Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

These anti-nuclear lobbyist are lying with impunity about nuclear destroying tourism & the Eastern Cape economy. France has dozens of nuclear plants, yet millions still flock to Paris & coastal areas every year. Nuclear has never killed tourism. Facts: Nuclear plants create economic magnets. Construction draws workers, engineers &...

Princymthombeni's profile picture

Princy Mthombeni

19,027 subscribers

36,803 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

FinanzenNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨 TRUMP JUST CONFIRMED: IRAN WAS WEEKS AWAY FROM A NUCLEAR WEAPON. HERE'S WHAT THAT MEANS. 🚨 Trump just said on camera: "If we didn't hit within 2 weeks, they would've had a NUCLEAR WEAPON. When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen." Let that sink in. This is the first time a sitting U.S. president has publicly confirmed how CLOSE Iran was to going nuclear. 💀 450 kg of 60%-enriched uranium — CONFIRMED by Axios 💀 Convertible to weapons grade "within WEEKS" 💀 The U.S. and Israel are now discussing sending SPECIAL FORCES into Iran to seize it 💀 Nuclear experts may be brought in to DILUTE it on-site 💀 This would happen at a "later stage of the war" ⚠️ If Iran was truly weeks away — this war wasn't optional. It was a COUNTDOWN. ⚠️ Every day of delay = one day closer to a nuclear-armed Iran ⚠️ A nuclear Iran changes the ENTIRE balance of power in the Middle East — permanently ⚠️ Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt would all race to build their OWN — triggering a nuclear arms race They're showing you the war's destruction — the missiles, the drones, the oil fires. They're NOT showing you what the world would look like if this war DIDN'T happen — a nuclear-armed Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz with the ability to hold the global economy HOSTAGE forever. Here's the real question nobody is asking: If Iran was 2 weeks from a nuke → and the war has now been going for 9 days → and Iran STILL has half its missile program → and special forces haven't gone in yet → is the uranium still THERE? The clock didn't stop when the bombs started falling. It's STILL ticking. This isn't just a war for oil or influence. This is a race against TIME to stop the most dangerous weapon on Earth from ending up in the most volatile region on Earth. And we don't know if they're winning that race. Prepare accordingly. 🚨🚨🚨 If this helped you understand what's really at stake, follow + RT. 🚨
0:30

🚨 TRUMP JUST CONFIRMED: IRAN WAS WEEKS AWAY FROM A NUCLEAR WEAPON. HERE'S WHAT THAT MEANS. 🚨 Trump just said on camera: "If we didn't hit within 2 weeks, they would've had a NUCLEAR WEAPON. When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen." Let that sink in. This is the first time a sitting U.S. president has publicly confirmed how CLOSE Iran was to going nuclear. 💀 450 kg of 60%-enriched uranium — CONFIRMED by Axios 💀 Convertible to weapons grade "within WEEKS" 💀 The U.S. and Israel are now discussing sending SPECIAL FORCES into Iran to seize it 💀 Nuclear experts may be brought in to DILUTE it on-site 💀 This would happen at a "later stage of the war" ⚠️ If Iran was truly weeks away — this war wasn't optional. It was a COUNTDOWN. ⚠️ Every day of delay = one day closer to a nuclear-armed Iran ⚠️ A nuclear Iran changes the ENTIRE balance of power in the Middle East — permanently ⚠️ Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt would all race to build their OWN — triggering a nuclear arms race They're showing you the war's destruction — the missiles, the drones, the oil fires. They're NOT showing you what the world would look like if this war DIDN'T happen — a nuclear-armed Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz with the ability to hold the global economy HOSTAGE forever. Here's the real question nobody is asking: If Iran was 2 weeks from a nuke → and the war has now been going for 9 days → and Iran STILL has half its missile program → and special forces haven't gone in yet → is the uranium still THERE? The clock didn't stop when the bombs started falling. It's STILL ticking. This isn't just a war for oil or influence. This is a race against TIME to stop the most dangerous weapon on Earth from ending up in the most volatile region on Earth. And we don't know if they're winning that race. Prepare accordingly. 🚨🚨🚨 If this helped you understand what's really at stake, follow + RT. 🚨

JinWoo Kim, IQ 289

18,687 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Good morning, Santa Monica. Some news you need to know. The City Council just voted unanimously on June 9th to accept a $2 million federal grant (taxpayer money) plus a $506,000 local match to study capping or even removing the I-10 between 11th and 20th Streets for a park. We have crumbling roads and delayed infrastructure projects, yet we're spending millions on consultants while real needs go unmet. Similar lids cost over $100 million and take up to 4 years to build. The I-10 carries around 150,000 vehicles daily and brings in roughly 60-70% of our workforce, over 50,000 commuters. This will worsen traffic, increase stress on workers, and hurt our economy. Tourism brought in nearly $997 million last year and supports over 6,400 local jobs. We're still only at about 50% of our peak tourism employment from 2019. More gridlock will drive visitors away, threatening these jobs that so many people rely on. It could also cut off Malibu's critical connection to the interstate, affecting emergency services during fire evacuations. This is the wrong priority. What do you think? 🚨 Share your thoughts below.
1:33

Good morning, Santa Monica. Some news you need to know. The City Council just voted unanimously on June 9th to accept a $2 million federal grant (taxpayer money) plus a $506,000 local match to study capping or even removing the I-10 between 11th and 20th Streets for a park. We have crumbling roads and delayed infrastructure projects, yet we're spending millions on consultants while real needs go unmet. Similar lids cost over $100 million and take up to 4 years to build. The I-10 carries around 150,000 vehicles daily and brings in roughly 60-70% of our workforce, over 50,000 commuters. This will worsen traffic, increase stress on workers, and hurt our economy. Tourism brought in nearly $997 million last year and supports over 6,400 local jobs. We're still only at about 50% of our peak tourism employment from 2019. More gridlock will drive visitors away, threatening these jobs that so many people rely on. It could also cut off Malibu's critical connection to the interstate, affecting emergency services during fire evacuations. This is the wrong priority. What do you think? 🚨 Share your thoughts below.

Derrick Townsend #DT4SM

13,844 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.
4:52

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

189,199 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The Devil Boats are on the other side now. When we look at the Iran context, we need to dig deeper. The American fleet stationed there has 3-4 times more firepower than Israel had during those 12 days, but that shouldn’t be the main point. The real issue is the clash between two completely different naval doctrines: global power projection with large ships versus the mosquito fleet with its much smaller, even micro vessels, but armed with missiles. And there’s no assumption that these small craft are vulnerable to drones and air strikes, quite the opposite. Some of them are specifically dedicated to anti-air defense. I’m talking about an entire navy built around this concept facing a conventional navy. In the drone era, this would be the first time something like this happens on this scale. The Americans know this strategy very well. In their Civil War, the Confederates inflicted serious damage on the Union’s big ships using the mosquito fleet, a tactic later reused against the Japanese in World War II with the PT boats attacking large destroyers and cruisers, earning the nickname “Devil Boats” from the Japanese themselves. The Americans know exactly how dangerous these fleets can be, especially one as vast as Iran’s and backed by shore-based anti-missile batteries. The entire situation is asymmetric for the Persians, who are under heavy sanctions. They face two nuclear powers with strong air forces against a country that barely has an air force, but possesses one of the largest missile arsenals on the planet. That’s why this mosquito fleet has to be respected, not because of the boats themselves, but because of what they carry. And we’re talking about a base of 1,600-2,000 missile launchers, which is a considerable force. Iran is not Venezuela, where you can just hand out money and a corrupt regime delivers the president to you. Not that there isn’t corruption in Iran, I believe it’s actually quite high, but corrupting the senior officer corps is a far more complex situation in a much larger country and already intimidated by intelligence OPs. Whenever a non-nuclear nation faces a nuclear power, it is at a considerable disadvantage. The question is: how much punishment can one side absorb before consider the use of nuclear weapons, even at the tactical level? A tactical nuclear missile would leave radiation for a short period, maybe two months or less, limited to a short area. That fear will always linger in this kind of asymmetric confrontation. Let see if more forces will join these US ships.
1:04

The Devil Boats are on the other side now. When we look at the Iran context, we need to dig deeper. The American fleet stationed there has 3-4 times more firepower than Israel had during those 12 days, but that shouldn’t be the main point. The real issue is the clash between two completely different naval doctrines: global power projection with large ships versus the mosquito fleet with its much smaller, even micro vessels, but armed with missiles. And there’s no assumption that these small craft are vulnerable to drones and air strikes, quite the opposite. Some of them are specifically dedicated to anti-air defense. I’m talking about an entire navy built around this concept facing a conventional navy. In the drone era, this would be the first time something like this happens on this scale. The Americans know this strategy very well. In their Civil War, the Confederates inflicted serious damage on the Union’s big ships using the mosquito fleet, a tactic later reused against the Japanese in World War II with the PT boats attacking large destroyers and cruisers, earning the nickname “Devil Boats” from the Japanese themselves. The Americans know exactly how dangerous these fleets can be, especially one as vast as Iran’s and backed by shore-based anti-missile batteries. The entire situation is asymmetric for the Persians, who are under heavy sanctions. They face two nuclear powers with strong air forces against a country that barely has an air force, but possesses one of the largest missile arsenals on the planet. That’s why this mosquito fleet has to be respected, not because of the boats themselves, but because of what they carry. And we’re talking about a base of 1,600-2,000 missile launchers, which is a considerable force. Iran is not Venezuela, where you can just hand out money and a corrupt regime delivers the president to you. Not that there isn’t corruption in Iran, I believe it’s actually quite high, but corrupting the senior officer corps is a far more complex situation in a much larger country and already intimidated by intelligence OPs. Whenever a non-nuclear nation faces a nuclear power, it is at a considerable disadvantage. The question is: how much punishment can one side absorb before consider the use of nuclear weapons, even at the tactical level? A tactical nuclear missile would leave radiation for a short period, maybe two months or less, limited to a short area. That fear will always linger in this kind of asymmetric confrontation. Let see if more forces will join these US ships.

Patricia Marins

28,031 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

German MEP Christine Anderson dismantles the climate moralization scam with brutal, logical precision. "How else would they be able to tax people into oblivion?" she asks. The central question isn't about saving the planet—it's about control. "How is taxing people into poverty going to save our planet? The evidence is nowhere to be found. It's humorous to even think we could, especially the way we're doing it in Germany." She then highlights the pinnacle of this absurdity: Germany's energy policy. "We shut down all of our nuclear power plants. We had the highest standards, the safest plants, the best engineering in the world. And we decommissioned them because of a catastrophe on the other side of the world—a tsunami in Japan that never reached our shores. That same tsunami somehow destroyed all our power plants in the minds of our politicians." Under Angela Merkel's moratorium, this self-sabotage began. And for what? "Despite the Greens preaching that CO2 is the world's most toxic poison, they eliminated our largest source of clean, baseload energy. The replacement? A fantasy built on unreliable alternatives." "We're carpeting prime farmland with solar panels—in a country not known for its sunshine. We're tearing down ancient, hundred-year-old forests to erect monstrous windmills—in a nation notorious for 'wind droughts' where the air is still for weeks. And when the wind doesn't blow in Germany, it isn't blowing across all of Europe. The entire scheme is geographically illiterate." So what is the result of this virtuous green revolution? "We now buy nuclear power from France and Poland. We import the very energy we demonized and abandoned. We didn't save the planet; we outsourced our energy production and made ourselves poorer and more dependent." Her conclusion is a mic drop moment for every free-thinking citizen: "Anyone with two brain cells left intact has to see this for what it is: the biggest scam ever perpetrated, all under the guise of moral superiority." This isn't environmentalism. It's economic suicide dressed up as virtue.
3:04

German MEP Christine Anderson dismantles the climate moralization scam with brutal, logical precision. "How else would they be able to tax people into oblivion?" she asks. The central question isn't about saving the planet—it's about control. "How is taxing people into poverty going to save our planet? The evidence is nowhere to be found. It's humorous to even think we could, especially the way we're doing it in Germany." She then highlights the pinnacle of this absurdity: Germany's energy policy. "We shut down all of our nuclear power plants. We had the highest standards, the safest plants, the best engineering in the world. And we decommissioned them because of a catastrophe on the other side of the world—a tsunami in Japan that never reached our shores. That same tsunami somehow destroyed all our power plants in the minds of our politicians." Under Angela Merkel's moratorium, this self-sabotage began. And for what? "Despite the Greens preaching that CO2 is the world's most toxic poison, they eliminated our largest source of clean, baseload energy. The replacement? A fantasy built on unreliable alternatives." "We're carpeting prime farmland with solar panels—in a country not known for its sunshine. We're tearing down ancient, hundred-year-old forests to erect monstrous windmills—in a nation notorious for 'wind droughts' where the air is still for weeks. And when the wind doesn't blow in Germany, it isn't blowing across all of Europe. The entire scheme is geographically illiterate." So what is the result of this virtuous green revolution? "We now buy nuclear power from France and Poland. We import the very energy we demonized and abandoned. We didn't save the planet; we outsourced our energy production and made ourselves poorer and more dependent." Her conclusion is a mic drop moment for every free-thinking citizen: "Anyone with two brain cells left intact has to see this for what it is: the biggest scam ever perpetrated, all under the guise of moral superiority." This isn't environmentalism. It's economic suicide dressed up as virtue.

Camus

36,069 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The Iran is a major player and is planning something. After the US issued an ultimatum, NATO simply withdrew from the negotiations, forcing the American team to back down and hold a meeting in Oman focused solely on the nuclear issue. The truth is that Iran is in a comfortable position because it knows the difficulties of an attack. All American bases in the region are within range of waves of Iranian short-range missiles, of which Iran has a large quantity. Moreover, the American naval force is still insufficient for attacks on Iran, especially facing difficulties against Iran's long-range anti-ship missiles. This situation has American strategists considering long-distance attacks, with aerial refueling similar to what Israel did during the 12-day war. An expensive operation, but perhaps the only feasible one. The US has increased shipments to their bases, and they're also playing a game where I see conflict very close. However, there's another issue: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would create a collapse in global energy trade, and Iran won't hesitate to do it if its survival depends on it. How to deal with all these issues without resolving two main points: 1 - Regime change 2 - The destruction of the nuclear program Both can only be done with boots on the ground. About the nuclear program, I wrote here about why only the Iranians can stop it: Both the Israelis and the Americans knew this. What we saw was an orchestrated show, where Israel wasn't satisfied, but without ammunition and with missiles hitting its economic center, it didn't see itself in a position to continue the war alone. As for the fall of the government, that's something much more complex. There are 1 million active military, not counting the scattered guerrillas and the Houthis who would land in Tehran to help. I believe this scenario has already been discarded by the Americans. But the nuclear issue won't be discarded, as it's a key point for Israel. Given the numerous Iranian statements about the destruction of Israel, how can the country feel at ease with its neighbor now having a nuclear weapon? For Netanyahu's administration, if that happens, it would be an unimaginable defeat. And that's a problem for the big players. With 440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, Iran is weeks away from creating a nuclear weapon, for which it already has at least 4 models of dual-capable missiles ready to carry it. A solution emerged: send this uranium to Russia and keep it under Moscow's custody. Personally, I think the Iranians are buying time. They wouldn't trust the Russians, who are known to have close ties with Israel. On three occasions, the Russians stalled Iran: In 2007 with the S-300, which were only delivered after 9 years; In 2016 with the Su-30, which were announced by both sides but never materialized; In 2021, Iran allegedly ordered 50 Su-35 and paid for them, without receiving any. The negotiation dragged on until 2023 when a big deal was supposedly sealed. But to this day, Iran hasn't received any Su-35. Only MiG-29s. The ties between the Russian and Israeli defense industries were forged by Soviet emigration, and today 1 in every 5 Israelis speaks Russian at home. I find it unlikely that Iran would really accept Moscow holding custody of that uranium.
1:17

The Iran is a major player and is planning something. After the US issued an ultimatum, NATO simply withdrew from the negotiations, forcing the American team to back down and hold a meeting in Oman focused solely on the nuclear issue. The truth is that Iran is in a comfortable position because it knows the difficulties of an attack. All American bases in the region are within range of waves of Iranian short-range missiles, of which Iran has a large quantity. Moreover, the American naval force is still insufficient for attacks on Iran, especially facing difficulties against Iran's long-range anti-ship missiles. This situation has American strategists considering long-distance attacks, with aerial refueling similar to what Israel did during the 12-day war. An expensive operation, but perhaps the only feasible one. The US has increased shipments to their bases, and they're also playing a game where I see conflict very close. However, there's another issue: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would create a collapse in global energy trade, and Iran won't hesitate to do it if its survival depends on it. How to deal with all these issues without resolving two main points: 1 - Regime change 2 - The destruction of the nuclear program Both can only be done with boots on the ground. About the nuclear program, I wrote here about why only the Iranians can stop it: Both the Israelis and the Americans knew this. What we saw was an orchestrated show, where Israel wasn't satisfied, but without ammunition and with missiles hitting its economic center, it didn't see itself in a position to continue the war alone. As for the fall of the government, that's something much more complex. There are 1 million active military, not counting the scattered guerrillas and the Houthis who would land in Tehran to help. I believe this scenario has already been discarded by the Americans. But the nuclear issue won't be discarded, as it's a key point for Israel. Given the numerous Iranian statements about the destruction of Israel, how can the country feel at ease with its neighbor now having a nuclear weapon? For Netanyahu's administration, if that happens, it would be an unimaginable defeat. And that's a problem for the big players. With 440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, Iran is weeks away from creating a nuclear weapon, for which it already has at least 4 models of dual-capable missiles ready to carry it. A solution emerged: send this uranium to Russia and keep it under Moscow's custody. Personally, I think the Iranians are buying time. They wouldn't trust the Russians, who are known to have close ties with Israel. On three occasions, the Russians stalled Iran: In 2007 with the S-300, which were only delivered after 9 years; In 2016 with the Su-30, which were announced by both sides but never materialized; In 2021, Iran allegedly ordered 50 Su-35 and paid for them, without receiving any. The negotiation dragged on until 2023 when a big deal was supposedly sealed. But to this day, Iran hasn't received any Su-35. Only MiG-29s. The ties between the Russian and Israeli defense industries were forged by Soviet emigration, and today 1 in every 5 Israelis speaks Russian at home. I find it unlikely that Iran would really accept Moscow holding custody of that uranium.

Patricia Marins

22,706 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The biggest power grab since Standard Oil is happening today and almost nobody is paying attention. Tech companies are building their own power grid. They're about to produce more electricity than entire COUNTRIES. Right now at the White House, CEOs from Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI are signing a pledge that most people will scroll past. But it might be the most important business deal of the decade. They're committing to build, bring, or buy 100% of their own electricity for every new AI data center. Their own power plants. Their own transmission lines. Their own energy infrastructure. These are SOFTWARE companies agreeing to become power utilities. Here's why this matters for everyone reading this: By the end of this year, at least 5 US data centers will each consume over 1 gigawatt of continuous power. 1 gigawatt powers 850,000 homes. 5 of these facilities will use more electricity than some entire countries. The US grid physically cannot handle it. Capacity prices in the PJM grid, which covers 13 states, exploded from $28.92 per megawatt-day to $329.17 in just two years. That's literally a 1,000% increase. So what do you do when the grid can't support you? You stop using the grid. Amazon is buying nuclear reactors. Microsoft restarted Three Mile Island. Meta signed 20-year nuclear deals. Chevron is building a 2.5 gigawatt natural gas plant in West Texas specifically to power data centers. These companies aren't supplementing the grid. They're replacing it. For themselves. Think about what's actually happening here: 7 companies now control more computing power than most governments. And today they're signing paperwork to control their own energy supply too. Computing. Data. Energy. Infrastructure. That's not a "tech" company anymore. A Harvard energy law professor already called the pledge "meaningless" because utilities in PJM are spending tens of billions on power projects for data centers and those costs are STILL being spread across ratepayers anyway. The pledge has zero legal teeth. No enforcement mechanism. No compliance monitoring. No penalty for breaking it. It's a political move designed to get tech companies through the midterms without becoming the villain of every campaign ad about electricity bills. But the underlying shift is real and irreversible: Tech companies are becoming energy companies. Energy companies are becoming AI infrastructure. And the line between Big Tech and Big Energy is about to disappear completely. The big question here: When seven companies control both the world's intelligence AND the power that runs it, who exactly is governing who?
2:25

The biggest power grab since Standard Oil is happening today and almost nobody is paying attention. Tech companies are building their own power grid. They're about to produce more electricity than entire COUNTRIES. Right now at the White House, CEOs from Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI are signing a pledge that most people will scroll past. But it might be the most important business deal of the decade. They're committing to build, bring, or buy 100% of their own electricity for every new AI data center. Their own power plants. Their own transmission lines. Their own energy infrastructure. These are SOFTWARE companies agreeing to become power utilities. Here's why this matters for everyone reading this: By the end of this year, at least 5 US data centers will each consume over 1 gigawatt of continuous power. 1 gigawatt powers 850,000 homes. 5 of these facilities will use more electricity than some entire countries. The US grid physically cannot handle it. Capacity prices in the PJM grid, which covers 13 states, exploded from $28.92 per megawatt-day to $329.17 in just two years. That's literally a 1,000% increase. So what do you do when the grid can't support you? You stop using the grid. Amazon is buying nuclear reactors. Microsoft restarted Three Mile Island. Meta signed 20-year nuclear deals. Chevron is building a 2.5 gigawatt natural gas plant in West Texas specifically to power data centers. These companies aren't supplementing the grid. They're replacing it. For themselves. Think about what's actually happening here: 7 companies now control more computing power than most governments. And today they're signing paperwork to control their own energy supply too. Computing. Data. Energy. Infrastructure. That's not a "tech" company anymore. A Harvard energy law professor already called the pledge "meaningless" because utilities in PJM are spending tens of billions on power projects for data centers and those costs are STILL being spread across ratepayers anyway. The pledge has zero legal teeth. No enforcement mechanism. No compliance monitoring. No penalty for breaking it. It's a political move designed to get tech companies through the midterms without becoming the villain of every campaign ad about electricity bills. But the underlying shift is real and irreversible: Tech companies are becoming energy companies. Energy companies are becoming AI infrastructure. And the line between Big Tech and Big Energy is about to disappear completely. The big question here: When seven companies control both the world's intelligence AND the power that runs it, who exactly is governing who?

Ricardo

146,676 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

China has banned the export of all dual-use items to Japanese military users and for Japan’s military use. The aim is to contain Japan’s remilitarization and its attempt to possess nuclear weapons, said the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sanae Takaichi lamented at the G7 that China’s rare earth sanctions are affecting Japan’s economy. This is the same person who openly threatened China by saying that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency.” A defeated fascist state, once disarmed by the anti-fascist order after turning Asia into a slaughterhouse, is now trying to insert itself into China’s internal affairs and present that as “security.” Then when China responds with economic measures, Japan plays the victim. Classic. Japan should be glad that China is not the United States. If a foreign leader said “a Cuba emergency is our emergency” to Washington, the U.S. would not respond with polite export controls. It would call it a national security threat, sanction everyone involved, send warships, threaten regime change, and may even kidnap that leader and his family within a week, drag them back to the United States, and try them on drug trafficking charges. Trump attacked Iran for months under the excuse that Iran must not even have the chance to build a nuclear weapon. Iran did not say “Cuba is our emergency.” Iran did not invade the U.S. Iran did not station forces near Florida. Yet Washington bombed Tehran, assassinated Khamenei, blockaded Hormuz, and called it security. Japan, meanwhile, openly links itself to Taiwan, challenges China’s sovereignty, pushes remilitarization, flirts with nuclear ambitions, and then cries when China restricts dual-use exports. Japan should understand one thing very clearly: China’s economic measures are restraint. Perhaps too restrained. That is exactly why Japan dares to challenge China’s core red lines of sovereignty again and again. In the end, a defeated militarist power does not get to threaten the victorious country, interfere in its territorial question, and then demand uninterrupted access to strategic materials. If Japan wants stable relations with China, it should stop pretending dialogue means China staying silent while Tokyo rearms, provokes, and hides behind the G7. China is indeed not the United States. That is why Japan is still being warned through economic tools instead of being treated the way Washington treats countries that cross its red lines.
2:02

China has banned the export of all dual-use items to Japanese military users and for Japan’s military use. The aim is to contain Japan’s remilitarization and its attempt to possess nuclear weapons, said the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sanae Takaichi lamented at the G7 that China’s rare earth sanctions are affecting Japan’s economy. This is the same person who openly threatened China by saying that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency.” A defeated fascist state, once disarmed by the anti-fascist order after turning Asia into a slaughterhouse, is now trying to insert itself into China’s internal affairs and present that as “security.” Then when China responds with economic measures, Japan plays the victim. Classic. Japan should be glad that China is not the United States. If a foreign leader said “a Cuba emergency is our emergency” to Washington, the U.S. would not respond with polite export controls. It would call it a national security threat, sanction everyone involved, send warships, threaten regime change, and may even kidnap that leader and his family within a week, drag them back to the United States, and try them on drug trafficking charges. Trump attacked Iran for months under the excuse that Iran must not even have the chance to build a nuclear weapon. Iran did not say “Cuba is our emergency.” Iran did not invade the U.S. Iran did not station forces near Florida. Yet Washington bombed Tehran, assassinated Khamenei, blockaded Hormuz, and called it security. Japan, meanwhile, openly links itself to Taiwan, challenges China’s sovereignty, pushes remilitarization, flirts with nuclear ambitions, and then cries when China restricts dual-use exports. Japan should understand one thing very clearly: China’s economic measures are restraint. Perhaps too restrained. That is exactly why Japan dares to challenge China’s core red lines of sovereignty again and again. In the end, a defeated militarist power does not get to threaten the victorious country, interfere in its territorial question, and then demand uninterrupted access to strategic materials. If Japan wants stable relations with China, it should stop pretending dialogue means China staying silent while Tokyo rearms, provokes, and hides behind the G7. China is indeed not the United States. That is why Japan is still being warned through economic tools instead of being treated the way Washington treats countries that cross its red lines.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

23,164 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Full remarks from President Donald J. Trump regarding Iran during tonight’s State of the Union: “As President, I will make peace wherever I can, but I will never hesitate to confront threats to America wherever we must. That's why in a breakthrough operation last June, the United States military obliterated Iran's nuclear weapons program with an attack on Iranian soil known as Operation Midnight Hammer. For decades, it had been the policy of the United States never to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Many decades. Since they seized control of that proud nation 47 years ago, the regime and its murderous proxies have spread nothing but terrorism and death and hate. They've killed and maimed thousands of American service members and hundreds of thousands and even millions of people - with what's called roadside bombs. They were the kings of the roadside bomb. And we took out Soleimani. I did that during my first term. Had a huge impact. He was the father of the roadside bomb. And just over the last couple of months with the protests, they've killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters. 32,000 protesters in their own country. They shot them and hung them. We stopped them from hanging a lot of them with the threat of serious violence. But this is some terrible people. They've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America. After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program in a particular area - nuclear weapons, yet they continue starting it all over. We wiped it out and they want to start all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’ My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain: I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. And no nation should ever doubt America's result. We have the most powerful military on Earth. I rebuilt the military in my first term. We're going to continue to do so also, which is to prove the trillion-dollar budget. We have no choice. We have to be strong. because hopefully we will seldom have to use this great power that we built together. It's really called peace through strength, and it's been very, very effective. So thanks to Republicans in Congress, we're investing that record number of dollars, have no choice, in the United States Armed Forces. We're also creating a lot of jobs, but we're not even doing it for that reason. Because, as I said, we have more jobs, more people working today than ever before in the history of our country. And NATO countries are friends and allies. They are. They're our friends and they're our allies. They’ve just agreed, at my very strong request, to pay 5% of GDP for military defense rather than the 2%, which they weren't paying. We were paying for almost all of NATO. Now they're paying 5 as opposed to not paying 5.” Video credit: Luke Brenner
4:51

Full remarks from President Donald J. Trump regarding Iran during tonight’s State of the Union: “As President, I will make peace wherever I can, but I will never hesitate to confront threats to America wherever we must. That's why in a breakthrough operation last June, the United States military obliterated Iran's nuclear weapons program with an attack on Iranian soil known as Operation Midnight Hammer. For decades, it had been the policy of the United States never to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Many decades. Since they seized control of that proud nation 47 years ago, the regime and its murderous proxies have spread nothing but terrorism and death and hate. They've killed and maimed thousands of American service members and hundreds of thousands and even millions of people - with what's called roadside bombs. They were the kings of the roadside bomb. And we took out Soleimani. I did that during my first term. Had a huge impact. He was the father of the roadside bomb. And just over the last couple of months with the protests, they've killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters. 32,000 protesters in their own country. They shot them and hung them. We stopped them from hanging a lot of them with the threat of serious violence. But this is some terrible people. They've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America. After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program in a particular area - nuclear weapons, yet they continue starting it all over. We wiped it out and they want to start all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’ My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain: I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. And no nation should ever doubt America's result. We have the most powerful military on Earth. I rebuilt the military in my first term. We're going to continue to do so also, which is to prove the trillion-dollar budget. We have no choice. We have to be strong. because hopefully we will seldom have to use this great power that we built together. It's really called peace through strength, and it's been very, very effective. So thanks to Republicans in Congress, we're investing that record number of dollars, have no choice, in the United States Armed Forces. We're also creating a lot of jobs, but we're not even doing it for that reason. Because, as I said, we have more jobs, more people working today than ever before in the history of our country. And NATO countries are friends and allies. They are. They're our friends and they're our allies. They’ve just agreed, at my very strong request, to pay 5% of GDP for military defense rather than the 2%, which they weren't paying. We were paying for almost all of NATO. Now they're paying 5 as opposed to not paying 5.” Video credit: Luke Brenner

OSINTdefender

331,774 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The man who won the Nobel Prize just told the world that AI is not the energy crisis, it is the cure for it. Everyone has been screaming about how much electricity AI consumes, the data centers, the training runs, the billions of queries every single day. Hassabis just said AI will extract 30 to 40 percent more efficiency out of national power grids, grids that, right now, operate at only 30 percent of their total capacity according to Stanford researchers. That means the grids we already built are massively underused, and AI is the key to unlocking what is already there. But that is the smallest part of what he is saying. He is saying AI will crack nuclear fusion, the energy source that has been 30 years away for the last 60 years and DeepMind is already working with Commonwealth Fusion in the US to help AI contain plasma inside fusion reactors. His personal mission is to use AI to discover a room-temperature superconductor, a material that would allow electricity to travel with zero loss, something physics has never been able to deliver. The implications of that alone would reshape the entire global economy overnight. He is also saying AI will design next-generation batteries and build the best climate modeling systems humanity has ever had, using them to figure out exactly where the planet is breaking down. Think about what this means, the thing everyone is blaming for the energy crisis is the same thing being bet on to end it forever.
0:51

The man who won the Nobel Prize just told the world that AI is not the energy crisis, it is the cure for it. Everyone has been screaming about how much electricity AI consumes, the data centers, the training runs, the billions of queries every single day. Hassabis just said AI will extract 30 to 40 percent more efficiency out of national power grids, grids that, right now, operate at only 30 percent of their total capacity according to Stanford researchers. That means the grids we already built are massively underused, and AI is the key to unlocking what is already there. But that is the smallest part of what he is saying. He is saying AI will crack nuclear fusion, the energy source that has been 30 years away for the last 60 years and DeepMind is already working with Commonwealth Fusion in the US to help AI contain plasma inside fusion reactors. His personal mission is to use AI to discover a room-temperature superconductor, a material that would allow electricity to travel with zero loss, something physics has never been able to deliver. The implications of that alone would reshape the entire global economy overnight. He is also saying AI will design next-generation batteries and build the best climate modeling systems humanity has ever had, using them to figure out exactly where the planet is breaking down. Think about what this means, the thing everyone is blaming for the energy crisis is the same thing being bet on to end it forever.

Milk Road AI

41,417 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Even the rat is squealing: putin’s chief propagandist finally admits the ship is sinking. Things are getting dire when putin’s chief lapdog, Vladimir Solovyov, stops barking about nuclear strikes for five seconds to actually look at Russia’s economy. He delivers a strikingly blunt critique of Russia’s current economic strategy. He specifically targets the Central Bank’s policies, arguing that the methods being used to combat inflation are actually "suffocating" the domestic economy and threatening the country's industrial future. "I just don’t understand. I don’t understand what the banks are offering. They say they are fighting inflation. But they aren't fighting inflation, they are suffocating the economy. They are killing the growth of the manufacturing sector. Everyone has been lying. Everyone has been lying for years, saying that our economy is stable, that everything is fine. But it isn't fine. We are seeing a primitive experiment that will end in the bankruptcy of thousands of companies and businesses. These are the very businesses that were supposed to contribute to the prosperity of our country. How are we supposed to develop the military-industrial complex, energy, AI, and new materials without 'cheap money'? You can't. The interest rates are killing us. We are witnessing the self-strangulation of our own economy. Look at the numbers. While the U.S. is seeing growth, we are stagnating around zero. Our coal industry, our metallurgy, our shipping—it's all 'lying down’. Even the oil sector is struggling. And we can't keep writing this off as 'the plan.' It’s time to admit that the methods from the 70s aren't working in 2026. If we don't change course, we are simply turning everything we painstakingly accumulated in 2022 and 2023 into shit." But don’t be fooled. Solovyov’s “admission" is usually a calculated political maneuver rather than a betrayal of putin and the Kremlin. The intent is to protect putin and the regime by providing a convenient target (Central Bank) for people's economic misery. Nevertheless, the "mess" is real, but in Solovyov's narrative, the cause isn't putin, the war or the sanctions. It’s the Central Bank (CBR) Elvira Nabiullina (CBR Head). He portrays her as a "Western-style technocrat" who is sabotaging the Russian "Victory" by keeping interest rates high. By blaming the "lying" officials and the bankers, Solovyov keeps putin above the fray. The implication is: "The Tsar is good, but the ministers are corrupt and incompetent”.
2:13

Even the rat is squealing: putin’s chief propagandist finally admits the ship is sinking. Things are getting dire when putin’s chief lapdog, Vladimir Solovyov, stops barking about nuclear strikes for five seconds to actually look at Russia’s economy. He delivers a strikingly blunt critique of Russia’s current economic strategy. He specifically targets the Central Bank’s policies, arguing that the methods being used to combat inflation are actually "suffocating" the domestic economy and threatening the country's industrial future. "I just don’t understand. I don’t understand what the banks are offering. They say they are fighting inflation. But they aren't fighting inflation, they are suffocating the economy. They are killing the growth of the manufacturing sector. Everyone has been lying. Everyone has been lying for years, saying that our economy is stable, that everything is fine. But it isn't fine. We are seeing a primitive experiment that will end in the bankruptcy of thousands of companies and businesses. These are the very businesses that were supposed to contribute to the prosperity of our country. How are we supposed to develop the military-industrial complex, energy, AI, and new materials without 'cheap money'? You can't. The interest rates are killing us. We are witnessing the self-strangulation of our own economy. Look at the numbers. While the U.S. is seeing growth, we are stagnating around zero. Our coal industry, our metallurgy, our shipping—it's all 'lying down’. Even the oil sector is struggling. And we can't keep writing this off as 'the plan.' It’s time to admit that the methods from the 70s aren't working in 2026. If we don't change course, we are simply turning everything we painstakingly accumulated in 2022 and 2023 into shit." But don’t be fooled. Solovyov’s “admission" is usually a calculated political maneuver rather than a betrayal of putin and the Kremlin. The intent is to protect putin and the regime by providing a convenient target (Central Bank) for people's economic misery. Nevertheless, the "mess" is real, but in Solovyov's narrative, the cause isn't putin, the war or the sanctions. It’s the Central Bank (CBR) Elvira Nabiullina (CBR Head). He portrays her as a "Western-style technocrat" who is sabotaging the Russian "Victory" by keeping interest rates high. By blaming the "lying" officials and the bankers, Solovyov keeps putin above the fray. The implication is: "The Tsar is good, but the ministers are corrupt and incompetent”.

Yasmina

20,473 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Catherine Austin Fitts on people waking up to dangers of Flock cameras and data centers: "There is a revolution across America of people who are... furious to discover that they are paying their county to put up cameras that track their every movement" "[And] the people putting in data centers have a couple of problems. One is people are beginning to understand that they're going to be used for control. They're not going to be used to increase productivity, they're going to be used to increase control" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Derrick Broze (Derrick Broze) posted to The Conscious Resistance YouTube channel on May 6, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So let me tell you some of the good news. You know, for many, many years, I've been trying to pass legislation to protect cash and stop programmable money for all these reasons. But one of the things that's happened because it's an abstract idea and people have struggle with that, but now the local hardware you need to implement that system is going into place. With both the data centers, the telecom that everyone's fighting, but then the Flock cameras. "And what has happened is there is a revolution across America of people who are so furious to discover that they are paying their county to put up cameras that track their every movement with the Flock cameras... And there is huge pushback. It's unbelievable. "And it's interesting. So the people putting in data centers have a couple of problems. One is people are beginning to understand that they're going to be used for control. They're not going to be used to increase productivity, they're going to be used to increase control. "But the other thing they're realizing is if you look at the projections of what energy they need and what water they need and what their environmental impact is, what the noise does to people who live around it, they're beginning to realize, 'Oh, wait a minute. These people don't care about climate change.' "There was an article last, I was just telling a guy who I met who'd just gone to a data center conference. There was an article last year that Texas, for the projected data centers, needed 50 new nuclear plants. And he told me it takes 30 years to build a nuclear plant in Texas, so—"
1:54

Catherine Austin Fitts on people waking up to dangers of Flock cameras and data centers: "There is a revolution across America of people who are... furious to discover that they are paying their county to put up cameras that track their every movement" "[And] the people putting in data centers have a couple of problems. One is people are beginning to understand that they're going to be used for control. They're not going to be used to increase productivity, they're going to be used to increase control" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Derrick Broze (Derrick Broze) posted to The Conscious Resistance YouTube channel on May 6, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So let me tell you some of the good news. You know, for many, many years, I've been trying to pass legislation to protect cash and stop programmable money for all these reasons. But one of the things that's happened because it's an abstract idea and people have struggle with that, but now the local hardware you need to implement that system is going into place. With both the data centers, the telecom that everyone's fighting, but then the Flock cameras. "And what has happened is there is a revolution across America of people who are so furious to discover that they are paying their county to put up cameras that track their every movement with the Flock cameras... And there is huge pushback. It's unbelievable. "And it's interesting. So the people putting in data centers have a couple of problems. One is people are beginning to understand that they're going to be used for control. They're not going to be used to increase productivity, they're going to be used to increase control. "But the other thing they're realizing is if you look at the projections of what energy they need and what water they need and what their environmental impact is, what the noise does to people who live around it, they're beginning to realize, 'Oh, wait a minute. These people don't care about climate change.' "There was an article last, I was just telling a guy who I met who'd just gone to a data center conference. There was an article last year that Texas, for the projected data centers, needed 50 new nuclear plants. And he told me it takes 30 years to build a nuclear plant in Texas, so—"

Sense Receptor

19,404 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

In One Nation's Budget Reply, I outlined our vision of hope for the future. I have so much to say about saving this country that I ran out of time to say all of it. Watch my full budget reply and read a copy of what I wasn't able to fit in below: "We are covering our land with windmills and solar panels and in turn delivering the dearest and most precarious electricity grid our nation has ever had, when we had the cheapest coal fired power and sitting on one of the greatest coal resources in the globe. One Nation does not care about major party sneers. We care about handing our children a better opportunity than was handed to us by our parents, currently it is the other way around. One Nation will reallocate the resources from the fool's errand of Australia changing the weather to invest in coal fired power, nuclear, irrigation, freight, rail, ports and roads. We will work with businesses as partners in these projects. One Nation will listen to civil engineers, nuclear physicists, and research scientists in medicine instead of climate change bureaucrats. These assets on our nations balance sheet allows us to pay for expenses on the Profit and Loss. These assets build a nation that can repay its debts. One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction -one rooted in proven, common sense economic principles. We'll lower taxes on working families, slash regulation that strangles enterprise, deliver abundant and affordable energy, and back the industries that actually create real wealth and opportunity. We will never pretend we know better than you how to run your own lives. That is why we are determined to hand power back to the Australian people where it belongs. We will reward hard work and aspiration, restore fiscal discipline, and put Australian families and businesses first once again. One Nation's word is our bond - and we have three decades of unwavering policy consistency to prove it. We hope to earn your trust to implement the bold change Australia desperately needs. Thank you."
15:05

In One Nation's Budget Reply, I outlined our vision of hope for the future. I have so much to say about saving this country that I ran out of time to say all of it. Watch my full budget reply and read a copy of what I wasn't able to fit in below: "We are covering our land with windmills and solar panels and in turn delivering the dearest and most precarious electricity grid our nation has ever had, when we had the cheapest coal fired power and sitting on one of the greatest coal resources in the globe. One Nation does not care about major party sneers. We care about handing our children a better opportunity than was handed to us by our parents, currently it is the other way around. One Nation will reallocate the resources from the fool's errand of Australia changing the weather to invest in coal fired power, nuclear, irrigation, freight, rail, ports and roads. We will work with businesses as partners in these projects. One Nation will listen to civil engineers, nuclear physicists, and research scientists in medicine instead of climate change bureaucrats. These assets on our nations balance sheet allows us to pay for expenses on the Profit and Loss. These assets build a nation that can repay its debts. One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction -one rooted in proven, common sense economic principles. We'll lower taxes on working families, slash regulation that strangles enterprise, deliver abundant and affordable energy, and back the industries that actually create real wealth and opportunity. We will never pretend we know better than you how to run your own lives. That is why we are determined to hand power back to the Australian people where it belongs. We will reward hard work and aspiration, restore fiscal discipline, and put Australian families and businesses first once again. One Nation's word is our bond - and we have three decades of unwavering policy consistency to prove it. We hope to earn your trust to implement the bold change Australia desperately needs. Thank you."

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

50,110 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google: "The AI revolution is underhyped. None of us is prepared for the implications of this." He opens with a warning: "The arrival of this new intelligence will profoundly change our country and the world in ways we cannot fully understand." He explains what's happening right now in the industry: "We're very very quickly developing AI programmers. And these AI programmers will replace traditional software programmers. We're building in the next year AI mathematicians that are as good as the top level graduate students in math. This is happening very quickly." Schmidt argues most people fundamentally misunderstand what AI has become: "Today you think of AI as ChatGPT, but what it really is is a reasoning and planning system that we've never seen before." The implications, he warns, extend far beyond software. These new systems demand resources at an industrial scale we've never encountered. "They're going to need a lot more computation than we've ever had. They're going to need a lot more energy." To illustrate the scale of the energy crisis ahead, Schmidt offers a sobering comparison: "People are planning 10 gigawatt data centers. Now just to do the translation, an average nuclear power plant in the United States is 1 gigawatt. How many nuclear power plants can we make in one year where we're planning this 10 gigawatt data center? Gives you a sense of how big this crisis is." Eric Schmidt shares an estimate he finds most likely: "Data centers will require an additional 29 gigawatts of power by 2027 and 67 more gigawatts by 2030. These things are industrial at a scale I have never seen in my life." Schmidt says the industry needs high skills immigration, light touch regulation around cyber and bio threats, and most critically, energy in all forms. He's personally investing in fusion, but acknowledges it won't arrive in time. He closes with the stakes: "When you build these systems, you have intelligence in the computer and then eventually human level intelligence. Some people think it's within 3 to four years. Then after that, you have something called super intelligence, the intelligence that's higher than of humans. We believe as an industry that this could occur within a decade. It is crucial that America get there first."
2:35

Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google: "The AI revolution is underhyped. None of us is prepared for the implications of this." He opens with a warning: "The arrival of this new intelligence will profoundly change our country and the world in ways we cannot fully understand." He explains what's happening right now in the industry: "We're very very quickly developing AI programmers. And these AI programmers will replace traditional software programmers. We're building in the next year AI mathematicians that are as good as the top level graduate students in math. This is happening very quickly." Schmidt argues most people fundamentally misunderstand what AI has become: "Today you think of AI as ChatGPT, but what it really is is a reasoning and planning system that we've never seen before." The implications, he warns, extend far beyond software. These new systems demand resources at an industrial scale we've never encountered. "They're going to need a lot more computation than we've ever had. They're going to need a lot more energy." To illustrate the scale of the energy crisis ahead, Schmidt offers a sobering comparison: "People are planning 10 gigawatt data centers. Now just to do the translation, an average nuclear power plant in the United States is 1 gigawatt. How many nuclear power plants can we make in one year where we're planning this 10 gigawatt data center? Gives you a sense of how big this crisis is." Eric Schmidt shares an estimate he finds most likely: "Data centers will require an additional 29 gigawatts of power by 2027 and 67 more gigawatts by 2030. These things are industrial at a scale I have never seen in my life." Schmidt says the industry needs high skills immigration, light touch regulation around cyber and bio threats, and most critically, energy in all forms. He's personally investing in fusion, but acknowledges it won't arrive in time. He closes with the stakes: "When you build these systems, you have intelligence in the computer and then eventually human level intelligence. Some people think it's within 3 to four years. Then after that, you have something called super intelligence, the intelligence that's higher than of humans. We believe as an industry that this could occur within a decade. It is crucial that America get there first."

Big Brain AI

40,338 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
6:22

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

129,394 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

When the Nigerian economy fell into hard times in the early 1980s, the government issued a “Quit order” expelling undocumented immigrants. In the video below, Nigeria’s president, “Minister” Shehu Shagari fielded questions about the scale and the death of people during the mass exodus. Interestingly, there was not much improvement in Nigeria’s economy after the order was carried out. According to Dr Hashim Gibrill of Clark Atlanta University, “The economic impact was acute, notably in sectors like hospitality and construction, where many skilled workers were lost”. Many foreign manual labourers and skilled tradesmen vanished overnight, stalling building projects, while small businesses, hotels, and agricultural sectors lost a massive pool of cheap, reliable labour. At the same time, the policy failed to save the government economically as the economy continued to freefall. On 31 December, 1983, less than a year after the expulsion order, military Major General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the government in a military coup, citing a completely ruined economy. Ultimately, historians agree that the 1983 expulsion was a severe humanitarian tragedy that caused massive regional disruption and provided absolutely zero economic relief to Nigeria. Now, to be fair, it makes total intuitive sense on the surface for people to believe that expelling migrants will improve their economic situation. That is precisely why political leaders throughout history have used this tactic because it relies on logic that feels like common sense, even though economic reality repeatedly proves it wrong. This is because from a purely intuitive standpoint, people tend to look at the economy as a zero-sum game, with jobs, housing, and government resources as a fixed pie. It sense that if there are 100 jobs and 20 immigrants occupy some of them, expelling those immigrants means 20 citizens get those jobs. Similarly, when unemployment and inequality are high, finding complex macroeconomic solutions takes years. But blaming a visible, distinct group of outsiders offers an instant, simple explanation for a complex mess, which makes it attractive to a frustrated public. But the thing is that in any economy, jobs are not a fixed pie, and when you suddenly remove millions of consumers from a country, as Nigeria did in 1983, the demand for bread, clothes, transport, and rent plummets. Businesses lose customers, revenues drop, and many end up retrenching more workers. Again, it’s common sense to assume a citizen will just step into an undocumented worker’s shoes. But in reality, citizens often refuse to work the same low-wage, backbreaking labour like seasonal agriculture. South African farmers routinely report struggling to recruit and retain local South African workers for these short-term, backbreaking harvesting seasons as farm work is highly intensive, temporary, and often located in remote areas. South African citizens, who have constitutional rights, families to support locally, and expectations of fair labor standards, rightfully refuse to work for these illegal, sub-poverty wages. So, this is less about citizens being “lazy” and more about the distortion of the labour market because undocumented workers lack legal protections, unscrupulous employers exploit them by paying well below the legal minimum wage and ignoring labour laws. Still, if those undocumented workers disappear overnight, many exploitative small businesses and farms face sudden operational collapse rather than a seamless transition to local labour. Needless to say, for South Africa, a sudden exit of regional labour, much like Nigeria experienced in 1983, would not solve South Africa’s unemployment catastrophe. Instead, it would instead cause immediate labour shortages in agriculture, spike food prices and shrink the overall size of the economic pie available to everyone.
1:32

When the Nigerian economy fell into hard times in the early 1980s, the government issued a “Quit order” expelling undocumented immigrants. In the video below, Nigeria’s president, “Minister” Shehu Shagari fielded questions about the scale and the death of people during the mass exodus. Interestingly, there was not much improvement in Nigeria’s economy after the order was carried out. According to Dr Hashim Gibrill of Clark Atlanta University, “The economic impact was acute, notably in sectors like hospitality and construction, where many skilled workers were lost”. Many foreign manual labourers and skilled tradesmen vanished overnight, stalling building projects, while small businesses, hotels, and agricultural sectors lost a massive pool of cheap, reliable labour. At the same time, the policy failed to save the government economically as the economy continued to freefall. On 31 December, 1983, less than a year after the expulsion order, military Major General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the government in a military coup, citing a completely ruined economy. Ultimately, historians agree that the 1983 expulsion was a severe humanitarian tragedy that caused massive regional disruption and provided absolutely zero economic relief to Nigeria. Now, to be fair, it makes total intuitive sense on the surface for people to believe that expelling migrants will improve their economic situation. That is precisely why political leaders throughout history have used this tactic because it relies on logic that feels like common sense, even though economic reality repeatedly proves it wrong. This is because from a purely intuitive standpoint, people tend to look at the economy as a zero-sum game, with jobs, housing, and government resources as a fixed pie. It sense that if there are 100 jobs and 20 immigrants occupy some of them, expelling those immigrants means 20 citizens get those jobs. Similarly, when unemployment and inequality are high, finding complex macroeconomic solutions takes years. But blaming a visible, distinct group of outsiders offers an instant, simple explanation for a complex mess, which makes it attractive to a frustrated public. But the thing is that in any economy, jobs are not a fixed pie, and when you suddenly remove millions of consumers from a country, as Nigeria did in 1983, the demand for bread, clothes, transport, and rent plummets. Businesses lose customers, revenues drop, and many end up retrenching more workers. Again, it’s common sense to assume a citizen will just step into an undocumented worker’s shoes. But in reality, citizens often refuse to work the same low-wage, backbreaking labour like seasonal agriculture. South African farmers routinely report struggling to recruit and retain local South African workers for these short-term, backbreaking harvesting seasons as farm work is highly intensive, temporary, and often located in remote areas. South African citizens, who have constitutional rights, families to support locally, and expectations of fair labor standards, rightfully refuse to work for these illegal, sub-poverty wages. So, this is less about citizens being “lazy” and more about the distortion of the labour market because undocumented workers lack legal protections, unscrupulous employers exploit them by paying well below the legal minimum wage and ignoring labour laws. Still, if those undocumented workers disappear overnight, many exploitative small businesses and farms face sudden operational collapse rather than a seamless transition to local labour. Needless to say, for South Africa, a sudden exit of regional labour, much like Nigeria experienced in 1983, would not solve South Africa’s unemployment catastrophe. Instead, it would instead cause immediate labour shortages in agriculture, spike food prices and shrink the overall size of the economic pie available to everyone.

Sizwe SikaMusi

51,267 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen