emails that didn't need to be sent, we can systematically remove all those triggers that don't serve us. And then finally, the last line of defense against distraction is to prevent distraction with PACTS, which is where we use what's called a pre-commitment device to make sure that the last line of defense, the firewall against distraction, is that we know in advance what we will do when distraction rears its ugly head. So by following these four strategies, master internal triggers, make time for traction, hack back external triggers, and prevent distraction with packs, those strategies anyone can use to become indistractable. And of course there's a lot more about the explanation of all those strategies in my book, Indistractable.”

Full video and transcript: “So the first step to becoming indistractable is realizing that most of our distractions begin from within. We tend to blame the pings, dings, and rings, but that only accounts for 10% of our distractions. 90% of our distractions begin from uncomfortable internal states. Boredom, loneliness, fatigue, anxiety. What that means is that we have to learn how to master those internal triggers before they become our master. So whether it's too much news, too much booze, too much football, too much Facebook, you are always going to get distracted from something unless you understand what is that uncomfortable sensation you are trying to escape. Remember, time management is pain management. Step number two to becoming indistractable is making time for traction. You cannot say you got distracted from something unless you know what it distracted you from. So if you don't put something in your calendar that is traction, there's no such thing as distraction. If you have a blank open calendar, you have no right to say you got distracted, because what did you get distracted from? You have to plan your time. The third step to becoming indistractable is to ask ourselves this critical question around external triggers. Is this external trigger serving me or am I serving it? And then to systematically remove, hack back, all those external triggers on your phone or your computer, the pointless meetings, the emails that didn't need to be sent, we can systematically remove all those triggers that don't serve us. And then finally, the last line of defense against distraction is to prevent distraction with PACTS, which is where we use what's called a pre-commitment device to make sure that the last line of defense, the firewall against distraction, is that we know in advance what we will do when distraction rears its ugly head. So by following these four strategies, master internal triggers, make time for traction, hack back external triggers, and prevent distraction with packs, those strategies anyone can use to become indistractable. And of course there's a lot more about the explanation of all those strategies in my book, Indistractable.”

Naval

208,727 views • 2 years ago

🚨Labour and Lib Dem MPs just voted to INCREASE the cost of energy, food, shipping, housing, heating and holidays by voting for Ed Miliband’s new Net Zero target. One of the reasons I asked to stay in this brief was my time in the Department and seeing how badly we were making decisions about climate and energy. There’s simply no scrutiny or proper analysis of what these targets are doing to jobs, the cost of living or to the competitiveness of our industry. The Minister bringing it forward refused to take a single intervention. She did not answer a single question. I’m sorry, but that is simply not good enough. MP after MP cited bogus figures or praised the Climate Change Committee’s analysis without being even slightly troubled that their cost of offshore wind was wrong by a factor of three. Get the cost of energy wrong and all your other assumptions about the cost of living and the economy will be wrong too. I am proud Kemi Badenoch and I have changed our party’s position. We are the only party who have said we should measure the offshoring of emissions. We are the only party who have a plan to make electricity cheaper without costing the taxpayer a penny. We are the only party with a fully costed plan to axe the Carbon Tax which is replacing clean British industry with dirtier foreign imports. This debate shows why Parliament is not working. Poor analysis let off the hook by poor scrutiny. So-called impact assessments which are written to be as impenetrable as possible, and which MPs show no interest in reading or questioning. We need fewer virtue signalling MPs and many more who can read modelling assumptions.

🚨Labour and Lib Dem MPs just voted to INCREASE the cost of energy, food, shipping, housing, heating and holidays by voting for Ed Miliband’s new Net Zero target. One of the reasons I asked to stay in this brief was my time in the Department and seeing how badly we were making decisions about climate and energy. There’s simply no scrutiny or proper analysis of what these targets are doing to jobs, the cost of living or to the competitiveness of our industry. The Minister bringing it forward refused to take a single intervention. She did not answer a single question. I’m sorry, but that is simply not good enough. MP after MP cited bogus figures or praised the Climate Change Committee’s analysis without being even slightly troubled that their cost of offshore wind was wrong by a factor of three. Get the cost of energy wrong and all your other assumptions about the cost of living and the economy will be wrong too. I am proud Kemi Badenoch and I have changed our party’s position. We are the only party who have said we should measure the offshoring of emissions. We are the only party who have a plan to make electricity cheaper without costing the taxpayer a penny. We are the only party with a fully costed plan to axe the Carbon Tax which is replacing clean British industry with dirtier foreign imports. This debate shows why Parliament is not working. Poor analysis let off the hook by poor scrutiny. So-called impact assessments which are written to be as impenetrable as possible, and which MPs show no interest in reading or questioning. We need fewer virtue signalling MPs and many more who can read modelling assumptions.

Claire Coutinho

97,769 views • 1 month ago

It is always funny that Meg and her cult like to mock Catherine saying she is not a public speaker. Well, Harry is absolutely NOT a public speaker. He speaks the same word salad his wife speaks, with way less confidence and more awkwardness. Yet Whatever Prince William does, Harry always attempt to do. The results are these two videos🤭 For the past week, Prince William has been appearing on "Leading with Impact" environmental summits, discussing his Earthshot Prize and the innovative work as president and founder. If you listen to the first video, you can clearly tell how well-versed William is on his subject: this is his own work and You can clearly hear the knowledge, self-assurance and eloquence in his voice. William speaks with authority on the subject and with alacrity👌 Now, Harry made an appearance in NY on some sustainable platform, so he is seen "working" and "leading as well. Then, they handed him the microphone and you get...the second video of word salad🤭 "Um... focus on giving Um.. a platform to young people. Its their future. I think that the longer we are on planet earth.. uhm... the more experience we have naturally." Harry speaks like someone who is there not because he has any true ideas to promote, but because he saw his big brother do it and so he thought he could do it too. There is zero intellect that comes through in his speech, zero assurance, zero sense or ideas pushed. What we have here, quite simply, is a ill-assured ginger prince on a podium, winging it to "look busy" and "important"..😏 The fact that Harry is sitting next to a sign stating "Bold Ideas" is simply hilarious😅 📹Earthshot Prize via Wales Brasil & The sustainable Media center

It is always funny that Meg and her cult like to mock Catherine saying she is not a public speaker. Well, Harry is absolutely NOT a public speaker. He speaks the same word salad his wife speaks, with way less confidence and more awkwardness. Yet Whatever Prince William does, Harry always attempt to do. The results are these two videos🤭 For the past week, Prince William has been appearing on "Leading with Impact" environmental summits, discussing his Earthshot Prize and the innovative work as president and founder. If you listen to the first video, you can clearly tell how well-versed William is on his subject: this is his own work and You can clearly hear the knowledge, self-assurance and eloquence in his voice. William speaks with authority on the subject and with alacrity👌 Now, Harry made an appearance in NY on some sustainable platform, so he is seen "working" and "leading as well. Then, they handed him the microphone and you get...the second video of word salad🤭 "Um... focus on giving Um.. a platform to young people. Its their future. I think that the longer we are on planet earth.. uhm... the more experience we have naturally." Harry speaks like someone who is there not because he has any true ideas to promote, but because he saw his big brother do it and so he thought he could do it too. There is zero intellect that comes through in his speech, zero assurance, zero sense or ideas pushed. What we have here, quite simply, is a ill-assured ginger prince on a podium, winging it to "look busy" and "important"..😏 The fact that Harry is sitting next to a sign stating "Bold Ideas" is simply hilarious😅 📹Earthshot Prize via Wales Brasil & The sustainable Media center

Canellecitadelle

137,354 views • 1 year ago

To CNN International and to all the endless media outlets, big and small, together with all the well-meaning content producers of Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and every other platform that now shapes the global conversation, I would very much wish to pass the following post: As we speak, today’s protest has drawn roughly 2,000 participants. It is the lowest turnout so far, but even at its peak, participation never exceeded 8,000 people. So how is it that what much of the world has seen over the past days appears so enormous, so dramatic, so overwhelming? At some point, when the engineered digital hysteria of these days has passed and emotions have cooled, the democratic world should take a closer look at how the gap between reality and its representation became so vast. Not merely as a matter of this particular case, but as a symptom of something much larger. How could a tiny country become global news for reasons so disconnected from the reality on the ground? How could a local protest involving a few thousand people be transformed into an international spectacle? How could assumptions become facts, narratives become verdicts, and speculation become accepted truth before the basic facts were even established? And perhaps most importantly, what does it say about our information ecosystem when perception can travel around the world faster than reality itself? Because the reality is that there is no project yet. There is no building permit yet. There is no construction yet. There is not even a final design yet. There is only a vision and a plan: to transform Albania into the most attractive high-end tourism destination in this part of the world, while creating a net positive environmental development that, according to the current vision, would ultimately result in approximately 25% more trees and green space than exists today, alongside measurable improvements across multiple biodiversity indicators. The ambition is not merely to build. The ambition is to demonstrate that development and environmental enhancement can go hand in hand. That is precisely why some of the world’s leading experts in ecology, biodiversity, landscape architecture, environmental engineering and sustainable tourism are working on these concepts and parameters. Whether they succeed or fail is a matter for future assessment, science, public scrutiny and transparent debate. But presenting as an environmental catastrophe something that does not yet exist, has not yet been designed, has not yet been permitted, and whose stated objective is in fact to produce positive environmental outcomes, is not a serious contribution to public discussion. And yet, from this simple reality emerged a hurricane of digital hysteria, apocalyptic headlines, manufactured outrage and sweeping conclusions presented as established facts. Along the way came deepfakes, manipulated images, fabricated claims, coordinated amplification, anonymous networks and online behaviour that bears many of the characteristics of the hybrid information warfare that increasingly shapes public debate across democratic societies. Even more remarkably, social media platforms recorded an explosion in activity around this topic, with Albanian-language engagement increasing several-fold within just a few days. A significant part of this sudden surge appears to have been driven not by an organic expansion of public participation, but by the rapid proliferation of newly created profiles, anonymous accounts and pages with little or no identifiable history, raising legitimate questions about artificial amplification and the manufacturing of digital momentum.

To CNN International and to all the endless media outlets, big and small, together with all the well-meaning content producers of Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and every other platform that now shapes the global conversation, I would very much wish to pass the following post: As we speak, today’s protest has drawn roughly 2,000 participants. It is the lowest turnout so far, but even at its peak, participation never exceeded 8,000 people. So how is it that what much of the world has seen over the past days appears so enormous, so dramatic, so overwhelming? At some point, when the engineered digital hysteria of these days has passed and emotions have cooled, the democratic world should take a closer look at how the gap between reality and its representation became so vast. Not merely as a matter of this particular case, but as a symptom of something much larger. How could a tiny country become global news for reasons so disconnected from the reality on the ground? How could a local protest involving a few thousand people be transformed into an international spectacle? How could assumptions become facts, narratives become verdicts, and speculation become accepted truth before the basic facts were even established? And perhaps most importantly, what does it say about our information ecosystem when perception can travel around the world faster than reality itself? Because the reality is that there is no project yet. There is no building permit yet. There is no construction yet. There is not even a final design yet. There is only a vision and a plan: to transform Albania into the most attractive high-end tourism destination in this part of the world, while creating a net positive environmental development that, according to the current vision, would ultimately result in approximately 25% more trees and green space than exists today, alongside measurable improvements across multiple biodiversity indicators. The ambition is not merely to build. The ambition is to demonstrate that development and environmental enhancement can go hand in hand. That is precisely why some of the world’s leading experts in ecology, biodiversity, landscape architecture, environmental engineering and sustainable tourism are working on these concepts and parameters. Whether they succeed or fail is a matter for future assessment, science, public scrutiny and transparent debate. But presenting as an environmental catastrophe something that does not yet exist, has not yet been designed, has not yet been permitted, and whose stated objective is in fact to produce positive environmental outcomes, is not a serious contribution to public discussion. And yet, from this simple reality emerged a hurricane of digital hysteria, apocalyptic headlines, manufactured outrage and sweeping conclusions presented as established facts. Along the way came deepfakes, manipulated images, fabricated claims, coordinated amplification, anonymous networks and online behaviour that bears many of the characteristics of the hybrid information warfare that increasingly shapes public debate across democratic societies. Even more remarkably, social media platforms recorded an explosion in activity around this topic, with Albanian-language engagement increasing several-fold within just a few days. A significant part of this sudden surge appears to have been driven not by an organic expansion of public participation, but by the rapid proliferation of newly created profiles, anonymous accounts and pages with little or no identifiable history, raising legitimate questions about artificial amplification and the manufacturing of digital momentum.

Edi Rama

211,499 views • 2 months ago

Prompt-to-DeFi Early Access is now live. Today, DeFi strategy creation and execution changes forever: The agentic way. One prompt. Complete execution. INFINIT possibilities. Describe any DeFi strategy or workflow in plain language and watch the INFINIT AI Agent Swarm transform them into executable DeFi strategies. Here's how the new way to DeFi looks like. > Prompt-to-DeFi Makes DeFi Navigation As Simple As Typing Early Access Now Available For Phase 1 Waitlisters & Code Holders The Beginning of The Agentic DeFi Economy < Creators in this early phase position themselves at an advantage over others before fee collection and fee sharing to creators are enabled. Later on, creators will earn fees as users adopt their frameworks, attracting more creators and accelerating universal access to expert-level DeFi. The flywheel accelerates toward expert-level DeFi for everyone. Creativity is now the only limit. Start getting creative now:

Prompt-to-DeFi Early Access is now live. Today, DeFi strategy creation and execution changes forever: The agentic way. One prompt. Complete execution. INFINIT possibilities. Describe any DeFi strategy or workflow in plain language and watch the INFINIT AI Agent Swarm transform them into executable DeFi strategies. Here's how the new way to DeFi looks like. > Prompt-to-DeFi Makes DeFi Navigation As Simple As Typing Early Access Now Available For Phase 1 Waitlisters & Code Holders The Beginning of The Agentic DeFi Economy < Creators in this early phase position themselves at an advantage over others before fee collection and fee sharing to creators are enabled. Later on, creators will earn fees as users adopt their frameworks, attracting more creators and accelerating universal access to expert-level DeFi. The flywheel accelerates toward expert-level DeFi for everyone. Creativity is now the only limit. Start getting creative now:

INFINIT

103,939 views • 7 months ago

So first things first i have absolutely zero idea about how liquidity provisioning works, i only got some theoretical knowledge when i started yapping about Theoriq. So after much waiting i got my hands on the alpha suite and i decided to test the LP agent just for the fun of it and it was an awesome experience Imagine chatting with an agent and it’s setting up positions in pools to earn you yields, it’s just crazy. Below is a short video showing what I did already because the initial video I did which showed everything was too long…. I was reading everything carefully not to sign off the wrong transactions, lol As you can see the agent provided me with two options yield and recommend the best one, which I even selected because it gave me a reason why it picked it, and as a newbie, why not? WETH/KAITO Fee = 0.3% APY = 93% After that the agent suggested I use a little portion of my wallet balance to open a position, which I did And i signed of a couple of transactions I had ETH so it converted my: - ETH -> WETH - ETH -> KAITO then opened a position for me where I signed more transactions Then i successfully opened a position. It’s quite an experience and I am glad to be part of the first public batch testing out the Theoriq alpha suite.

So first things first i have absolutely zero idea about how liquidity provisioning works, i only got some theoretical knowledge when i started yapping about Theoriq. So after much waiting i got my hands on the alpha suite and i decided to test the LP agent just for the fun of it and it was an awesome experience Imagine chatting with an agent and it’s setting up positions in pools to earn you yields, it’s just crazy. Below is a short video showing what I did already because the initial video I did which showed everything was too long…. I was reading everything carefully not to sign off the wrong transactions, lol As you can see the agent provided me with two options yield and recommend the best one, which I even selected because it gave me a reason why it picked it, and as a newbie, why not? WETH/KAITO Fee = 0.3% APY = 93% After that the agent suggested I use a little portion of my wallet balance to open a position, which I did And i signed of a couple of transactions I had ETH so it converted my: - ETH -> WETH - ETH -> KAITO then opened a position for me where I signed more transactions Then i successfully opened a position. It’s quite an experience and I am glad to be part of the first public batch testing out the Theoriq alpha suite.

E L I G A N T

15,309 views • 1 year ago

Megyn Kelly Please Listen: Four Major Influencers Have Spoken Out Now! Below video presents all four major influencers! “If you don’t call this stuff out, you end up with the right-wing version of AOC running your party." Over the past week, Ben Shapiro, Dinesh D'Souza, Erin Moran, and Gad Saad have courageously condemned the bad behavior on our side of the aisle. In a recent commentary, political analyst Ben Shapiro expressed concern over internal divisions within the Republican Party, attributing much of the discord to the influence of its more extreme, conspiratorial elements. He argued that those not aligned with this fringe are unfairly blamed for disrupting party unity. Shapiro pointed to remarks made by Alex Jones within the past 48 hours, quoting him as saying, “From what I’ve heard, Bondi’s not bad. She’s just lazy. Bongino is emotional and a big baby. Patel is compromised.” Shapiro used these comments to illustrate what he sees as divisive rhetoric emanating from the far-right, questioning, “Who’s the big divider?” Shapiro emphasized that while politics is inherently coalitional and individuals are free to vote as they choose, the critical issue lies in determining who will shape the Republican Party’s message and future. Shapiro framed this struggle as an ongoing battle within the conservative movement, warning that failing to challenge extreme voices could lead to the right-wing equivalent of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dominating the party. “If you don’t call this stuff out, you end up with the right-wing version of AOC running your party,” he stated. Ben stressed the necessity of applying standards to maintain the integrity of the conservative movement, raising questions about how broad those standards should be and how much influence should be granted to those seeking to lead the party. Shapiro underscored that the discussion extends beyond electoral strategies, focusing instead on leadership and the need to condemn harmful ideas within the movement. He concluded by asserting that those unwilling to critique their own side lack credibility when criticizing opponents, stating, “If you’re not willing to do that on your own side, then frankly I don’t have a lot of respect for you when you’re attacking the other side for doing it.”

Megyn Kelly Please Listen: Four Major Influencers Have Spoken Out Now! Below video presents all four major influencers! “If you don’t call this stuff out, you end up with the right-wing version of AOC running your party." Over the past week, Ben Shapiro, Dinesh D'Souza, Erin Moran, and Gad Saad have courageously condemned the bad behavior on our side of the aisle. In a recent commentary, political analyst Ben Shapiro expressed concern over internal divisions within the Republican Party, attributing much of the discord to the influence of its more extreme, conspiratorial elements. He argued that those not aligned with this fringe are unfairly blamed for disrupting party unity. Shapiro pointed to remarks made by Alex Jones within the past 48 hours, quoting him as saying, “From what I’ve heard, Bondi’s not bad. She’s just lazy. Bongino is emotional and a big baby. Patel is compromised.” Shapiro used these comments to illustrate what he sees as divisive rhetoric emanating from the far-right, questioning, “Who’s the big divider?” Shapiro emphasized that while politics is inherently coalitional and individuals are free to vote as they choose, the critical issue lies in determining who will shape the Republican Party’s message and future. Shapiro framed this struggle as an ongoing battle within the conservative movement, warning that failing to challenge extreme voices could lead to the right-wing equivalent of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dominating the party. “If you don’t call this stuff out, you end up with the right-wing version of AOC running your party,” he stated. Ben stressed the necessity of applying standards to maintain the integrity of the conservative movement, raising questions about how broad those standards should be and how much influence should be granted to those seeking to lead the party. Shapiro underscored that the discussion extends beyond electoral strategies, focusing instead on leadership and the need to condemn harmful ideas within the movement. He concluded by asserting that those unwilling to critique their own side lack credibility when criticizing opponents, stating, “If you’re not willing to do that on your own side, then frankly I don’t have a lot of respect for you when you’re attacking the other side for doing it.”

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

136,181 views • 10 months ago

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.

Mr Sergio

13,014 views • 3 months ago

Bowen is either a dangerously incompetent fool who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about — or he’s sold us out to China and is deceiving Australians. China’s CO₂ output from coal-fired power is already higher than Australia’s on a per-capita basis. Bowen can be a useful idiot for China all he likes, but it doesn’t matter how many renewables China adds — these renewables are not replacing coal. China has no transition; it’s all addition. China has a further 484 GW of new coal capacity under construction or in development. This is in complete contrast to Australia’s position, where we have zero new coal plants under development, and “Blackout Bowen” is planning to close down the ones we have (21GW) and replace them with intermittent renewables. So China is going for more coal — and it’s all addition, with no transition — while Australia is all about attempted replacement. There’s a huge fundamental difference between the two positions. If Bowen doesn’t understand the difference, he should resign.Alternatively, if he does understand the difference and is gaslighting the Australian public to act as a useful idiot for China, he should likewise resign.

Bowen is either a dangerously incompetent fool who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about — or he’s sold us out to China and is deceiving Australians. China’s CO₂ output from coal-fired power is already higher than Australia’s on a per-capita basis. Bowen can be a useful idiot for China all he likes, but it doesn’t matter how many renewables China adds — these renewables are not replacing coal. China has no transition; it’s all addition. China has a further 484 GW of new coal capacity under construction or in development. This is in complete contrast to Australia’s position, where we have zero new coal plants under development, and “Blackout Bowen” is planning to close down the ones we have (21GW) and replace them with intermittent renewables. So China is going for more coal — and it’s all addition, with no transition — while Australia is all about attempted replacement. There’s a huge fundamental difference between the two positions. If Bowen doesn’t understand the difference, he should resign.Alternatively, if he does understand the difference and is gaslighting the Australian public to act as a useful idiot for China, he should likewise resign.

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

15,706 views • 8 months ago

Roki Sasaki with a sick and long awaited debut— before bumping his velo up a bit this AM, it was no secret that his fastball has been a bit down. Averaging ~98.8 in ’23 compared to ~96 last year. My social media guy has me posting insane clickbait, so I just wanted to throw these up and highlight a few differences I’m seeing: Initial CoM position at peak leg lift: -At peak leg lift, you can see back in’23, Sasaki’s center of mass is slightly shifted further away from the rubber. -Greater oppositional side-bend at peak leg lift. Back in ’23, it looks as though he’s got more pelvic side-bend to his arm side, and more thoracic side-bend into his glove side. What I think happens as a byproduct of this: -Gets stuck on his back leg—> You can see a more pronounced vertical shin now and the CoM not as far down the mound as he begins rotating. -Hingier torso posture with glove side direction slightly more across the body and higher—> Likely a byproduct of earlier pieces, trying to find some way to delay rotation. The body knows he’s trying to throw 100 and will do everything it can to delay rotating. When you see guys lose a bit of the ability to create good internal torque earlier in the delivery (get good shirt wrinkles as AnatomyLinks.com is king of demo’ing), you end up seeing the body trying to do too much downstream to make up for it. Ultimately what this all sets up is mistimed rotational and linear separation and an inefficient window for layback. Throwing hard is all about maximizing force into the baseball— which happens as the arm transitions into layback and through ball release. Do I have any idea what’s going on? No. Does Roki still throw harder than Ben Baggett ? Currently. Did this post spark interest, clicks, and possibly violence? Hopefully.

Roki Sasaki with a sick and long awaited debut— before bumping his velo up a bit this AM, it was no secret that his fastball has been a bit down. Averaging ~98.8 in ’23 compared to ~96 last year. My social media guy has me posting insane clickbait, so I just wanted to throw these up and highlight a few differences I’m seeing: Initial CoM position at peak leg lift: -At peak leg lift, you can see back in’23, Sasaki’s center of mass is slightly shifted further away from the rubber. -Greater oppositional side-bend at peak leg lift. Back in ’23, it looks as though he’s got more pelvic side-bend to his arm side, and more thoracic side-bend into his glove side. What I think happens as a byproduct of this: -Gets stuck on his back leg—> You can see a more pronounced vertical shin now and the CoM not as far down the mound as he begins rotating. -Hingier torso posture with glove side direction slightly more across the body and higher—> Likely a byproduct of earlier pieces, trying to find some way to delay rotation. The body knows he’s trying to throw 100 and will do everything it can to delay rotating. When you see guys lose a bit of the ability to create good internal torque earlier in the delivery (get good shirt wrinkles as AnatomyLinks.com is king of demo’ing), you end up seeing the body trying to do too much downstream to make up for it. Ultimately what this all sets up is mistimed rotational and linear separation and an inefficient window for layback. Throwing hard is all about maximizing force into the baseball— which happens as the arm transitions into layback and through ball release. Do I have any idea what’s going on? No. Does Roki still throw harder than Ben Baggett ? Currently. Did this post spark interest, clicks, and possibly violence? Hopefully.

Ben Baggett

11,516 views • 1 year ago