Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

'Stop Lecturing Us': Guyana President Shuts Down BBC Journalist, Exposes West's Hypocrisy Guyanese President Mohammad Irfaan Ali had an heated exchange with a BBC journalist over climate change issue. The fiery exchange took place during BBC Hardtalk show, hosted by Stephen Sackur. Ali was questioned about Guyana's plans to...

ivan_8848's profile picture

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

196,924 subscribers

58,972 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The Hidden Story of US Interest in Venezuela: An Economic Hit Job From 2000 to 2024, approximately 650,000 Venezuelans migrated to the US, which is far lower than the millions often claimed. But the real story is why they left. Our gov repeatedly claims the migration is due to authoritarian rule & mismanagement of state resources by Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) & Maduro (2013-Present). However, the numbers tell a different story. Between 2000-2016, only 34K Venezuelans migrated to the US. Migration surges which occurred between 2017-2024 (650K) align with aggressive US sanctions targeting Venezuela’s economy, banking & gov. These measures, shaped by oil & mineral corporations, banking elites & geopolitical interests, have destabilized Venezuela, fueling the very crisis our gov claims to address. Why does the US care so much about Venezuela? It’s all about the oil & minerals. US refineries need Venezuela’s thick/heavy crude oil to blend with lighter domestic oil from the Gulf to process effectively. As recently as August, the US imported Venezuelan oil. The goal is also control. Western companies like Chevron want exclusive rights to Venezuela’s vast reserves, ensuring none go to rivals like China. For over a century, the US has orchestrated coups and for the past 20 years, imposed over 900 sanctions to pressure Venezuela’s government by punishing its people into submission and pushing for regime change. Secondary sanctions on countries importing Venezuelan oil force Venezuela to smuggle its crude through third parties, who rebrand it to evade restrictions. Even now, US military presence in the Atlantic aims to block Venezuelan oil shipments, deepening poverty to pave the way for a puppet leader like Maria Machado, who promises to open Venezuela to global corporate interests. Venezuela is also rich in natural gas & minerals. Venezuela has large deposits of bauxite (for aluminum), iron ore, coal & gold (which our gov sanctioned in 2024). The country also has reserves of diamonds, nickel & coltan, as well as other minerals like copper, uranium, phosphates, zinc & various nonmetallic minerals such as kaolin, salt & marble. In fact, our famous global looter, Elon Musk, set his eyes on Venezuela’s untapped uranium deposits in the Roraima Basin for his SpaceX dreams to Mars. (See my article on this under the article tab) “Venezuela does not export natural gas to the global economy. The nation had more than 5.6 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves in 2021; in the Western Hemisphere, only the United States had more reserves.” What about the drug trafficking? US claims of Venezuelan drug trafficking also unravel under scrutiny. UN & DEA reports confirm Venezuela does not produce drugs. Colombia accounts for 84% of cocaine, with Peru & Bolivia supplying most of the rest. Only 5-10% of drugs transit through Venezuela. Drugs primarily transit via the Pacific Ocean, not the Atlantic where US forces are currently patrolling. The “Cartel de los Soles,” which the US labeled a terrorist group, does not exist. It’s a name our government created to justify accusations against Venezuela’s government. Economic Hit Job Despite the US narrative that mismanagement of Venezuela’s vast wealth is a Chavez & Maduro problem, it has been a problem for over 100-years & under the rule of every leader the US supported. For over a century, US policy has systematically destabilized Venezuela, driving poverty while pursuing control over its resources. The current narrative of fighting drug cartels is another attempt to squeeze Venezuela economically to force regime change. But who benefits from these efforts? Certainly not the increasingly poverty stricken Venezuelans & definitely not American taxpayers who pay for surges of migrants, border patrol & military actions against Venezuela. The beneficiaries are the global looters (oil & mineral companies, bankers and geopolitical actors). This is the same story as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.
1:31

The Hidden Story of US Interest in Venezuela: An Economic Hit Job From 2000 to 2024, approximately 650,000 Venezuelans migrated to the US, which is far lower than the millions often claimed. But the real story is why they left. Our gov repeatedly claims the migration is due to authoritarian rule & mismanagement of state resources by Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) & Maduro (2013-Present). However, the numbers tell a different story. Between 2000-2016, only 34K Venezuelans migrated to the US. Migration surges which occurred between 2017-2024 (650K) align with aggressive US sanctions targeting Venezuela’s economy, banking & gov. These measures, shaped by oil & mineral corporations, banking elites & geopolitical interests, have destabilized Venezuela, fueling the very crisis our gov claims to address. Why does the US care so much about Venezuela? It’s all about the oil & minerals. US refineries need Venezuela’s thick/heavy crude oil to blend with lighter domestic oil from the Gulf to process effectively. As recently as August, the US imported Venezuelan oil. The goal is also control. Western companies like Chevron want exclusive rights to Venezuela’s vast reserves, ensuring none go to rivals like China. For over a century, the US has orchestrated coups and for the past 20 years, imposed over 900 sanctions to pressure Venezuela’s government by punishing its people into submission and pushing for regime change. Secondary sanctions on countries importing Venezuelan oil force Venezuela to smuggle its crude through third parties, who rebrand it to evade restrictions. Even now, US military presence in the Atlantic aims to block Venezuelan oil shipments, deepening poverty to pave the way for a puppet leader like Maria Machado, who promises to open Venezuela to global corporate interests. Venezuela is also rich in natural gas & minerals. Venezuela has large deposits of bauxite (for aluminum), iron ore, coal & gold (which our gov sanctioned in 2024). The country also has reserves of diamonds, nickel & coltan, as well as other minerals like copper, uranium, phosphates, zinc & various nonmetallic minerals such as kaolin, salt & marble. In fact, our famous global looter, Elon Musk, set his eyes on Venezuela’s untapped uranium deposits in the Roraima Basin for his SpaceX dreams to Mars. (See my article on this under the article tab) “Venezuela does not export natural gas to the global economy. The nation had more than 5.6 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves in 2021; in the Western Hemisphere, only the United States had more reserves.” What about the drug trafficking? US claims of Venezuelan drug trafficking also unravel under scrutiny. UN & DEA reports confirm Venezuela does not produce drugs. Colombia accounts for 84% of cocaine, with Peru & Bolivia supplying most of the rest. Only 5-10% of drugs transit through Venezuela. Drugs primarily transit via the Pacific Ocean, not the Atlantic where US forces are currently patrolling. The “Cartel de los Soles,” which the US labeled a terrorist group, does not exist. It’s a name our government created to justify accusations against Venezuela’s government. Economic Hit Job Despite the US narrative that mismanagement of Venezuela’s vast wealth is a Chavez & Maduro problem, it has been a problem for over 100-years & under the rule of every leader the US supported. For over a century, US policy has systematically destabilized Venezuela, driving poverty while pursuing control over its resources. The current narrative of fighting drug cartels is another attempt to squeeze Venezuela economically to force regime change. But who benefits from these efforts? Certainly not the increasingly poverty stricken Venezuelans & definitely not American taxpayers who pay for surges of migrants, border patrol & military actions against Venezuela. The beneficiaries are the global looters (oil & mineral companies, bankers and geopolitical actors). This is the same story as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.

GenXGirl

95,436 views • 1 year ago

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.
4:13

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.

Michael Shellenberger

623,854 views • 5 months ago

MAHAMA ANNOUNCES HISTORIC FIRST DELIVERY OF GHANAIAN CRUDE TO LOCAL REFINERY President Outlines Bold Value-Addition Agenda at Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — President John Dramani Mahama has announced a landmark breakthrough in Ghana’s energy and industrial transformation agenda, revealing that Ghana will, for the first time in years, begin refining its own crude oil locally as part of a comprehensive strategy to drive industrialization, create jobs, strengthen local manufacturing, and retain greater value within the national economy. Addressing hundreds of Ghanaians, investors, professionals and business leaders at the Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London, President Mahama outlined his administration’s vision for transforming Ghana from an exporter of raw materials into a modern industrial economy powered by value addition and local production. Speaking passionately about the future of Ghana’s energy sector, President Mahama disclosed that the government is aggressively expanding offshore oil and gas production while simultaneously ensuring that the country develops the capacity to process more of its natural resources domestically. According to the President, Ghana has secured major upstream investments, including a fresh commitment of approximately US$1.5 billion from ENI in the Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) Field to increase the production of both oil and natural gas. However, he stressed that increased production alone is not enough. “We are about to make history again. We did it during my first term, but after we left office it did not continue. In June, we will deliver a parcel of Ghanaian crude from our own oil fields to a refinery in Ghana for processing,” President Mahama announced to loud applause from the audience. The announcement is being viewed as a defining moment in Ghana’s petroleum industry and a significant step toward reducing the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products. For decades, Ghana has exported crude oil while importing refined fuels and petroleum products at considerable cost. President Mahama argued that such a model effectively exports jobs, technology, industrial growth, and economic opportunities to other countries. “Normally we produce the oil and export it. Then we import finished petroleum products or import crude again to refine. That cycle must change,” he stated. He explained that local refining will enable Ghana to capture more value from its natural resources, retain foreign exchange, strengthen local supply chains, stimulate industrial growth, and create thousands of direct and indirect jobs for Ghanaians. The President emphasized that the refining initiative forms part of a broader national industrial strategy aimed at building a fully integrated petroleum value chain encompassing extraction, refining, storage, petrochemicals, distribution, manufacturing and exports. Beyond oil and gas, President Mahama called for a national commitment to value addition across every productive sector of the economy. Using Ghana’s mineral sector as an example, he noted that the country continues to export raw gold, manganese, bauxite and other minerals for processing abroad, only to import higher-value finished products at a premium. “When we export raw materials and somebody else processes them, we create jobs in their economy instead of our own. The finished products are then exported back to us. That model cannot deliver sustainable prosperity,” he said. The President stressed that Ghana’s future economic success depends on deliberately moving up the value chain through investments in manufacturing, agro-processing, mineral beneficiation, fertilizer production, petrochemicals, food processing and strategic industrial parks. Economic analysts believe the strategy could significantly reposition Ghana as a leading industrial hub in West Africa while accelerating job creation, technology transfer and export growth.
1:50

MAHAMA ANNOUNCES HISTORIC FIRST DELIVERY OF GHANAIAN CRUDE TO LOCAL REFINERY President Outlines Bold Value-Addition Agenda at Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — President John Dramani Mahama has announced a landmark breakthrough in Ghana’s energy and industrial transformation agenda, revealing that Ghana will, for the first time in years, begin refining its own crude oil locally as part of a comprehensive strategy to drive industrialization, create jobs, strengthen local manufacturing, and retain greater value within the national economy. Addressing hundreds of Ghanaians, investors, professionals and business leaders at the Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London, President Mahama outlined his administration’s vision for transforming Ghana from an exporter of raw materials into a modern industrial economy powered by value addition and local production. Speaking passionately about the future of Ghana’s energy sector, President Mahama disclosed that the government is aggressively expanding offshore oil and gas production while simultaneously ensuring that the country develops the capacity to process more of its natural resources domestically. According to the President, Ghana has secured major upstream investments, including a fresh commitment of approximately US$1.5 billion from ENI in the Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) Field to increase the production of both oil and natural gas. However, he stressed that increased production alone is not enough. “We are about to make history again. We did it during my first term, but after we left office it did not continue. In June, we will deliver a parcel of Ghanaian crude from our own oil fields to a refinery in Ghana for processing,” President Mahama announced to loud applause from the audience. The announcement is being viewed as a defining moment in Ghana’s petroleum industry and a significant step toward reducing the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products. For decades, Ghana has exported crude oil while importing refined fuels and petroleum products at considerable cost. President Mahama argued that such a model effectively exports jobs, technology, industrial growth, and economic opportunities to other countries. “Normally we produce the oil and export it. Then we import finished petroleum products or import crude again to refine. That cycle must change,” he stated. He explained that local refining will enable Ghana to capture more value from its natural resources, retain foreign exchange, strengthen local supply chains, stimulate industrial growth, and create thousands of direct and indirect jobs for Ghanaians. The President emphasized that the refining initiative forms part of a broader national industrial strategy aimed at building a fully integrated petroleum value chain encompassing extraction, refining, storage, petrochemicals, distribution, manufacturing and exports. Beyond oil and gas, President Mahama called for a national commitment to value addition across every productive sector of the economy. Using Ghana’s mineral sector as an example, he noted that the country continues to export raw gold, manganese, bauxite and other minerals for processing abroad, only to import higher-value finished products at a premium. “When we export raw materials and somebody else processes them, we create jobs in their economy instead of our own. The finished products are then exported back to us. That model cannot deliver sustainable prosperity,” he said. The President stressed that Ghana’s future economic success depends on deliberately moving up the value chain through investments in manufacturing, agro-processing, mineral beneficiation, fertilizer production, petrochemicals, food processing and strategic industrial parks. Economic analysts believe the strategy could significantly reposition Ghana as a leading industrial hub in West Africa while accelerating job creation, technology transfer and export growth.

KALYJAY

19,314 views • 3 months ago

How will the US-Iran war end, and what was it really about? On January 3, 2026, the US carried out an easy regime change in Venezuela. (I predicted it one year prior here) On February 28, 2026, the US assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader and began its air campaign against Iran. Fooled by the easy regime change in Venezuela, Trump believed that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader and top commanders would cause the Iranian regime to collapse and that anti-regime protests would spread, leading to regime change in Iran. With Iran, Venezuela and the Gulf “states,” the US would have control over most of the world’s oil reserves. The US president’s visit to China, originally scheduled for March 31–April 2, 2026, was postponed to May 14–15, 2026, after the US air campaign against Iran began. What was the reason for pursuing regime change in Iran before that visit to China? According to political analyst Wadah Khanfar, Trump wanted to go to China holding all the oil cards, including Iranian oil, around 90% of which is exported to China and paid for in Chinese yuan rather than USD. He was going to say to Xi: “We have no problem with China being the world’s manufacturer, but we control the world’s oil reserves. Drop your efforts to expand CIPS as an alternative to SWIFT for international transactions in currencies other than the USD, and we can both coexist as global powers.” However, what Iran did, and continues to do, not only collapsed the US plan but also threatens its control over the Gulf “states’” oil. Now the populations of these states know they are being bombed because they host US bases. On top of that, they now know that these bases may have been used in the bombing of Gaza, or at least to provide fuel and air support to Israeli jets bombing Gaza. So far, it has been a strategic loss for the US. One of the most hilarious moments during Trump’s visit to China was when President Xi showed him a 400-year-old tree as a subtle message to the US president: “This tree is older than your country, which is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its independence this year. We are a civilization thousands of years old.” But Trump’s ego prevented him from understanding the message, and he asked: Does XI bring other presidents to see this garden too? Xi replied: “Very rarely, but Putin visited it too.” -Videos: The 400-year old tree And an honest slow motion.
0:47

How will the US-Iran war end, and what was it really about? On January 3, 2026, the US carried out an easy regime change in Venezuela. (I predicted it one year prior here) On February 28, 2026, the US assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader and began its air campaign against Iran. Fooled by the easy regime change in Venezuela, Trump believed that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader and top commanders would cause the Iranian regime to collapse and that anti-regime protests would spread, leading to regime change in Iran. With Iran, Venezuela and the Gulf “states,” the US would have control over most of the world’s oil reserves. The US president’s visit to China, originally scheduled for March 31–April 2, 2026, was postponed to May 14–15, 2026, after the US air campaign against Iran began. What was the reason for pursuing regime change in Iran before that visit to China? According to political analyst Wadah Khanfar, Trump wanted to go to China holding all the oil cards, including Iranian oil, around 90% of which is exported to China and paid for in Chinese yuan rather than USD. He was going to say to Xi: “We have no problem with China being the world’s manufacturer, but we control the world’s oil reserves. Drop your efforts to expand CIPS as an alternative to SWIFT for international transactions in currencies other than the USD, and we can both coexist as global powers.” However, what Iran did, and continues to do, not only collapsed the US plan but also threatens its control over the Gulf “states’” oil. Now the populations of these states know they are being bombed because they host US bases. On top of that, they now know that these bases may have been used in the bombing of Gaza, or at least to provide fuel and air support to Israeli jets bombing Gaza. So far, it has been a strategic loss for the US. One of the most hilarious moments during Trump’s visit to China was when President Xi showed him a 400-year-old tree as a subtle message to the US president: “This tree is older than your country, which is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its independence this year. We are a civilization thousands of years old.” But Trump’s ego prevented him from understanding the message, and he asked: Does XI bring other presidents to see this garden too? Xi replied: “Very rarely, but Putin visited it too.” -Videos: The 400-year old tree And an honest slow motion.

Warfare Analysis

15,572 views • 2 months ago

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena — cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are “what the magnitude of the change is and why the change is” happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is “that we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.” Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. “You can't measure it, it's meaningless,” he tells Rebel News. “Ultimately, we need the oil and gas industry — and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.” As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. “It takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.” Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown “a lot of nice words” around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. “We need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal — whatever, where it makes economic sense,” he says. “We just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.”
6:20

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena — cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are “what the magnitude of the change is and why the change is” happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is “that we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.” Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. “You can't measure it, it's meaningless,” he tells Rebel News. “Ultimately, we need the oil and gas industry — and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.” As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. “It takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.” Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown “a lot of nice words” around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. “We need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal — whatever, where it makes economic sense,” he says. “We just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.”

Rebel News

13,009 views • 1 year ago

In a small village in the Punjab, a girl of about eight years old crouches over a clay stove, feeding it patties of dried cow dung. Smoke billows into her face. She coughs while feeding the fire. There is no reliable electricity. When the family gets a little extra money, they buy liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which burns cleanly, as natural gas does in stoves in the wealthy West. Unfortunately, that LPG just got priced out of reach for hundreds of millions like her. The 2026 Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz were the triggers for the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is the chronic underinvestment and underdevelopment of oil and gas resources by poor, developing, and rich nations alike over the last ten years. Policymakers diverted that money into green energy, which failed to prevent the crisis. Zion Lights, the author of an essential new book, Energy Is Life, watched the above scene during a visit to her parents’ ancestral village in India. Her parents had emigrated to Birmingham, England, in the late 1960s and 1970s to work in factories. The factories gave them wages, dignity, and a foothold in the developed world. The family they left behind in the Punjab remained trapped in a poverty so total that it touched everything: health, education, opportunity, lifespan. At the root of it all is the lack of energy. The energy crisis will hurt poor people in poor nations far more than anyone in the U.S. or the rest of the West. Asian countries receive 80 percent of their energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz. For Bangladesh, which sources 72 percent of its LNG from Qatar and the UAE, the supply disruption translates to an extra $760 to $830 million in monthly import costs. “All poverty is energy poverty, when you think about it,” Lights said in our new podcast. “They’re living in 40-degree Celsius heat. No air conditioning. You can give them an air conditioner, you can give them money for an air conditioner, but how’s it going to work if you don’t have the electricity?” It would be unfair to entirely blame the lack of oil and gas supplies on Western climate policy. Beyond the Iran war, governance failures, corruption, conflict, and infrastructure decay all play important roles. India’s power sector dysfunction predates any climate agreement. Pakistan’s circular debt crisis has roots in decades of mismanagement and subsidy distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity deficit reflects bad governance, underinvestment, and the difficulty of building transmission infrastructure across vast, sparsely populated territories. But climate policy has been the dominant priority in wealthy nations’ engagement with the developing world for two decades, and Western green NGOs have even blocked the construction of hydroelectric dams, which tend to be the first reliable source of power that poor nations develop as they rise the development ladder. Beginning in the early 2010s and accelerating sharply after the 2015 Paris Agreement, Western development banks, private financial institutions, and national governments began systematically restricting financing for oil, gas, and coal projects in the developing world. The stated rationale was climate change. The practical effect was to deny poor countries the energy infrastructure that every wealthy nation used to climb out of poverty... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full podcast, and read the rest of the article.
10:13

In a small village in the Punjab, a girl of about eight years old crouches over a clay stove, feeding it patties of dried cow dung. Smoke billows into her face. She coughs while feeding the fire. There is no reliable electricity. When the family gets a little extra money, they buy liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which burns cleanly, as natural gas does in stoves in the wealthy West. Unfortunately, that LPG just got priced out of reach for hundreds of millions like her. The 2026 Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz were the triggers for the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is the chronic underinvestment and underdevelopment of oil and gas resources by poor, developing, and rich nations alike over the last ten years. Policymakers diverted that money into green energy, which failed to prevent the crisis. Zion Lights, the author of an essential new book, Energy Is Life, watched the above scene during a visit to her parents’ ancestral village in India. Her parents had emigrated to Birmingham, England, in the late 1960s and 1970s to work in factories. The factories gave them wages, dignity, and a foothold in the developed world. The family they left behind in the Punjab remained trapped in a poverty so total that it touched everything: health, education, opportunity, lifespan. At the root of it all is the lack of energy. The energy crisis will hurt poor people in poor nations far more than anyone in the U.S. or the rest of the West. Asian countries receive 80 percent of their energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz. For Bangladesh, which sources 72 percent of its LNG from Qatar and the UAE, the supply disruption translates to an extra $760 to $830 million in monthly import costs. “All poverty is energy poverty, when you think about it,” Lights said in our new podcast. “They’re living in 40-degree Celsius heat. No air conditioning. You can give them an air conditioner, you can give them money for an air conditioner, but how’s it going to work if you don’t have the electricity?” It would be unfair to entirely blame the lack of oil and gas supplies on Western climate policy. Beyond the Iran war, governance failures, corruption, conflict, and infrastructure decay all play important roles. India’s power sector dysfunction predates any climate agreement. Pakistan’s circular debt crisis has roots in decades of mismanagement and subsidy distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity deficit reflects bad governance, underinvestment, and the difficulty of building transmission infrastructure across vast, sparsely populated territories. But climate policy has been the dominant priority in wealthy nations’ engagement with the developing world for two decades, and Western green NGOs have even blocked the construction of hydroelectric dams, which tend to be the first reliable source of power that poor nations develop as they rise the development ladder. Beginning in the early 2010s and accelerating sharply after the 2015 Paris Agreement, Western development banks, private financial institutions, and national governments began systematically restricting financing for oil, gas, and coal projects in the developing world. The stated rationale was climate change. The practical effect was to deny poor countries the energy infrastructure that every wealthy nation used to climb out of poverty... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full podcast, and read the rest of the article.

Michael Shellenberger

43,350 views • 5 months ago

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:
5:45

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

114,406 views • 11 months ago

Gardaí Step in as Cowen Faces Heated Debate with Duffy, Dallon and Pepper on Left-Wing Influence at Agri Show A heated exchange unfolded at the Tullamore Agricultural Show yesterday when Dublin City councillor Gavin Pepper confronted Fianna Fáil MEP Barry Cowen over Ireland’s relationship with US President Donald Trump. Pepper, an Independent councillor, questioned the Midlands-North West MEP on the state of bilateral relations and argued that left-wing politicians in Ireland are damaging the traditionally strong partnership with the United States. The short clip of the exchange shows Pepper pressing Cowen on the issue amid the busy agricultural event, which drew more than 70,000 visitors to mark its 35th year. The full interview featuring Cowen is due for release later today. It will also include questions put to the MEP by Christopher Duffy and John Dallon, two prominent figures from the April fuel demonstrations. While Cowen did take the time to respond to the questions, the exchanges intensified as they progressed. Cowen eventually retreating as Dallon, Duffy and Pepper continued to press with Gardaí intervening to help shut the conversation down and block them In stark contrast, Taoiseach Micheál Martin avoided all questions from the public. Gardaí and security personnel physically restrained Christopher Duffy when he approached to raise fuel-price concerns, grabbing his arm and briefly detaining him, while others seeking to speak to the Taoiseach were blocked.
0:55

Gardaí Step in as Cowen Faces Heated Debate with Duffy, Dallon and Pepper on Left-Wing Influence at Agri Show A heated exchange unfolded at the Tullamore Agricultural Show yesterday when Dublin City councillor Gavin Pepper confronted Fianna Fáil MEP Barry Cowen over Ireland’s relationship with US President Donald Trump. Pepper, an Independent councillor, questioned the Midlands-North West MEP on the state of bilateral relations and argued that left-wing politicians in Ireland are damaging the traditionally strong partnership with the United States. The short clip of the exchange shows Pepper pressing Cowen on the issue amid the busy agricultural event, which drew more than 70,000 visitors to mark its 35th year. The full interview featuring Cowen is due for release later today. It will also include questions put to the MEP by Christopher Duffy and John Dallon, two prominent figures from the April fuel demonstrations. While Cowen did take the time to respond to the questions, the exchanges intensified as they progressed. Cowen eventually retreating as Dallon, Duffy and Pepper continued to press with Gardaí intervening to help shut the conversation down and block them In stark contrast, Taoiseach Micheál Martin avoided all questions from the public. Gardaí and security personnel physically restrained Christopher Duffy when he approached to raise fuel-price concerns, grabbing his arm and briefly detaining him, while others seeking to speak to the Taoiseach were blocked.

SnDMedia

44,588 views • 1 month ago

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!
46:20

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 views • 1 year ago

Meet Ali Bongo, the Gabonese dictator who rigged an election 2 days ago and gave himself 64%, and was toppled by the military today. He is under house arrest after years of running a corrupt family dictatorship underpinned by a ruthless mafia. He has ruled Gabon for 14 years after taking over from his father Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon for 42 years. His family has ruled Gabon for a total of 56 years. Gabon has manganese, diamonds, gold, uranium, oil, gas and more, but its people are extremely poor. Crude oil accounts for about 96% of the country’s total exports to the United States. Elections are rigged, public funds are ruthlessly looted, the country’s natural resources are plundered and the constitution is regularly changed to suit the Bongos. Gabon is the leading producer of metal in Africa and it is the sixth biggest world producer of manganese. It produces more than 3 million metric tons of manganese a year. It also exports Veneer Sheets, Manganese Ore and Crude Petroleum to France. Corruption is massive in its mining and oil industries. Ali Bongo personally controls over US$1 billion worth of assets which are hidden overseas. He is the richest man in Gabon. The Bongo family has routinely changed the constitution to underpin its corrupt rule. A third of Gabonese citizens live below the poverty line. Unemployment is over 37%. His father was close to 5 French presidents from Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac. France has condemned the military removal of the dictator after he rigged the elections over the weekend. The Guardian reported that France, whose companies were happily extracting Gabon's oil, guaranteed security to the Bongo family by maintaining a military base in Libreville that still exists today. Bongo’s regime tortures opponents and treats critics in a very inhuman way. The regime runs horrible jails with harsh and life-threatening conditions. It has political prisoners and the judiciary is captured. Ali Bongo suffered a stroke years ago but he remained in power although he is incapacitated. He has Europeans working for him in his team including a British man from Manchester who is a Government minister. His name is Prof. Lee White CBE, yesterday he was defending the switching off of the Internet on his Twitter handle. Like all terrible dictators who don't care about their people, Ali Bongo's father died in a luxurious hospital in Spain whilst his people were living in poverty and the country had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. In France he lived a super rich life style with 39 luxurious properties, 70 bank accounts and cars worth over US$2 million. He even bank rolled the Presidential campaign for French President Jacques Chirac whilst his people were living in abject proverty. He gave money to different French political parties both from the right and left of French politics. The second wife of his son who has been deposed was featured on VHS television channel trying to buy a home worth US$25 million in Malibu. Coups are not a great thing at all, so I hope that the military will restore civilian rule through a free, fair and credible election which puts a final end to the Bongo family grip on this resource rich country after decades of looting, plunder and dictatorship.
3:58

Meet Ali Bongo, the Gabonese dictator who rigged an election 2 days ago and gave himself 64%, and was toppled by the military today. He is under house arrest after years of running a corrupt family dictatorship underpinned by a ruthless mafia. He has ruled Gabon for 14 years after taking over from his father Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon for 42 years. His family has ruled Gabon for a total of 56 years. Gabon has manganese, diamonds, gold, uranium, oil, gas and more, but its people are extremely poor. Crude oil accounts for about 96% of the country’s total exports to the United States. Elections are rigged, public funds are ruthlessly looted, the country’s natural resources are plundered and the constitution is regularly changed to suit the Bongos. Gabon is the leading producer of metal in Africa and it is the sixth biggest world producer of manganese. It produces more than 3 million metric tons of manganese a year. It also exports Veneer Sheets, Manganese Ore and Crude Petroleum to France. Corruption is massive in its mining and oil industries. Ali Bongo personally controls over US$1 billion worth of assets which are hidden overseas. He is the richest man in Gabon. The Bongo family has routinely changed the constitution to underpin its corrupt rule. A third of Gabonese citizens live below the poverty line. Unemployment is over 37%. His father was close to 5 French presidents from Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac. France has condemned the military removal of the dictator after he rigged the elections over the weekend. The Guardian reported that France, whose companies were happily extracting Gabon's oil, guaranteed security to the Bongo family by maintaining a military base in Libreville that still exists today. Bongo’s regime tortures opponents and treats critics in a very inhuman way. The regime runs horrible jails with harsh and life-threatening conditions. It has political prisoners and the judiciary is captured. Ali Bongo suffered a stroke years ago but he remained in power although he is incapacitated. He has Europeans working for him in his team including a British man from Manchester who is a Government minister. His name is Prof. Lee White CBE, yesterday he was defending the switching off of the Internet on his Twitter handle. Like all terrible dictators who don't care about their people, Ali Bongo's father died in a luxurious hospital in Spain whilst his people were living in poverty and the country had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. In France he lived a super rich life style with 39 luxurious properties, 70 bank accounts and cars worth over US$2 million. He even bank rolled the Presidential campaign for French President Jacques Chirac whilst his people were living in abject proverty. He gave money to different French political parties both from the right and left of French politics. The second wife of his son who has been deposed was featured on VHS television channel trying to buy a home worth US$25 million in Malibu. Coups are not a great thing at all, so I hope that the military will restore civilian rule through a free, fair and credible election which puts a final end to the Bongo family grip on this resource rich country after decades of looting, plunder and dictatorship.

Hopewell Chin’ono

215,908 views • 3 years ago

BREAKING: Gary Lineker to Leave BBC After 26 Years Gary Lineker is set to leave the BBC after this season’s final Match of the Day, with his last appearance scheduled for May 25, 2025. An official announcement is expected Monday. Lineker, a former England international footballer turned broadcaster, has hosted Match of the Day—the UK’s flagship football highlights show—since 1999. He is also the BBC’s highest-paid presenter. His departure means he will no longer lead coverage of the 2026 World Cup or the FA Cup, despite prior plans. The decision comes after controversy over a recent social media post in which Lineker shared material critical of Zionism that included a rat illustration—an image historically associated with antisemitic propaganda. He apologized “unreservedly,” saying he was unaware of the image’s connotations and “would never knowingly share anything antisemitic.” BBC executives reportedly found his position “unsustainable” after the incident. Lineker has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s war on Gaza, publicly stating in an April 2025 BBC interview that the “mass murder of thousands of children” in Gaza was not a neutral event—and that it “warrants an opinion.” “If you’re silent on these issues, you’re almost complicit,” he added. The BBC’s treatment of Lineker reflects a broader pattern of censoring voices and coverage that is critical of Israel—especially reporting on the genocide in Gaza. The BBC removed the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone from its iPlayer platform after revealing that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The film focused on the experiences of children under Israeli bombardment. Days later, the BBC delayed the scheduled broadcast of a second film, Gaza: Medics Under Fire, which documents Israeli attacks on Gaza’s hospitals and healthcare infrastructure. British journalist owenjones84 investigated the anti-Palestinian bias at the heart of the BBC for Drop Site. His report is based on interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers who allege that senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers. You can read Owen’s full report at the link in the reply.
1:06

BREAKING: Gary Lineker to Leave BBC After 26 Years Gary Lineker is set to leave the BBC after this season’s final Match of the Day, with his last appearance scheduled for May 25, 2025. An official announcement is expected Monday. Lineker, a former England international footballer turned broadcaster, has hosted Match of the Day—the UK’s flagship football highlights show—since 1999. He is also the BBC’s highest-paid presenter. His departure means he will no longer lead coverage of the 2026 World Cup or the FA Cup, despite prior plans. The decision comes after controversy over a recent social media post in which Lineker shared material critical of Zionism that included a rat illustration—an image historically associated with antisemitic propaganda. He apologized “unreservedly,” saying he was unaware of the image’s connotations and “would never knowingly share anything antisemitic.” BBC executives reportedly found his position “unsustainable” after the incident. Lineker has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s war on Gaza, publicly stating in an April 2025 BBC interview that the “mass murder of thousands of children” in Gaza was not a neutral event—and that it “warrants an opinion.” “If you’re silent on these issues, you’re almost complicit,” he added. The BBC’s treatment of Lineker reflects a broader pattern of censoring voices and coverage that is critical of Israel—especially reporting on the genocide in Gaza. The BBC removed the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone from its iPlayer platform after revealing that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The film focused on the experiences of children under Israeli bombardment. Days later, the BBC delayed the scheduled broadcast of a second film, Gaza: Medics Under Fire, which documents Israeli attacks on Gaza’s hospitals and healthcare infrastructure. British journalist owenjones84 investigated the anti-Palestinian bias at the heart of the BBC for Drop Site. His report is based on interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers who allege that senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers. You can read Owen’s full report at the link in the reply.

Drop Site

396,972 views • 1 year ago

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !
9:56

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

Michael Shellenberger

80,304 views • 1 year ago

Putin: “If Russia and Europe united, our GDP would beat the US—but Washington tore us apart. Now Europe pays 30% more for gas… and loses its future.” Putin's Vision: The Untapped Potential of a Russo-European Alliance Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent assertion that a united Russia and Europe could surpass the United States in GDP, thwarted by Washington's interference, resonates deeply in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. He poignantly highlights how Europe now grapples with inflated energy costs—paying significantly more for gas—and risks squandering its economic future. From a positive perspective, Putin's viewpoint isn't mere rhetoric; it's a call for pragmatic cooperation that could redefine global power dynamics, fostering prosperity over conflict. Consider the economic arithmetic. Projections for 2026 place the U.S. GDP at around $31.8 trillion, a formidable figure driven by tech innovation and consumer spending. Yet, Europe's collective output, including major players like Germany ($5.3 trillion) and Russia ($2.5 trillion), could approach or exceed $31.4 trillion if integrated effectively. This isn't fantasy; it's grounded in complementary strengths. Russia's vast natural resources—oil, gas, and minerals—pair seamlessly with Europe's advanced manufacturing, renewable tech, and financial hubs. A unified market would streamline supply chains, reduce dependencies on distant suppliers, and amplify bargaining power on the world stage. Imagine joint ventures in energy transition, where Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) supports Europe's green goals without the premiums of transatlantic imports. Putin rightly blames Washington for this missed opportunity. U.S. policies, from NATO expansions to sanctions post-2014 and intensified after 2022's Ukraine conflict, have engineered a divide-and-conquer strategy. By promoting anti-Russian narratives and pushing Europe toward American LNG, the U.S. has not only secured its energy exports but also weakened potential rivals. Europe's shift away from affordable Russian pipeline gas has been disastrous. Pre-invasion, Russia supplied about 40% of EU gas; now, it's down to 6%, forcing reliance on costlier U.S. and Qatari alternatives. Household natural gas prices in the EU surged 79% between 2021 and 2025, far exceeding Putin's cited 30% hike, with electricity costs up 30%. This "energy blackmail," as some observers term it, burdens households and industries, accelerating deindustrialization in energy-intensive sectors like chemicals and steel. Europe's "loss of future" is evident in this dependency trap. High energy costs erode competitiveness, stifling growth and innovation. Germany's economy, once Europe's engine, faces stagnation amid these pressures. Meanwhile, Russia pivots eastward, redirecting gas to Asia, where demand is booming. Putin envisions a multipolar world where Eurasia thrives independently, free from U.S. hegemony. By reconciling, Europe could reclaim sovereignty, lower costs, and co-lead in global challenges like climate change and AI. Critics decry this as revisionism, but Putin's perspective champions mutual benefit over zero-sum games. Dialogue, not division, could heal old wounds, boosting GDPs and securing peace. In 2026, with global tensions rising—from Middle East conflicts to trade wars—embracing this unity isn't just positive; it's essential for a resilient future.
1:34

Putin: “If Russia and Europe united, our GDP would beat the US—but Washington tore us apart. Now Europe pays 30% more for gas… and loses its future.” Putin's Vision: The Untapped Potential of a Russo-European Alliance Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent assertion that a united Russia and Europe could surpass the United States in GDP, thwarted by Washington's interference, resonates deeply in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. He poignantly highlights how Europe now grapples with inflated energy costs—paying significantly more for gas—and risks squandering its economic future. From a positive perspective, Putin's viewpoint isn't mere rhetoric; it's a call for pragmatic cooperation that could redefine global power dynamics, fostering prosperity over conflict. Consider the economic arithmetic. Projections for 2026 place the U.S. GDP at around $31.8 trillion, a formidable figure driven by tech innovation and consumer spending. Yet, Europe's collective output, including major players like Germany ($5.3 trillion) and Russia ($2.5 trillion), could approach or exceed $31.4 trillion if integrated effectively. This isn't fantasy; it's grounded in complementary strengths. Russia's vast natural resources—oil, gas, and minerals—pair seamlessly with Europe's advanced manufacturing, renewable tech, and financial hubs. A unified market would streamline supply chains, reduce dependencies on distant suppliers, and amplify bargaining power on the world stage. Imagine joint ventures in energy transition, where Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) supports Europe's green goals without the premiums of transatlantic imports. Putin rightly blames Washington for this missed opportunity. U.S. policies, from NATO expansions to sanctions post-2014 and intensified after 2022's Ukraine conflict, have engineered a divide-and-conquer strategy. By promoting anti-Russian narratives and pushing Europe toward American LNG, the U.S. has not only secured its energy exports but also weakened potential rivals. Europe's shift away from affordable Russian pipeline gas has been disastrous. Pre-invasion, Russia supplied about 40% of EU gas; now, it's down to 6%, forcing reliance on costlier U.S. and Qatari alternatives. Household natural gas prices in the EU surged 79% between 2021 and 2025, far exceeding Putin's cited 30% hike, with electricity costs up 30%. This "energy blackmail," as some observers term it, burdens households and industries, accelerating deindustrialization in energy-intensive sectors like chemicals and steel. Europe's "loss of future" is evident in this dependency trap. High energy costs erode competitiveness, stifling growth and innovation. Germany's economy, once Europe's engine, faces stagnation amid these pressures. Meanwhile, Russia pivots eastward, redirecting gas to Asia, where demand is booming. Putin envisions a multipolar world where Eurasia thrives independently, free from U.S. hegemony. By reconciling, Europe could reclaim sovereignty, lower costs, and co-lead in global challenges like climate change and AI. Critics decry this as revisionism, but Putin's perspective champions mutual benefit over zero-sum games. Dialogue, not division, could heal old wounds, boosting GDPs and securing peace. In 2026, with global tensions rising—from Middle East conflicts to trade wars—embracing this unity isn't just positive; it's essential for a resilient future.

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪

14,052 views • 6 months ago

This is an insightful clip into the demise of world powers. One word - Debt. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but unsecured credit I.e. debt is even more powerful. It was no coincidence that World War One broke out the year after the newly created U.S. Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The world’s most powerful banks led by the Rothschilds had now got themselves a military, soon to become the most powerful in the world, to protect their newly acquired right to print money out of thin air with no obligation to back the money with an underlying asset. (Initially the government did back it with gold, but the gold standard was dropped in 1971) Rothschilds proxy in the U.S., JP Morgan, lent money to both Britain and France early in the war, when they started losing JP Morgan lobbied US politicians to get the US, who at the time were isolationists, into the war so that JP Morgan could recoup their money. The Lusitania was sunk to get the American people to agree to going to war. The Treaty of Versailles made Germany incur strict reparations that bankrupted them and led to the Second World War. The Second World War saw Britain, despite helping win the war incur enormous reparations. The upside of these world wars is that the wealth of the old world was transferred to the new world backed by the U.S. which now had the most powerful military to defend the private banks printing press. (Note France had lost its significant wealth after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo hence why Germany and Britain were milked.) The 21st century has seen a repeat of the 20th century in that the world’s superpower, the U.S. has been slowly drained of its wealth by deep state bankers who are using the U.S. military to defend the banks right to charge interest on printed money. We’ve seen it in Iraq, Libya and Syria where the U.S. has had to stop their leaders from not using the U.S. dollar in exchange for oil. We’ve seen it in Ukraine where the former democratically elected Ukraine President was stopped from allowing Ukraines gas pipelines to be used to transport gas from Russia to Germany. And of course we saw it in 1953 where Britain and the U.S. stopped Iran from controlling its own oil. All of these wars are facilitated by the intelligence agencies who are the most dangerous bureaucrats of all. It’s no coincidence the first head of the CIA was a corporate lawyer/banker Allen Dulles. That’s why this war with Iran is so dangerous- it risks bankrupting the U.S. and making the Chinese yen the world’s reserve currency and will ultimately enslave Western countries to a new world order.
5:43

This is an insightful clip into the demise of world powers. One word - Debt. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but unsecured credit I.e. debt is even more powerful. It was no coincidence that World War One broke out the year after the newly created U.S. Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The world’s most powerful banks led by the Rothschilds had now got themselves a military, soon to become the most powerful in the world, to protect their newly acquired right to print money out of thin air with no obligation to back the money with an underlying asset. (Initially the government did back it with gold, but the gold standard was dropped in 1971) Rothschilds proxy in the U.S., JP Morgan, lent money to both Britain and France early in the war, when they started losing JP Morgan lobbied US politicians to get the US, who at the time were isolationists, into the war so that JP Morgan could recoup their money. The Lusitania was sunk to get the American people to agree to going to war. The Treaty of Versailles made Germany incur strict reparations that bankrupted them and led to the Second World War. The Second World War saw Britain, despite helping win the war incur enormous reparations. The upside of these world wars is that the wealth of the old world was transferred to the new world backed by the U.S. which now had the most powerful military to defend the private banks printing press. (Note France had lost its significant wealth after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo hence why Germany and Britain were milked.) The 21st century has seen a repeat of the 20th century in that the world’s superpower, the U.S. has been slowly drained of its wealth by deep state bankers who are using the U.S. military to defend the banks right to charge interest on printed money. We’ve seen it in Iraq, Libya and Syria where the U.S. has had to stop their leaders from not using the U.S. dollar in exchange for oil. We’ve seen it in Ukraine where the former democratically elected Ukraine President was stopped from allowing Ukraines gas pipelines to be used to transport gas from Russia to Germany. And of course we saw it in 1953 where Britain and the U.S. stopped Iran from controlling its own oil. All of these wars are facilitated by the intelligence agencies who are the most dangerous bureaucrats of all. It’s no coincidence the first head of the CIA was a corporate lawyer/banker Allen Dulles. That’s why this war with Iran is so dangerous- it risks bankrupting the U.S. and making the Chinese yen the world’s reserve currency and will ultimately enslave Western countries to a new world order.

Gerard Rennick

17,658 views • 6 months ago