Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different from the Energy Crisis of 2005

Back in 2005, the world economy was “humming along.” World growth in energy consumption per capita was rising at 2.3% per year in the 2001 to 2005 period. China had been added to the World Trade Organization in December 2001, ramping up its demand for all kinds of fossil fuels. There was also a bubble in the US housing market, brought on by low interest rates and loose underwriting standards.

Figure 1. World primary energy consumption per capita based on BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

The problem in 2005, as now, was inflation in energy costs that was feeding through to inflation in general. Inflation in food prices was especially a problem. The Federal Reserve chose to fix the problem by raising the Federal Funds interest rate from 1.00% to 5.25% between June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2006.

Now, the world is facing a very different problem. High energy prices are again feeding over to food prices and to inflation in general. But the underlying trend in energy consumption is very different. The growth rate in world energy consumption per capita was 2.3% per year in the 2001 to 2005 period, but energy consumption per capita for the period 2017 to 2021 seems to be slightly shrinking at minus 0.4% per year. The world seems to already be on the edge of recession.

The Federal Reserve seems to be using a similar interest rate approach now, in very different circumstances. In this post, I will try to explain why I don’t think that this approach will produce the desired outcome.

[1] The 2004 to 2006 interest rate hikes didn’t lead to lower oil prices until after July 2008.

It is easiest to see the impact (or lack thereof) of rising interest rates by looking at average monthly world oil prices.

Figure 2. Average monthly Brent spot oil prices based on data of the US Energy Information Administration. Latest month shown is July 2022.

The US Federal Reserve began raising target interest rates in June 2004 when the average Brent oil price was only $38.22 per barrel. These interest rates stopped rising at the end of June 2006, when oil prices averaged $68.56 per barrel. Oil prices on this basis eventually reached $132.72 per barrel in July 2008. (All of these amounts are in dollars of the day, rather than being adjusted for inflation.) Thus, the highest price was over three times the price in June 2004, when the US Federal Reserve made the decision to start raising target interest rates.

Based on Figure 2 (including my notes regarding the timing of the interest rate rise), I would conclude that raising interest rates didn’t work very well at bringing down the price of oil when it was tried in the 2004 to 2006 period. Of course, the economy was growing rapidly, then. The rapid growth of the economy likely led to the very high oil price shown in mid-2008.

I expect that the result of the US Federal Reserve raising interest rates now, in a low-growth world economy, might be quite different. The world’s debt bubble might pop, leading to a worse situation than the financial crisis of 2008. Indirectly, both asset prices and commodity prices, including oil prices, would tend to fall very low.

Analysts looking at the situation from strictly an energy perspective tend to miss the interconnected nature of the economy. Factors which energy analysts overlook (particularly debt becoming impossible to repay, as interest rates rise) may lead to an outcome that is pretty much the opposite result of the standard belief. The typical belief of energy analysts is that low oil supply will lead to very high prices and more oil production. In the current situation, I expect that the result might be closer to the opposite: Oil prices will fall because of financial problems brought on by the higher interest rates, and these lower oil prices will lead to even lower oil production.

[2] The purpose of the US Federal reserve raising target interest rates was to flatten the growth rate of the world economy. Looking back at Figure 1, the growth in energy consumption per capita was much lower after the Great Recession. I doubt that now in 2022, we want even lower growth (really, more shrinkage) in energy consumption per capita for future years.*

Looking at Figure 1, growth in energy consumption per capita has been very slow since the Great Recession. A person wonders: What is the point of governments and their central banks pushing the world economy down, now in 2022, when the world economy is already barely able to maintain international supply lines and provide enough diesel for all of the world’s trucks and agricultural equipment?

If the world economy is pushed downward now, what would the result be? Would some countries find themselves unable to afford fossil fuel energy products in the future? This might lead to problems both in growing and transporting food, at least for these countries. Would the whole world suffer a major crisis of some sort, such as a financial crisis? The world economy is a self-organizing system. It is difficult to forecast precisely how the situation would work out.

[3] While the growth rate in energy consumption per capita was much lower after 2008, the price of crude oil quickly bounced back to over $120 per barrel in inflation-adjusted prices in the 2011-2013 time frame.

Figure 3 shows that oil prices immediately bounced back up after the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Quantitative Easing (QE), which the US Federal Reserve began in late 2008, helped energy prices to shoot back up again. QE helped keep the cost of borrowing by governments low, allowing governments to run larger deficits than might otherwise have been possible without interest rates rising. These higher deficits added to the demand for commodities of all types, including oil, thus raising prices.

Figure 3. Average annual oil prices inflation-adjusted oil prices based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy. Amounts shown are Brent equivalent spot prices.

The chart above shows average annual Brent oil prices through 2021. The above chart does not show 2022 prices. The current Brent oil price is about $91 per barrel. So, oil prices today are a little higher than they have been recently, but they are nowhere nearly as high as they were in the 2011 to 2013 period or in the late 1970s. The extreme reaction we are seeing is very strange. The problem seems to be much more than oil prices, by themselves.

[4] High prices in the 2006 to 2013 period allowed the rise of unconventional oil production. These high oil prices also helped keep conventional oil production from falling after 2005.

It is difficult to find detail on the precise amount of unconventional oil, but some countries are known for their unconventional oil production. For example, the US has become a leader in the extraction of tight oil from shale formations. Canada also produces a little tight oil, but it also produces quite a bit of very heavy oil from the oil sands. Venezuela produces a different type of very heavy oil. Brazil produces crude oil from under the salt layer of the ocean, sometimes called pre-salt crude oil. These unconventional types of extraction tend to be expensive.

Figure 4 shows world oil production for various combinations of countries. The top line is total world crude oil production. The bottom gray line approximates world total conventional oil production. Unconventional oil production has been rising since, say, 2010, so this approximation is better for years 2010 and subsequent years on the chart, than it is for earlier years.

Figure 4. Crude and condensate oil production based on international data of the US Energy Information Administration. The lower lines subtract the full amount of crude and condensate production for the countries listed. These countries have substantial amounts of unconventional oil production, but they may also have some conventional production.

From this chart, it appears that world conventional oil production leveled off after 2005. Some people (often referred to as “Peak Oilers”) were concerned that conventional oil production would reach a peak and begin to decline, starting shortly after 2005.

The thing that seems to have kept production from falling after 2005 is the steep rise in oil prices in the 2004 to 2008 period. Figure 3 shows that oil prices were quite low between 1986 and 2003. Once oil prices began to rise in 2004 and 2005, oil companies found that they had enough revenue that they could start adopting more intensive (and expensive) extraction techniques. This allowed more oil to be extracted from existing conventional oil fields. Of course, diminishing returns still set in, even with these more intensive techniques.

These diminishing returns are probably a major reason that conventional oil production started to fall in 2019. Indirectly, diminishing returns likely contributed to the decline in 2020, and the failure of the oil supply to bounce back up to its 2018 (or 2019) level in 2021.

[5] A better way of looking at world crude oil production is on a per capita basis because the world’s crude oil needs depend on world population.

Everyone in the world needs the benefit of crude oil, since it is used both in farming and in transporting goods of all kinds. Thus, the need for crude oil rises with population growth. I prefer analyzing crude oil production on a per capita basis.

Figure 5. Per capita crude oil production based on international data by country from the US Energy Information Administration.

Figure 5 shows that on a per capita basis, conventional crude oil production (gray bottom line) started declining after 2005. It was only with the addition of unconventional oil that crude oil production per capita could remain fairly level between 2005 and 2018 or 2019.

[6] Unconventional oil, if analyzed by itself, seems to be quite price sensitive. If politicians everywhere want to hold oil prices down, the world cannot count on extracting very much of the huge amount of unconventional oil resources that seem to be available.

Figure 6. Crude oil production based on international data for the US Energy Information Administration for each of the countries shown.

On Figure 6, crude oil production dips in 2016 – 2017 and also in 2020 – 2021. Both the 2016 and the 2020 dips are related to low prices. The continued low prices in 2017 and 2021 may reflect start-up problems after a low price, or they may reflect skepticism that prices can stay high enough to make continued extraction profitable. Canada seems to show similar dips in its oil production.

Venezuela shows a fairly different pattern. Information from the US Energy Information Administration mentions that the country started having major problems once the world oil price started falling in 2014. I am aware that the US has had sanctions against Venezuela in recent years, but it seems to me that these sanctions are closely related to Venezuela’s oil price problems. If Venezuela’s very heavy oil could really be extracted profitably, and the producers of this oil could be taxed to provide services for the people of Venezuela, the country would not have the many problems that it has today. The country likely needs a price between $200 and $300 per barrel to allow for sufficient funds for extraction plus adequate tax revenue.

Brazil’s oil production seems to be relatively more stable, but its growth has been slow. It has taken many years to get its production up to 2.9 million barrels per day. There is also some pre-salt oil production just now getting started in Angola and other countries of West Africa. This type of oil requires a high level of technical expertise and imported resources from around the world. If world trade falters, this type of oil production is likely to falter, as well.

A large share of the world’s oil reserves are unconventional oil reserves, of one type or another. The fact that rising oil prices are a real problem for citizens means that these unconventional reserves are unlikely to be tapped. Instead, we may be dealing with seriously short supplies of products we need for operating our economies, including diesel oil and jet fuel.

[7] Figure 1 at the beginning of this post indicated falling energy consumption per capita. This problem extends to more than oil. On a per capita basis, both coal and nuclear energy consumption are falling.

Practically no one pays any attention to coal consumption, but this is the fuel that allowed the Industrial Revolution to start. It is reasonable to expect that since the world economy started using coal first, it might be the first to deplete. Figure 7 shows that world coal consumption per capita hit a peak in 2011 and has declined since then.

Figure 7. World coal consumption per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Many of us have heard about Aesop’s Fable, The Fox and the Grapes. According to Wikipedia, “The story concerns a fox that tries to eat grapes from a vine but cannot reach them. Rather than admit defeat, he states they are undesirable. The expression ‘sour grapes’ originated from this fable.”

In the case of coal, we are told that coal is undesirable because it is very polluting and raises CO2 levels. While these things are true, coal has historically been very inexpensive, and this is important for people buying coal. Coal is also easy to transport. It could be used for fuel instead of cutting down trees, thus helping local ecosystems. The negative things that we are being told about coal are true, but it is hard to find an adequate inexpensive substitute.

Figure 8 shows that world nuclear energy per capita is also falling. To some extent, its fall has stabilized since 2012 because China and a few other “developing nations” have been adding nuclear capacity, while developed nations in Europe have tended to remove their existing nuclear power plants.

Figure 8. World nuclear electricity consumption per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy. Amounts are based on the amount of fossil fuels that this electricity would theoretically replace.

Nuclear energy is confusing because experts seem to disagree on how dangerous nuclear power plants are, over the long term. One concern relates to proper disposal of spent fuel after its use.

[8] The world seems to be at a difficult time now because we don’t have any good options for fixing our falling energy consumption per capita problem, without greatly reducing world population. The two choices that seem to be available both seem to be far higher-priced than is feasible.

There are two choices that seem to be available:

[A] Encourage large amounts of fossil fuel production by encouraging very high fossil fuel prices. With such high prices, say $300 per barrel for oil, unconventional crude oil in many parts of the world would be available. Unconventional coal, such as that under the North Sea, would also be available. With sufficiently high prices, natural gas production could be raised. This natural gas could be shipped as liquefied natural gas (LNG) around the world at great cost. Additionally, many processing plants could be built, both for supercooling the natural gas to allow it to be shipped around the world and for re-gasification, when it arrives at its destination.

With this approach, food costs would be very high. Much of the world’s population would need to work in the food industry and in fossil fuel production and shipping. With these priorities, citizens would not have time or money for most things we buy today. They likely could not afford a vehicle or a nice home. Governments would need to shrivel in size, with the usual outcome being government by a local dictator. Governments wouldn’t have sufficient funds for roads or schools. CO2 emissions would be very high, but this likely would not be our most serious problem.

[B] Try to electrify everything, including agriculture. Greatly ramp up wind and solar. Wind and solar are very intermittent, and their intermittency does not match up well with human needs. In particular, one of the world’s primary needs is for heat in winter, but solar energy comes in summer. It cannot be saved until winter with today’s technology. Spend enormous amounts and resources on electricity transmission lines and batteries to try to somewhat work around these problems. Try to find substitutes for the many things that fossil fuels provide today, including paved roads and chemicals used in agriculture and in medicine.

Hydroelectricity is also a renewable form of electricity generation. It cannot be expected to ramp up much because it has mostly been built out already.

Figure 9. World consumption of hydroelectricity per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Even if greatly ramped up, wind and solar electricity production would likely be grossly inadequate by themselves to try to operate any kind of economy. In addition, at a minimum, natural gas, shipped at very high cost as LNG around the world, would likely be needed. Also, huge quantity of batteries would be needed, leading to a short supply of materials. Huge quantities of steel would be needed to make new electrical machines to try to replace current oil-power machines. A minimum 50-year transition would likely be needed.

I am doubtful that this second approach would be feasible in any reasonable timeframe.

[9] Conclusion. Figure 1 seems to imply that the world economy is headed for troubled times ahead.

The world economy is a self-organizing system, so we cannot know precisely what form changes in the next few years will take. The economy can be expected to shrink back in an uneven pattern, with some parts of the world and some classes of citizens, such as workers versus the elderly, doing better than others.

Leaders will never tell us that the world has an energy shortage. Instead, leaders will tell us how awful fossil fuels are, so that we will be happy that the economy is losing their usage. They will never tell us how worthless intermittent wind and solar are for solving today’s energy problems. Instead, they will lead us to believe that a transition to vehicles powered by electricity and batteries is just around the corner. They will tell us that the world’s worst problem is climate change, and that by working together, we can move away from fossil fuels.

Again, the whole situation reminds me of Aesop’s Fables. The system puts a “good spin” on whatever frightening changes are happening. This way, leaders can convince their citizens that everything is fine when, in fact, it is not.

NOTE

*If the US Federal Reserve raises its target interest rate, central banks of other countries around the world are forced to take a similar action if they do not want their currencies to fall relative to the US dollar. Countries that do not raise their target interest rates tend to be penalized by the market: With a falling currency, the local prices of oil and other commodities tend to rise because commodities are priced in US dollars. As a result, citizens of these countries tend to face a worse inflation problem than they would otherwise face.

The country with the greatest increase in its target interest rate can, in theory, win, in what is more or less a competition to move inflation elsewhere. This competition cannot go on indefinitely, however, because every country depends, to some extent, on imports from other countries. If countries with weaker economies (i. e. those that cannot afford to raise interest rates) stop producing essential goods for world trade, it will tend to bring the world economy down.

Raising interest rates also raises the likelihood of debt defaults, and these debt defaults can be a huge problem, especially for banks and other financial institutions. With higher interest rates, pension funding becomes less adequate. Businesses of all kinds find new investment more expensive. Many businesses are likely to shrink or fail completely. These indirect impacts are yet another way for the world economy to fail.

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Energy policy, Financial Implications and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2,262 Responses to Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different from the Energy Crisis of 2005

    • ExxonMobil sees the same problem I see!

      • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

        I thought it was a very optimistic projection, though we know that Exxon doesn’t consider future affordability issues etc.

        does anyone have a more pessimistic graph?

      • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

        here’s a graph of oil production without any “new investment”:

        https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/749000-1.jpg

        • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

          so perhaps the actual slope will be somewhere between this pessimistic graph and the above optimistic graph.

          • Or worse. Remember that natural gas liquids are not worth much. A small portion can be blended into gasoline, but often they can only be burned with natural gas. They partly are used for making plastics, but there is a limit to the amount of plastics anyone wants. (What is the point in recycling plastics, by the way? Just uses up oil, I expect.)

          • reante says:

            Yeah I’ll take Worse for 200 please, Alex. That looks like the backside of a bell curve and not a senecan cliff. We’re facing cascading consequences.

            • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

              while future graphs of net surplus energy supply and its resulting prosperity surely will look more Senecan, I’m not so sure about gross energy supply.

              FF production is the base of the economy, far and away the most essential and useful economic activity, which supports all other economic activity.

              on the economic downslope, almost all other activity should be cast off before FF production, and food production and distribution.

              so the future graphs of FF and Food might look more Bellish than Senecan.

              the future will be FF+F.

    • houtskool says:

      Thanks Ron.

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      this Exxon graph very clearly shows the 2005 peak in conventional oil.

      also very clear is the late 2018 peak in conventional + unconventional crude oil, the bottom 4 colored bands.

      it’s interesting that they project this total crude oil to remain fairly flat into the 2030s, looking like tight oil and deepwater oil increasing slightly and balancing out the decline in conventional oil.

      so similar production into the 2030s, but of course this will be more expensive and energy intensive production.

      this is a really great and optimistic projection and, unless there’s a better projection out there, I would say let’s accept this and roll with bAU in IC into the 2030s, baby.

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      the orange band NGL (or NGPL Natural Gas Plant Liquids) looks projected to increase into the 2040s.

      since as the name says, these are byproducts of natural gas production, it must mean that Exxon projects natural gas production to increase into the 2040s.

      these “liquids” have less value than crude oil, but are widely used because they do have some value.

      (CH4 methane is the natural gas.)

      NGL is mostly:

      C2H6 ethane usually used to make plastics.

      C3H8 butane burns okay, remember those small pocket butane cigarette lighters?

      C4H10 propane used for outdoor “gas” grills, indoor “gas” fireplaces, and even whole house heating in areas that don’t have pipeline natural gas.

      gotta love those hydrocarbons.

  1. Fast Eddy says:

    “Unvaccinated patients have a mental problem and should be put on psychiatric medications.”

    https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1593945951969976322?t=wFZVO7dtYm0MsCCWVX-DlA&s=19

    Driving slower – reduces oil consumption … but here we see it is cloaked in the GW blanket”

    Furthermore, there is a reasonably established relationship between the speed a vehicle travels and greenhouse gas emissions, with the lowest emissions being produced when a vehicle travels at around 55-80km/h.

    https://theconversation.com/lower-speed-limits-dont-just-save-lives-they-make-nz-towns-and-cities-better-places-to-live-194448

    GW is really useful … just like the Ukraine ‘war’ is really useful….

    See how clever they are!

  2. Fast Eddy says:

    Notice how it’s not Elon’s fault that Twitter is not lifting the bans… he’s being controlled by powerful forces that prevent that … hahaha

    Elon is the Tech Messiah – he is on ‘our side’… he’s fighting the same forces as we are!

    it is… all fake. Elon is a key player

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5zGRCj38Yo/TKTrocVnoUI/AAAAAAAAAAY/PzGB2zOlbSQ/s1600/81775-050-871DBD39.jpg

    • houtskool says:

      Very good fast. Next week he will buy that beach mansion from that other freakshow. Buying a Tesla gets you gov subsidy. Selling Tesla’s is another story.

  3. Mirror on the wall says:

    Longrich at Bath Uni argues that warfare was essential to the spread of Homo sapiens (us) out of Africa. We had to develop better warfare capacities before we could overcome the barrier of Neanderthal territories.

    Evidence of warfare exists in every human population, through the Upper Palaeolithic, Neolithic, onward. It is an ‘intrinsic part of being human’, instinctive and our evolutionary strategy.

    The propensity for cooperative aggression is inherited from our primate ancestors at least 7 million years ago. We had to hone those behavioural traits before we could spread out of Africa and into Eurasia.

    We were the better fighters, so we prevailed. We might be termed ‘Homo better fighters’, which would be more to the evolutionary point (maybe drop the ‘homo’ bit, if we are ‘manning up’. /s)

    > Neanderthals And Humans Were at War For Over 100,000 Years, Evidence Shows

    Around 600,000 years ago, humanity split in two. One group stayed in Africa, evolving into us. The other struck out overland, into Asia, then Europe, becoming Homo neanderthalensis – the Neanderthals. They weren’t our ancestors, but a sister species, evolving in parallel.

    Neanderthals fascinate us because of what they tell us about ourselves – who we were, and who we might have become. It’s tempting to see them in idyllic terms, living peacefully with nature and each other, like Adam and Eve in the Garden.

    If so, maybe humanity’s ills – especially our territoriality, violence, wars – aren’t innate, but modern inventions.

    Biology and palaeontology paint a darker picture. Far from peaceful, Neanderthals were likely skilled fighters and dangerous warriors, rivalled only by modern humans.

    Top predators

    Predatory land mammals are territorial, especially pack-hunters. Like lions, wolves and Homo sapiens, Neanderthals were cooperative big-game hunters. These predators, sitting atop the food chain, have few predators of their own, so overpopulation drives conflict over hunting grounds. Neanderthals faced the same problem; if other species didn’t control their numbers, conflict would have.

    This territoriality has deep roots in humans. Territorial conflicts are also intense in our closest relatives, chimpanzees. Male chimps routinely gang up to attack and kill males from rival bands, a behaviour strikingly like human warfare.

    This implies that cooperative aggression evolved in the common ancestor of chimps and ourselves, 7 million years ago. If so, Neanderthals will have inherited these same tendencies towards cooperative aggression.

    All too human

    Warfare is an intrinsic part of being human. War isn’t a modern invention, but an ancient, fundamental part of our humanity. Historically, all peoples warred. Our oldest writings are filled with war stories. Archaeology reveals ancient fortresses and battles, and sites of prehistoric massacres going back millennia.

    To war is human – and Neanderthals were very like us. We’re remarkably similar in our skull and skeletal anatomy, and share 99.7 percent of our DNA.

    Behaviourally, Neanderthals were astonishingly like us. They made fire, buried their dead, fashioned jewellery from seashells and animal teeth, made artwork and stone shrines. If Neanderthals shared so many of our creative instincts, they probably shared many of our destructive instincts, too.

    Violent lives

    The archaeological record confirms Neanderthal lives were anything but peaceful.

    Neanderthalensis were skilled big game hunters, using spears to take down deer, ibex, elk, bison, even rhinos and mammoths. It defies belief to think they would have hesitated to use these weapons if their families and lands were threatened. Archaeology suggests such conflicts were commonplace.

    Prehistoric warfare leaves telltale signs. A club to the head is an efficient way to kill – clubs are fast, powerful, precise weapons – so prehistoric Homo sapiens frequently show trauma to the skull. So too do Neanderthals.

    Another sign of warfare is the parry fracture, a break to the lower arm caused by warding off blows. Neanderthals also show a lot of broken arms. At least one Neanderthal, from Shanidar Cave in Iraq, was impaled by a spear to the chest.

    Trauma was especially common in young Neanderthal males, as were deaths. Some injuries could have been sustained in hunting, but the patterns match those predicted for a people engaged in intertribal warfare- small-scale but intense, prolonged conflict, wars dominated by guerrilla-style raids and ambushes, with rarer battles.

    The Neanderthal resistance

    War leaves a subtler mark in the form of territorial boundaries. The best evidence that Neanderthals not only fought but excelled at war, is that they met us and weren’t immediately overrun. Instead, for around 100,000 years, Neanderthals resisted modern human expansion.

    Why else would we take so long to leave Africa? Not because the environment was hostile but because Neanderthals were already thriving in Europe and Asia.

    It’s exceedingly unlikely that modern humans met the Neanderthals and decided to just live and let live. If nothing else, population growth inevitably forces humans to acquire more land, to ensure sufficient territory to hunt and forage food for their children.

    But an aggressive military strategy is also good evolutionary strategy.

    Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched.

    Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They’d occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals.

    In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. Their huge eyes likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids.

    Sapiens victorious

    Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don’t know why. It’s possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – bows, spear-throwers, throwing clubs – let lightly-built Homo sapiens harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics.

    Or perhaps better hunting and gathering techniques let sapiens feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle.

    Even after primitive Homo sapiens broke out of Africa 200,000 years ago, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In Israel and Greece, archaic Homo sapiens took ground only to fall back against Neanderthal counteroffensives, before a final offensive by modern Homo sapiens, starting 125,000 years ago, eliminated them.

    This wasn’t a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn’t because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.

    Nicholas R. Longrich, Senior Lecturer in Evolutionary Biology and Paleontology, University of Bath.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/how-neanderthals-and-humans-battled-for-supremacy-for-over-100-000-years

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      great read, thanks.

      Neanderthals therefore were about equal to “us”, but were extincted by “us”, perhaps because of random circumstances, we’ll never know for sure.

      and “we” fight on, some on battlefields, and others in comments sections.

    • houtskool says:

      “Ultimately, we won.”

      Are you sure?

      All i got was this lousy t shirt, that isn’t even mine.

    • Lastcall says:

      Nicely epitomised during the US fiasco in Afghanistan; various tribal groups took advantage of the fog or war to get missiles raining down on rivals.

      Here in NZ we are rapidly returning to a tribal stone-age arrangement. Gubbermint funding to the ‘First Peeps’ is tribal in nature, putting monies into schools, maraes and cultural events based on tribe, rigging elections to achieve ‘diversity for the first peeps, medical priorities similarly. The list goes on, with co-governance the slippery slope to aparthied NZ. Here anybody can get a degree as funding is based on vertain ‘results’; and the results are not good.
      The recent spate of Ram-raids was blamed on inadequate Gubbermint focus on the first peeps needs during Convid.
      Its early stage return to a tribal future, enhanced via gub policy.

    • Ed says:

      My reading of Goodall says chimps hunt down and kill lone male and female members of rival bands. No chivalry amongst chimps.

    • I hadn’t realized that warfare with the Neanderthals lasted that long. There is some small share of Neanderthal genes in modern humans, I believe.

      • ivanislav says:

        Something like 2-5% among non-African individuals. I’ve read that most of the genes are associated with immune function.

    • Tim Groves says:

      That was very entertaining, but mostly nonsense. There was no Team Neanderthal and Team Cro Magnon fighting each other using a grand strategy across continents or vast regions. There were just families, clans, tribes and possibly nations of both subspecies that were at war or on hostile terms with any neighboring families, clans, tribes and possibly nations that were in competition for the same resources.

      Look at the Great Plains before the coming of the Europeans, or the Amazon or New Guinean tribes, or the Maoris, who until as late as the 19th century used to eat the people they captured or defeated on their raids (watch out Eddy!), or the Andaman Islanders who will even today routinely kill any stranger who turns up on the beach, regardless of whether they are Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, or Church of England.

      The pre-agricultural period in some places and at some times was quite probably a war of all against all and life would have been solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. At other times of relative abundance or where there as greater isolation and less to fight over, life would have been more peaceful.

      This movie was also very good entertainment, but mostly nonsense. Where would Raquel Welch have gotten her cosmetics and hair styling?

      • Fred says:

        Who cares about details with a rack like that on display?

      • Kowalainen says:

        Yeah, I agree with you Tim.

        I didn’t see any evidence of hooman vs Neanderthal battles. Isn’t it weird with a blatant hypothesis like that when most “modern” Europeans carry Neanderthal genes? 🧬

        I’m thinking they were “shagged” into oblivion by better looking and adaptable hoomans. Every Neanderthal brute wanted a docile and graceful hooman broad and the other way around. Plus the ragged hoomans must have looked pretty much like Neanderthal back then.

        It’s nothing new with cross breeding among “racial” groups in the borderlands. And what is more adaptable then interracial/species breeding?

        The earth used to be a barren dusty place before the comet struck the ice caps and wiped most of the megafauna together with most Neanderthal and hoomans. Obviously a literal “skeleton crew” must have survived, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

      • reante says:

        I also agree that it’s an extremely simplistic view of what happened back then. It just goes to show how little people in their ivory towers interact with the ecology, and how they have zero understanding of the cultural implications of human communities interacting deeply with their local ecologies rather than engaging in the psychopathy of extraction.

      • GBV says:

        “That was very entertaining, but mostly nonsense”.

        Most definitely.
        More interesting to look at the Younger Dryas Impact theory, then disregard some of that too in favour of what’s being proposed, in terms of our origins, by the Electric Universe theory.

        Cheers,
        -GBV

    • Withnail says:

      I’m sure humans were much better at throwing simple rocks than Neanderthals.

      Humans are the only creatures that can powerfully and accurately throw rocks in a straight line. Watch a chimpanzee throw rocks some time.

      • Tim Groves says:

        Well, Neanderthals were human too. They were not chimps.

        Palaeontologist Peter MacAllister did the calculations that show that a Neanderthal woman could have actually beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger …. at chess!

        Actually, I made that factoid up. Whether a Neanderthal could make stuff like that is a vexed question. But they are considered to have very probably used conceptual language.

        At a time when the maximum human life expectancy for so-called modern humans was only around 30 years or so, and most people were nomadic hunter gatherers, there would have been very few people who had enough time or educational opportunities to allow them to get very deeply into things such as science, philosophy, psychology or gender studies.

        • reante says:

          Tim

          “maximum human life expectancy” means the oldest approximate age that people can be expected to live to. If you think that age was 30 years old for hunter-gatherers then you have a severely distorted view of the animist age.

          the approx. 30year AVERAGE life expectancy MYTH of pre-civ lifespans is also a severe industrial distortion actually and stupidly (intentional stupidity) extrapolated from early-industrial population statistics compiled in major cities (which were largely slums).

          THINK ABOUT IT: if for 99pc of human history, humans evolved to live to 30 years old, there is zero chance that in that final 1% of evolution (characterized by marked devolutions in physical robustness) they could more than triple their lifespan. Obviously.

  4. Fast Eddy says:

    Hong Kong’s leading crypto retail operator says it ceases trading as FTX fallout roils sector

    A leading cryptocurrency retail service provider in Hong Kong said it has ceased trading as the broader fallout from the collapse of FTX, and solvency issues at other major crypto firms, continues to roil the sector.

    Genesis Block, which at one time operated one of Asia’s biggest bitcoin ATM networks, said it would be closing down its over-the-counter trading portal on Dec. 10, according to an email to customers sent by its compliance department reviewed by Reuters.

    “We have ceased trading, as we don’t know which counterparties would fail next, so we would rather close out all our positions to regain some of our liquidity,” chief executive Wincent Hung told Reuters this week.

    The company is also asking customers to withdraw their funds, the email shows, and will not accept new customers.

    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/hong-kongs-leading-crypto-retail-operator-says-it-ceases-trading-ftx-fallout-roils-sector-3083681

  5. The WSJ is reporting, Earthquake in Top Texas Oil Region Spurs Calls for New Fracking Rules

    Powerful temblor is latest to hit Permian basin, where scientists link wastewater injection to more seismic activity

    A powerful earthquake in West Texas is drawing fresh scrutiny to frackers’ water-management operations in the nation’s hottest petroleum-producing region.

    A 5.4-magnitude earthquake, the fourth largest in Texas history, struck an oil-and-gas production hot spot in Reeves County on Wednesday afternoon, sending tremors that were felt as far as Dallas, El Paso and San Antonio, where it damaged a historical building. No injuries were reported.

    The temblor adds pressure to the state’s oil-and-gas regulators to impose stricter rules on frackers pumping wastewater underground to stymie the Permian basin’s dangerous new seismic activity, analysts and executives said. It could also prompt a review of management practices and affect oil operations, they said.
    . . .

    The temblors have generally caused little damage because they largely occur in uninhabited land. The impact of the recent quake, however, reverberated in Carlsbad, N.M. In San Antonio, University Health hospital evacuated a 105-year-old historic building after employees inside felt some swaying on Wednesday, a University Health spokeswoman said.

    I think that this is another opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill. If someone is looking for a reason to stop fracking, this is it. A 5.4 magnitude earthquake is hardly a huge earthquake, especially in an area with little population.

    It may be more important if a decision is being made whether to get natural gas under Paris, by fracking, or in China, by fracking. In these cases, the areas are heavily populated. Earthquakes could be quite damaging to built infrastructure. Also, in China, water is in very short supply. This issue, by itself, would seem to be a deal-killer for fracking.

    • Herbie Ficklestein. says:

      When I resided in North Carolina the State legislators were voting to allow fracking …the session was divided evenly and went into the late night hours until they voted.

      The crazy late-night vote that legalized fracking in North Carolina
      By Chris KrommJuly 3, 2012

      https://www.facingsouth.org/2012/07/the-crazy-late-night-vote-that-legalized-fracking-.html

      But when it came to the final vote on fracking’s future in the state’s General Assembly, the decision to legalize the practice ended up being the result of a botched vote.

      Late at night, the N.C. House was trying to override a veto Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue had used to block a bill that would give the green light to fracking. The Republican leadership needed 72 votes — exactly the number they ended up getting.

      One of those votes came from Rep. Becky Carney, a Democrat from Mecklenburg County. Carney had voted against fracking in the past, and had spent the day lobbying Democrats to uphold the veto. But when it came time to vote, she pushed the wrong button.

      She said her “yes” vote was “very accidental.” She immediately went up to talk to Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis about changing her vote, but he wouldn’t recognize her. (House rules prevent changing votes if it would alter the outcome.)

      Another surprising vote came from Rep. Susi Hamilton, a Democrat from coastal New Hanover county. Hamilton had been recognized by the League of Conservation Voters as a 2012 “Rising Star.” She had also co-authored a letter to Gov. Perdue asking her to veto the fracking legislation.

      But Hamilton voted in favor of overriding the governor’s fracking veto — and later recanted on her letter to the governor, saying she “did not read the letter before it was released.”

      Hours before the fracking vote, Republicans slipped in a “technical correction” to their budget bill that steered $60 million in tax breaks to the film industry, based in Hamilton’s district in the Wilmington area.

      The irony: Republicans and conservatives have long bashed the incentives programs to lure film companies to North Carolina.

      Lots of Hanky Panky goes on behind closed doors…

  6. Since current article looks at parsing out effect of unconventional oil production thought it might be interesting to look at implications with regard to following:

    searched duck-duck-go with
    “hubberts curve with net energy curve steeper downslope”

    found this image which saw recently in comments on another blog
    (older oildrum origins assuming prior to unconventional oil developments appears some error in ordinate values relative to peak while remaining conceptually correct)

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KDEwMfoqmyY/TZ9xkgq-BII/AAAAAAAAACA/4CNXXa2i24k/s1600/hubbert_net_energy.gif

    and then there was this also found among the images:

    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F01%2Ftverberg-estimate-of-future-energy-production.png%3Fw%3D640%26h%3D384%26resize%3D640%252C384&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1b0bbb402051fcbdbfc3a298af46929eb69689d4905b253cc5c34ae679fac262&ipo=images

    re-published at

    https://energyskeptic.com/2014/tverberg-faster-longer-collapse-than-in-past/

    which looks like the net energy portion of the hubbert curve. Since Gail’s 2014 curve was also prior to most of the significant unconventional oil production, it would be interesting to see updates of both the hubbert graphic and Gails “faster longer collapse than in the past” graphic using updated info and better understanding of date of peak production.

    • drb753 says:

      The first graph implies that by 2025 the collapse will be essentially completed. Gail’s is a slower collapse with some death throes well into 2030s.

      • collapse depends on where you, personally, happen to be.

        • yes..I believe within the last year I suggested that Russia had the potential to be an autarky that could (given published reserves, projected decline rates and relative internal consumption of reserves versus export percentages) maintain or grow energy/capita (and implicity resource per capita) levels out to 2045 allow that population to outlast most if not all other discrete subunits (regional or single country) of the world.

          Gail at that time was very globally oriented (rightly so as it is nightmare enough compiling and analyzing the lumped global system) with, at least to my perception, little interest in differential decline versus total global collapse suggestions. Since then while analyses continue to be, necessarily given labor availability and data constrains of a single author, on the global lumped basis even as greater recognition of different rates of decline and pruning seem more acceptable conceptually with some recognition allowing for smaller or less well endowed economies to collapse (such as you are now recognizing as the most imminent predicament on your tiny island.)

          Now with the SMO in Ukraine it is becoming more apparent that Russia is potentially sitting in the catbirds seat..if only they can resist the capitalistic impetus to proceed into or excerbate overshooting of their resource base – it is difficult to resist climbing the ladder and cutting out the rungs beneath you without making provisions for a required descent – it would mean concious recognition of future dilemma, denying an uncontrolled dissipation of the local self organizing system with a plan for not only ascent but also degrowth or stabilization at a maintable level of per capita energy and resource usage. I give them about a 10% chance..significantly better odds than the rest of us have.

      • Yes- both graphs were compiled using data from a decade or more ago prior to or in the early stages of majority of unconventional oil production..it would be interesting to see the current updates path projections to both using the most up to date info and see the shifts/changes in the projections when historical/projected unconventional oil is included along with updated conventional oil info..

        • drb753 says:

          It seems apparent that fracking bought us a few years. But now the decline in supply is steeper, because conventional has its usual slow decline, but on top of it there is the vertical decline of fracking.

          • I would agree with that at the expected shape of updated curves given current technology applications…however this intrigues me:

            https://energydome.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EnergyDome_CO2Battery_Def.mp4

            excess solar energy that is currently burdening our grids could be redirected into CO2 liquidification and instead of storage in pressure vessels could be directed into EOR (enhanced oil recovery) and geothermal extraction wells. Apparently liquid CO2 has some unique properties in relation to enhanced desorption of trapped hydrocarbons and because of its reduced viscosity relative to water/steam may provide for more efficient recovery of currently unrecoverable or uneconomic (energy & $) oil and natural gas/liquids while reducing water cut requirements and is a more efficient fluid (reportedly 10x) for heat recovery from geothermal wells as compared to current conventional heat transport fluids (mostly water)..synergistic combination of intermittent solar energy storage, enhanced oil/gas recovery and/or geothermal energy recovery from exising low/non-producing wells may provide “cost sharing” between these applications which alone could be in/marginally feasible, but together might be economic if combined in a single dynamic/intermittent process (fill a well up with stored energy liquid CO2 during the spring & summer; idle the well in the fall; and harvest warmed pressurized CO2, recovered oil and geothermal heat in winter). Something like this might change the descending slope of the localized net energy curve in areas where it could be implemented by providing a mechanism for some seasonal solar energy storage other than biomass accumulation and potentially allow time for adaptation to a solar/geothermal only technology as extended FF recovery peters out.

    • My graph showed too early a peak and it wasn’t sufficiently rounded. A dissipative structure seems to use all energy that is available. The self-organizing system seems to be able to keep parts of the system working longer than I thought earlier, allowing a more rounded top. I was thinking that financial system failure would bring everything down quickly, but now I think that different parts of the world economy will go down at different speeds.

      Even if the US dollar stops being the world’s reserve currency, there can still be some limited trade going on among countries.

  7. A small step or bridge to a “better” path on which we learn to re-embrace intermittency? While not a solution to our predicament, I believe there are technologies that are feasible next steps toward a less dire future where most energy dependent processes will be primarily thermally driven at the lowest feasible temperature…

    Best possible use of stupid allocation of resources to silicon based PV systems which may give us time to develop more renewable less resource constrained Perovskite or organically based PV systems for the very small amount of electricity (high quality energy) that may be required for highest feasible happiness/(energy/capita) social structure. The CO2 battery using off the shelf (commercially existing) equipment and well characterized processes:

    https://energydome.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EnergyDome_CO2Battery_Def.mp4

    Adaptation more accomodative of thermal processes that with higher potential for longer term application

    https://energydome.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/EnergyDome_Circuito2_v9.mp4

    Hopefully these folks will find a good home for their technology

    https://energydome.com/our-company/

    I can see where movement toward this type of carbon based tech can also make more feasible synergistic alliances with Enhanced Oil recovery processes to extend the transitional timelines afforded by remaining FFs, improved Geothermal heat extraction (the only primary energy resource other than the Sun) and lower cost seasonal storage of energy via CO2 capture/storage/release systems.

    Thank you Gail for your excellent article.. once again attempting to show the truth about our energy situation in yet another alternative story format reaching out to those with sufficiently open mindsets/capabilities. Unfortunately our leaders have too little faith in the masses for a larger fraction to be exposed to and given the chance to accept and act appropriately in face of our predicament..perhaps we are incapable of evolving beyond/transcending or living within the energetic dynamics and constraints of self-organizing systems, but it is clear that lack of truth (propogandizing climate change and demonizing carbon/CO2 instead of explicity embracing our energy/capita situation and recognizing/embracing carbon/CO2 cycling as an essential basis of energy processes in current ecosystems) will only shorten the period of feasible maintenance and enhancement of higher level information/complexity as encoded in our and other species DNA along with our more expensive/fragile inorganic information storage systems.

    The future path of non-linear chaotic systems can be quite divergent given small changes in initial conditions. Ameliorations of our energy predicament starting in the 1970’s could have followed much different paths than are available to us now. We have to live with mistakes made in the interim (current PV & Wind tech) and make the best of new information that might not have been discovered/developed without the “irresponsible” energy expenditures over the path followed.while also rediscovering/recognizing the wizdom of historical processes/customs/lifestyles from less energy intensive times/social structures.

    You have often pointed out the “problem” of intermittancy and the ‘mistake” of current configurations of “renewable” PV and wind technologies – application of our current abilities in these regards are clearly infeasible & resource constrained in the longer term and can, at best (now that we have expended those resources) be nothing more than a short detour on any potential longer lived path without fatal cliffs. Ultimately the best we can hope for is that it will be like Goldilocks and the three bears – living with too much rapid change, excessive intermittency (or god forbid fusion power development and supsequent unbridled heat generation) we get poppa’s bowl – way too hot; momma bear ls non-accepting/resistant to intermittency and demands steady state living – far too cold for any significant civilizational organization; only by embracing intermittency and finding hamony with cyclical processes can we maximize happiness/”productive” use of energy resouces in harmony with balanced ecosystems – something closer to baby bears just about “right” bowl of porridge.

    • I am skeptical that Energy Domes will really be feasible. They seem to require too much international trade and too much complexity to be used widely. Keeping electricity beyond a few days seems to be pretty difficult with any technology.

  8. This may very well be the start of a very big problem:

    https://global-macro-monitor.com/2022/11/17/foreign-cen-banks-continue-to-dump-coupon-treasuries/

    Foreign Central Banks Continue To Dump Coupon Treasuries

    Central banks, both the Fed and foreign, have morphed from the largest buyers of Treasury notes and bonds over the past two decades into the largest net sellers. . . .

    Japan and China, both private investors and central banks, sold $118 billion of Treasury notes and bonds in September, their largest combined monthly dump on record . . .

    The above goes a long way to explaining the below.

    “In recent months, however, liquidity in the Treasury market has deteriorated further. This recent development is more concerning, as it seems as if market functioning has become a bigger source of risk, rather than just reflecting the uncertain fundamental environment.”

    For most analysts, the liquidity problems in the Treasury market are not just about rapidly changing prices, they are also a reflection of a dearth of buyers, or an inability or unwillingness of the buyers in the market to mop up all the supply. The fact the Treasury department has begun discussing the prospect of buying back some of the most illiquid Treasury bonds, says HSBC’s Major, is an implicit acknowledgment that faltering demand has begun to cause problems. – FT [emphasis in original]

    https://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/foreign-central-bank-net-selling-of-notes-bonds-1.jpg

    https://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/china-japan-net-selling-of-notes-bonds.jpg

    • The way the US government would seem to have to fight this is by buying back a whole lot more of its Treasuries, to try to keep interest rates down. Right now it is doing the opposite: It is selling Treasuries, as part of Quantitative Tightening.

      With Japan, China and the US all trying to sell Treasuries, it would seem like US Treasury rates would need to rise much higher to find adequate buyers. This is especially if US want to use deficit spending to fund the US economy.

      Perhaps someone else has more insight on this situation.

      • Tbone says:

        My understanding is they (treasuries) are defending their respective currencies – trading the treasuries for USD.
        I know it sounds crazy to say but the us tbill is the safest collateral there is.
        Most loans – in the world are in USD and the dollar is pretty scarce right now and no one will accept anything but the best collateral in exchange for USD
        There are basically no German bonds – do you want Italian or UK bonds?
        No? well The us treasury it has to be.
        It’s all about the eurodollar.

        • China and Japan don’t want their currencies too low, so they are selling US Treasuries. I know that the US dollar had risen to a very high level relative to many other currencies in mid-October. Now it is down a little, perhaps partly due to the selling of Treasuries.

      • banned says:

        Well i dont really understand it eithor. Part of the murkiness is the what the true roles of the federal reserve and treasury are. The federal reserve is supposed to be autonomous from the federal government yet serve the people and the government.
        The goverment can not “tighten” in theory only the federal reserve.

        I will giver it my best shot at explaining my understanding.

        The federsal reserves creation by a group of bankers who met in secret drafted the federal reserve act and had a washington proxy get it made in to law is not taught in history classes but is well known. Established as a predatory banking system for tyhe benefit of barons at some point the federal reserve became somthing else. What it became is sa matter of opinion. Some would say a humble but well compensated public servant. Some would say in cahoots with the us goverment to add credibility to a money printing scheme that is the biggest ponzi in history.

        Language is often used to deceive and in my experience when the inconsistencies that question fidelity are brought forth the arguments are often tried to be discarded with terms that put things in neat sophisticated boxes with sophisticated terms. Sophisticated relationships that are denoted to have as much value as physically observed laws in science and physics are used as cover for fundamental problems with fidelity. AS such my ideas can and will be considered as unsophisticated and I do not hide from that I am proud of that.

        Treasuries are US goverment debt. This has been considered the safest possible financial instrument. From a fundamental perspective its value and demand for that value has two aspects safety and return. If inflation is 4% and treasuries return 5% then those with spare money and not wishing risk might find treasuries desirable.

        At some point treasuries had a much larger reason for demand introduced by the federal reserve designating them prime collateral. At this point US treasuries became a defacto replacement for gold. Thet were considered a store of value that if possessed by banks entitled that bank to participate in money creation much larger than the treasuries value. Treasuries are considered the foundation of the western banking system. The arbitrary designation as prime collateral is by definition “fiat” “by decree”This designation that created a value other than the fundamentals allowed the fundamentals to be completely ignored. Zero interest rates with with inflation at 10% and higher. When inflation became too high they just excluded things. Energy- too “volatile” By excluding these very real things the relationship to the real world became even more distorted. But demand for treasuries continued because they were the key to creating money. Every single bit of debt the US goverment created was bought. Creating money is a lucrative business. It hard to lose “loaning” money when you create it. This is the basis for our economy..

        Now we have a situation. We live in the physical world but our money and economy is detached from the physical worlds laws in every way. This has not been beneficial for other nations. Our primary diplomatic relationship has been the extent that other nations participate in our debt based economy. Now we have a group of nations trying to form sonthing different. Something that has relationship to the physical world resources, energy. productivity. It just so happens very dark storm clouds appear with those countries relationships. Countries like saudi Arabia that commit genocide on Yemenese are AOK. Kashogi murder oh well. But countries advocating a change are bad!

        THe USA has a lot of value. Our value is greater than this stupid ponzi we are caught up in. We should embrace the new system contribute to add our influence but instead our goverment would rather risk the destruction of all. F*** this ponzi. Let us produce. Let us compete. We dont need this sham ponzi. Lets join a fair system where other peoples and nations participate as equals. Ive seen people install their own engines and trannys in semis. Ive seen miners loggers cradftsmen farmers work 14 hour days. Innovate till the cows come home then another six hours. Farmers rebuild there own tractors. People showing up every day for r a business helping the owners for decades giving everthing they have. WE have nothing to be scared of. Jet us JOIN. JOIN china. Jopin Russia. Join . Make it BRICA. We can go last for once. But no its obviously better to risk killing everything for a filthy ponzi.

        The ponzi is ending. Those who weild its power dont want that. Its ending anyway. Thats what lack of demand for treasuries means.

        We can get with the program and step up accept a standard of living determined by our value and talents,t or be slaves of a dying system that inherently denies value to all peoples including the peoples of the USA. People exist in the physical world. Fiat is by decree. The ponzi is unjust. You cant make the ponzi just by how its loot is spent. That is the lie.All criminal enterprise spend on charitable causes.

      • Hubbs says:

        For now, the foreign countries are having to convert their rapidly depreciating domestic currencies into dollars through sale of their US Treasuries to service their dollar denominated debts.

        Basically, it would now appear that the US government’s immediate priority is to defend the dollar reserve by absorbing, by hook or by crook, the treasuries sloshing around in the world as they are being redeemed for dollars.
        A US Treasury surplus, but a dollar “shortage.”

        The FED, instead of continuing to buy these Treasuries which would obviously be regarded as overt money printing, has instead elected to postpone the inevitable by increasing the FED funds rate, perhaps hoping to entice the foreign buyers, or even domestic institutions etc., to buy new treasuries at the higher interest rates if they have any money left over after paying off their debt. (Brent Johnson’s Milkshake theory.) Worry about the US Treasury having to sell even more US Treasuries later to finance even greater ensuing debt as a result of these new higher FED fund rates. Eventually this feedback loop will require the FED to paradoxically print more, even while keeping FED funds rates high.

        When the system breaks, the failure could be catastrophic as it is sudden, meaning the dollar is suddenly recognized as worthless, and the whole debt based credit system is vaporized.

        It depends how much the US can get foreigners to invest their treasury sale redemptions of dollars here before resorting to printing which will mark the end.

        • This article says something similar to what I said above.
          JPMorgan Is Worried About Who’s Going to Buy All the Bonds>
          “We remain concerned about the (lack of) structural demand for Treasuries.”

          To understand the concern, look no further than the analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co., who argue that buyers across a wide variety of debt — including even the US Treasuries which form the backbone of global markets — are stepping away.

          “We remain concerned about the (lack of) structural demand for Treasuries,” wrote JPMorgan analysts led by Jay Barry and Srini Ramaswamy.

          In fact, they say, all of the three main buyers for US government debt — commercial banks, foreign governments and of course the Federal Reserve itself — appear to have stepped away from the market. While some of the retreat is to be expected as the US central bank tapers its balance sheet, the scale of the shift in appetite is still noteworthy, they write.

          • banned says:

            I know a married couple who have been looking at buying a house for a couple years, currently renting. Right now with mortgage rates doubled what they were six months ago they get half the house the same payment would have swung before even with prices cratering by 20%. If they didnt jump before they certainly wont now. Sellers have come down 20%. The point where they just hold was reached several months ago.

            All of this creates uncertainty. Its very disconcerting to see your buying power half. Covid- The political changes- Inflation devaluing currency and above all the possibility of war creates uncertainty about the decision to take on large debts.

            The debt creation business is put on hold. Till tomorow? Forever?

            Uncertainty is a intangible. People intuition is communicating all is not well. How long will uncertainty last regardless of all other events is unknown.

            The primary value of treasuries is they fulfill the arbitrary requirement needed to to engage in the debt creation business. Domestic or international the reason t-bills are bought is club membership. The debt creation business is on hold or worse. Demand for treasuries becomes lower. If there is no market for retail debt than treasuries are a big loser even at 6%.

            The debt creators are nervous. They dont need or want any more t-bills. When the debt creation business was good buying t-bills was just overhead. The debt creation business is not so hot right now so all of a sudden appetite for t-bills goes south. The confiscation of Russias substantial club membership ante certainly contributes to uncertainty amongst foreign t-bill buyers. The whole concept is a store of value is created by buying the t-bill tokens. That the t-bill tokens are printed out of thin air but paid for with tokens of real economies – energy- productivity alone raises questions enough but that the tokens can then be confiscated creates strong doubt in fidelity. Of course small countries are not going to say anything but just take a pass on treasury purchase. In the past they couldnt. It was the offer they couldnt refuse. A big fish said no however and isnt in the frying pan just yet so the small fishes wait and see. In the mean time no thank you.. Just a little dicy. Maybe IMF Sdrs will be the ante soon treasuries are just a little.. never mind. No thank you very much kind sir. Next years model uber fiat is just around the corner.

            The problems inherent to fiat manifest as they always do. The incredible “loosening” by Jerome during the “pandemic” was emergency triage. The consequences of abandoning the solution instituted after WW2- Bretton Woods- show up once again. What a surprise! BRICs takes their ball and goes home. All those who believe money for nothing and chicks for free are puzzled. Everyone holds their breath as the outcome is always war.

            The sham of t-bill demand starts to fall apart. Its a well layered and nuanced sham primary and secondary dealers different kinds of treasury products, different spreads gobs of sophisticated and technical ways of looking at the treasuries. All that technicality and sophistication is part of the illusion that ignores the fundamental truths regarding these financial instruments. As the physical world reveals fundamental truths those with sophisticated understanding are puzzled dismayed and angered. Why are the rules that they were taught as absolutes being broken? Very unfair. Nature is very unfair.

            The reality is this. If a asset is brought on the Feds books legally that is the value. The feds books always balance because that is the law. If the fed brings a jar of peanut butter on its books for a million dollars thats what it is worth. What does the Fed want on its books (the ones that are transparent)? Nothing. The fed desires nothing on its books. Whats on the feds books? Oh things like MBS from 2008. You stick problems on the feds books until inflation makes the issues disappear. Inflation depends on infinite growth.

            Lack of treasury demand is a problem. Something is going to break.

            Catastrophic? Not really. Its imaginary. Its a imaginary system. What may well be entirely catastrophic is insisting that its not imaginary. The rip we as 3 year olds who dont get their candy bar in the checkout line tear in the universe has the potential to end all life on the planet.

            We cant just do the usual thing. Have a war and bury a million and pick up the pieces. Thats the end now because of technology advances.. So now we get to wear grown up pants come clean and participate in BRICs. Share toys. Were not good at sharing toys. We learn that skill or everything dies. Steep learning curve. The children get to continue. Or not.

            And of course the other thing. Fiat brought us to the brink (and maybe over) so the cure is .. Wait for it… UBER FIAT!!! CBDC!!! Tbills problems were that they werent fiat enough!!
            Luckily technology has brought us UBER FIAT!!! And all thats needed is a small gene editing!! So simple! The paradigm wasnt wrong it just wasnt strong enough but we gots some strong medicine now!

      • houtskool says:

        First slowly, then suddenly. We are watching the Japanification of the reserve currency.

        What does that mean? It means we all have to be very careful before we adopt blockchain currencies aka cbdc’s.

      • Fred says:

        Just effin’ bomb the crap out of them. That usually works doesn’t it?

      • GBV says:

        Careful… QE / QT might not work quite the way everyone thinks they do (or at the very least, they’re not nearly as effective as other forces impacting markets / market sentiment):

        https://alhambrapartners.com/2021/03/24/kiwi-busted-qe-and-its-relation-to-the-reflation-story/

        I know Jeff Snider had a pretty good Eurodollar University episode (or two… or five) on this topic, but can’t hunt them down at the moment as I’m at work (sorry!).

        Cheers,
        -GBV

  9. TIm Groves says:

    In October 17, 2021, Michael Gerson wrote the following justification for coerced COVID-19 vaccination in the Washington Post.

    “For my part, I’m not even sure what a “religious” exemption means in the case of COVID. I understand that a few religious traditions object to receiving medical care entirely. But I don’t think this is the main excuse for evangelicals seeking exemptions from COVID vaccinations. What type or tradition of religion asserts the right to avoid minor risks and inconveniences in service to our neighbors? The Church of Perpetual Selfishness? The coven of Ayn Rand? Do Christians really want to be identified as people who permit breast augmentation but frown on vaccination?”

    On November 17, 2022, Michael died. The stated cause of death was kidney cancer, a disease he had been living with since 2013. He was 58 years old.

    The peak of Michael’s career was his six-year stint as George W. Bush’s speechwriter. Among the well-known phrases he is credited with coining are “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” “the armies of compassion,” “the Axis of Evil,” and the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” mixed-metaphor.

    More recently, he came up with “GOP political necromania,” in reference to the Republican Party’s lack of enthusiasm for vax mandates and lockdowns. He also said that “the GOP’s celebration of COVID ignorance is an invitation to death.

    Michael identified as a neoconservative and an evangelical Christian. His death is tragic those who loved him, and certainly he will be sadly missed by some people, although I suspect many more will celebrate his passing, given the death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan resulting from what they see as the wars his speeches helped promote. Yet others may take comfort in his death as a mercy, given that his life in recent years had been an epic of suffering.

    As one eulogist put it:

    “Very few people knew the full scope of the health challenges Mike faced. He suffered a heart attack in 2004, when he was 40. Kidney cancer in 2013. Debilitating leg pain, probably the result of surgical nerve damage. The kidney cancer spread to his lungs. Then Parkinson’s disease and metastatic adrenal cancer. And finally, metastatic bone cancer in multiple locations, intensely painful. At one point he told me he was on 20 different medications. Mike and I joked that of all the figures in the Bible he could model himself after, he chose Job.

    “Yet through it all—and this is simply remarkable—I never saw any self-pity. Mike referred to himself as “an instinctual Calvinist,” a person not prone to ask “why me?” He bore up under the hardship and pain with astonishing grace and dignity.”

    lMichael Gerson “believed” in modern medicine. My guess is that if he was able to comment about his death, he would have said something along the lines of, “it would have been even worse if I hadn’t had the second booster.” He had also suffered bouts of severe depression, not surprisingly given his medical state. Personally, I would forgive him his trespasses against the unjabbed on the basis that his miserable health situation and the accompanying medication situation must have severely affected his judgment. How much of his health challenges were the result of medical and pharmaceutical interventions and how much was bad karma or bad conscience from having served Dubya, and how much did the COVID jabs he took over the past two years contribute to his death? I suppose we will never know the answers to these questions, although we have plenty of scope for speculating.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/michael-gerson-speechwriter-george-bush-dies-cancer/672172/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson

    • Jarle says:

      BIH, Michael.

      (Burn in hell)

    • Lastcall says:

      As a participant in the modern medical circus his life reads as a typical iatrogenic pathway of pain. No doubt jabbed early and often as a child, and never had the insight to seek an alternative pathway, the medical system waged w@r within his body in the same way he was involved in waging w@r in foreign lands.
      Too bad.
      Speech writers belong in same bin as CV writers.

      • Tim Groves says:

        Thanks. You summed up beautifully what I feel was main trajectory of Michael’s path through life. He seems to have been a victim of the system but at the same time an active perpetrator in his role of “catapulting the propaganda”, as Dubya put it.

        His career reads like a textbook example of how to sell pernicious policies, from the accusation that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction to the accusation that people who refuse to be injected with what he incorrectly described as “vaccines” are responsible for harming others and are “free riders”, his job—which he shared with countless others in the MSM—was nagging, nudging, blaming and shaming the general public into supporting, acquiescing in or complying with destructive policies.

        Here’s Michael again in his own words from April 2021:

        “You probably will not hear this assessment from medical professionals, who are trained to be nonjudgmental. But being judgmental is pretty much my job description. So: If you are healthy and refuse to take the vaccine when your chance comes, you are a free rider. You are gaining the benefits of living in a community without paying the minimal cost. And, in the middle of a health emergency, this is shameful. During the past year, front-line workers — especially health workers — have taken far greater risks each day. Many have paid with their lives. Many are paying with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Next to this, the real risk of getting vaccinated is minimal. You are being a bad citizen if you don’t.

        “The reality, whether people like it or not, is that we do share a community. We owe much of our health and happiness to one another. And we have bonds of history and duty deeper than our differences.

        “Performing these duties is not without reward. There is a personal benefit in fulfilling a civic responsibility — a sense of pride and shared purpose. And being vaccinated brings a thrill of freedom, allowing you to move through the world with less fear. But the ultimate goal — the return of normal life — can be achieved only when we act together.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/15/healthy-refusing-covid-vaccine-shame-you/

        Talk like that sells a lot of Kool-Aid.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          When I informed one very close mate that I was not going to inject an experiment — he insinuated that I was a free rider… he stopped communicating (been about a year now).

          You’d think he’d by now understand that I was right because the promised herd immunity has not happened because the injections ‘were never purposed for that’.

          Even though they INSISTED that the vaxxed would not get covid.. https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=397

          But no mea culpa…

    • Student says:

      He was a well qualified and very nice person too.
      He was the first one I followed when I approached the subject.
      It happened whatching the famous doc ‘a farm for the future’ by Rebecca Hosking.

    • Looking at my emails, I see that I corresponded with Colin Campbell between July 2006 and April 2014. (I have never met him in person–wrong continent). I didn’t start writing Our Finite World until March 2007, so my correspondence with him was part of my initial looking into the whole peak oil story. We all have benefited from the work of pioneers in the field.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Wow – he sure timed it right!!!

        THE END OF CHEAP OIL Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years
        Feb 14, 1998 |By Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre http://dieoff.org/page140.htm (originally appeared in the Scientific American)

        • Good point! The big question then was how much unconventional oil could be produced at higher prices. If the prices weren’t higher, the oil wouldn’t make economic sense.

    • Dennis L. says:

      Bragging:

      I had the privilege to sit directly behind Colin, Bobbins(I believe this was her name, his wife) and some of his family. This was at the LIsbon meeting of ASPO; he was a very gracious man and Bobbins was a beautiful woman.

      His was a life well lived, rest in peace.

      Dennis L.

  10. patrick helmick says:

    well written as usual – excellent insights – on a personal note I tell my wife with what is going on in the world “its a good time to be old” thank you for your good work !

    • I expect the concerning problems that I write about can be handled better by older individuals than they can by young people. We cannot expect everyone to be able to even consider the difficult situation the world economy seems to be headed for.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Anyone in their 20’s who grasped the true nature of the situation … would fall into deep despair… and probably off themselves… or at least turn to sedatives… Fentanyl is for that

  11. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 -

  12. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - Mr. Todd

  13. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - AlltopCash.com

  14. banned says:

    The way the the Ukrainian s-300 operates precludes an accidental impact in Poland. It had to be controlled with a radar beam directed intentionally 100KM the wrong direction from incoming Russian missiles to impact and detonate in Poland. The launch impact and detonation in Poland by the Ukrainian operators was intentional. Biden prevented WW3 by being honest. The launch may have been by a rogue missile commander without Zelensky’s knowledge.

    Let us hope and pray that this is the beginning of the end of this madness that threatens the life of every human and creature on the planet (including Hoolio) and the start of a negotiated peace process. This could have been the end. I hope the levity is sinking in a bit to every leader on the planet. Can we please end this insane bull shit? The craziest of the crazy on death row isnt insane enough to threaten the end of all life on the planet.

    “While the S-300 was purposely designed as an air defense weapon (its warhead is a relatively small one, between 100 and 143 kilograms of high explosive), it could be used in a surface-to-surface mode simply by using its tracking radar to orient a beam in the desired direction, at an altitude which would permit a ballistic trajectory to be obtained once the missile expends its fuel. The missile would fly in the direction of the beam, and then fall to the ground in the desired arc.

    In order to do this, however, a tracking radar beam would have had to have been employed in a manner which oriented it in the exact opposite direction of the incoming Russian targets, toward Poland.

    In short, the Ukrainian S-300 which landed on Poland was not the result of an accident, but rather a deliberate action designed to have the missile impact Polish soil.”

    https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/a-false-flag-over-poland

    https://youtu.be/enojfpAhOGk

    • There has been quite the “debate” over on MoA (Moon of Alabama) about the use of S-300 as a ground to ground (G2G) weapon – mainly initiated by what seems to be a disinformation troll that tries to deny ability of S-300 to be used G2G..it seems truth is winning out although not totally clarified..it is appearing that Soviets had a version of S-300 (so may be in Ukrainian arsenal) that using alternative missle/warhead was truly G2G and incorporated inertial guidance coupled with input of operator calculated parameters to allow for non-ballistic flight paths to a desired target.,..in any event,, it is a superfolous and distracting debate… it matters not what type of S-300 was used or if the explosion was even caused by a missle (other hypotheses include grain dust explosion or intelligence services planted explosive device) it is clear that Zelensky/Ukraine Nazi regime is attempted to spin/propogandize the “event” to elicit direct/explicit Nato&US participation into an expansion of hostilities in the face of impending potential “General Winter” facilitated overwhelming advances by Russian Federation’s gathering forces and seemingly more than sufficient weapons production capacities.

      It is easy to lose focus…climate change propoganda distracts from the truth about energy insufficiency…germ theory deniers propogandize the impossibility of contagious infection by wild exosomes (infectious and non-infectious viruses) are impossible to distract or discredit productive anti- or appropriate risk bases vaccination/alternative therapeutic discussions just because our analytical methods are insufficient/not precise enough to distinguish between wild and domesticated/infectious and non-infectious/replicative protien containing and non-replicative protein containing exosomes or viruses. Extremism and close-mindedness coupled with delusion ;and Dunning-Krueger effects are the bain of focusing on what is important.

      • reante says:

        That’s not a straight path, alright. You can indirectly bitch and moan about my analyses of germ theory and true biology, and you can prevaricate and pull the dunning Kruger card all you want, as if that’s an ace in the hole, but you clearly won’t go toe to toe with me on it.

        Why don’t you go ahead and state for the record exactly how it is that an “infectious replicating” virus does what you say it does inside a cell, against the will of the cell. Walk us through the mechanics. Feel free to just quote from Wikipedia if that’s what you need to do. Then I’ll tell you why it’s bullshit, FTR.

        There are no appropriate vaccinations. Conventional vaccines saturate cultured exosomes with poisons such that the baby’s body is forced to associate the future production of those exosomes with self-harm, this eliminating that pathway of healing to the extent that the vaccine works. Eliminating pathways of healing is never appropriate because its devolutionary.

        Wake up.

    • Student says:

      Additionally, it is interesting to know that the place hit by the missile is a Italian-Polish food company, called ‘Agricom’.
      It is very strange that a missile takes a wrong direction, hit a an Italian-Polish food company and kill two people.
      The Polish territory is not crowded, so the probabiliy must be low to do this.
      If no debris would have been available on the field, I think that now we would be in war.

      https://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-europa/missile-caduto-in-polonia-proveniva-dallucraina-ma-si-e-trattato-di-un-incidente-3504974/

      • banned says:

        Yes the debris told the tale.BUT Ritter says they could watch every scud missile launch and interception on screen in real time during The Iraq war. They have much better surveillance now. The launch of these missile(s?) was in all probability seen and observed until impact by US military. Biden Knew immediately it was a Ukrainian launch.

        I am heartened with Biden coming clean on this. It signals the possible abandonment of Zelensky and coming to terms with the reality that Ukraine can not win against the force assembling with conventional weapons. Ukraine needs to come to the table for real. Crimea and the Donbass are gone. As painful as that is there is much more pain ahead. Ukraine could dictate sharing the resources of the Donbass and energy supply guarantees as well as compensation. It would be worth it for Russia to end the war now. Ukraine could keep Odessa. The men left in the Ukraine military could live their lives. The Kramatorsk fortifications will be disassembled. One way or another. Enough people have died. There is no doubt of anyones honor at this point.

        It would take a horrendous amount of staging equipment and supplies to war with Russia. A reinstatement of the draft in the USA. The creation of a trillion dollars worth of artillery and missile munitions. We have 30 days at Russias rate of expenditure. It would take maybe 24 months. Russia is not stupid enough to just watch it happen. This would not be a Iraq and everyone who is educated knows it. There is no sign of the massive logistics move occurring. That means there is no intent to fight a conventional war. The war will be non conventional if it occurs. The end.

        If “NATO” wanted to fight a conventional war with Russia the gas would be kept on with a smile on their face and a black heart and Germany France and Italy could have tooled up some war machines of a common design and munitions for a year or so already on the continent. The truth is there is no will or resources for a war with Russia. Not in Europe not in the USA. The choice for Ukraine is to accept and salvage or become a broken failed state like Libya. A ghost never at peace and never at war. Europe is a ghost now too. The USA too.

        The model is war. If it ends its a start.

        It doesnt have to be this way. Understand. At the economic forums -PREVIOUS DEBT IS FORGIVEN. Everyone starts fresh but colonialism is gone. Debt based finance is gone. We can even keep our dollar in a currency basket. Countries earn surpluses. Countries earn their way. People can earn their way. As it should be. Every country keeps whats on their soil. Oh outsourcing everything hurts now. Possession nine tenths of the law.

        Our current economic system does not work with declining energy. We can pass easily into a era that is hard but fair. A time of declining energy and economic system that can cope. The west is welcome. The west is wanted. The west is needed. The west would do just fine. We could participate in a new system where we are not boss but a participant. CO-owners. But we wont. Instead we isolate drive toward the cliff,sing fairy tales and pout. Just as the elite wish. Good little genetic experiments with ear tags on our genes seeing our very existence dependent on the fiat creation owned by the elite. The American dream is not dead but debt based finance and dollar hegemony is. Debt based finance works against the American dream not for it. The American dream is in the people in their hearts their souls but they must claim it. The model is war. If it ends its a start.

        All these resources could be spent rebuilding Ukraine. If we can get this conflict ended the world can try to sort itself out. Now we live in shadow. Biden coming clean could mean the children have a future. The model is war. If Biden can abandon that it is something. Its a start. We will see.

        • reante says:

          WADR I hadn’t realized the extent to which you’re still bargaining with collapse. This is not Sumeria. A debt jubilee would be a hard stop on industrial civilization. That’s why Michael Hudson is an ideologue, because he can’t man-up to peak oil and complexity theory, because his paycheck depends on his not doing so.

      • Foolish Fitz says:

        Agree Student, the hero was the farmer that took and posted the pictures of the debris. Without that happening dementia Joe would have been banging the war drum in my opinion, as the whole thing was a setup and no I don’t believe that the ukis do anything without permission.

  15. Dennis L. says:

    This is on YouTube, Hydrogen House Project. I have referenced this fellow several times on this site. He seems to be the real thing and uses off the shelf technology.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl1kmti2gw8

    Lex Fridman had a guest, Pod cast 38, linked below, Chamath Palihapitiya who claims latest solar cells are effective with diminished sunlight, clouds, etc. due to increased spectrum capture. Here in MN I am seeing arrays pointed not only south but east and west. Chamath claims batteries will store electricity cheaply to the point where energy is free.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFQUDCgMjRc

    NiFe batteries last forever, there are problems but they do work.

    We have ideas on what will not work which is great, we can look elsewhere and the search is shorter.

    I have a belief in the fabric of the universe, a belief that God is part of that fabric and if we are truly the only sentient beings in the universe, He will not allow us to perish.

    Dennis L.

    • This is something most people overlook. I would tend to agree.

      “I have a belief in the fabric of the universe, a belief that God is part of that fabric and if we are truly the only sentient beings in the universe, He will not allow us to perish.”

    • Tim Groves says:

      But we are perishable! Individually, we are all on a one way journey to death, the exit door from our existence on earth and the point where we shed this mortal coil. Our time as sentient beings in the universe is very temporary. Collectively, does God care? Isn’t He concerned chiefly with individuals?

      • God seems to have created this whole system. We don’t know whether our existence on Earth is only part of it. There may be other dimensions we don’t understand. There may, indeed, be a heaven, somewhere we don’t understand.

      • Cromagnon says:

        But our time is not limited it appears. The evidence for reincarnation is truly indisputable for objective researchers.

        The best objective viewpoint that hits all the data points for both the physical and metaphysical realm is that of similacrum.

        All indicators point to cataclysm in next 2 decades leading to vapor canopy and dramatically different biosphere. Good luck with wind and solar power in a world lacking both sunlight and wind.

        This is a school. We either learn what we need to or we repeat the exercise. This time is no different.

        “ Go forth and multiply and REPLENISH the earth.”

        That’s not a “creation”…. that’s a reset.
        But
        There is a time coming, within the century now when the gates to other realms close permanently and those who remain, be they good or evil will be locked in until the similacrum collapses and their souls are crushed.

        Not to worry, when wormwood makes terrestrial contact only the NPCs and the utterly damned won’t take notice.

        The mice in the Calhoun experiments were not given such signage.

    • Withnail says:

      Lex Fridman had a guest, Pod cast 38, linked below, Chamath Palihapitiya who claims latest solar cells are effective with diminished sunlight, clouds, etc. due to increased spectrum capture. Here in MN I am seeing arrays pointed not only south but east and west. Chamath claims batteries will store electricity cheaply to the point where energy is free.

      I’m sure the Lex Fridman podcast will continue to make such claims until the power goes off for the last time. There’s no money in telling the truth.

    • Withnail says:

      This is on YouTube, Hydrogen House Project. I have referenced this fellow several times on this site. He seems to be the real thing and uses off the shelf technology.

      He has a huge home, lots of land and lots of money. Nobody disputes that someone like that can, if they want, buy enough equipment to go ‘off grid’ and still have electricity, power vehicles etc.

      He’ll be a prime target for the raiders when the collapse comes. They might leave him alive if he’s lucky.

      • I have heard a similar claim about a house going up near me. It is built on a half-acre lot, which is not huge. According to what someone has heard from the construction supervisor, it will have 8,000 square feet, batteries, and be completely off the grid. It supposedly will have a four-car garage. It is a wood frame building, with the first two floors framed up, so far.

        The house is hugely larger than anything around it. It supposedly will be a whole lot taller, too.

        It seems like folks building these massive homes could very well become targets for unhappy people.

        • disgruntled peasants always seem to be carrying flaming torches

          • banned says:

            only in energy abundant times. Raiders will leave nice pads intact for occupation.

            • they usually tend to consider that as an afterthought

            • banned says:

              After 20 years of kicking in doors in the sand box here in the USA we have got plenty of guys who are pros. Not their first rodeo. Science. Pros dont spoil the loot. They could sleepwalk and take down residences intact.

              Collapse is not really a option. Continuing with this economic system leads to collapse. We join with BRICS if we want a future. No not giving up sovereignty but cooperating with the world economically. WE keep a military. One sized for what we can earn. WE join the currency basket. The anti thesis to WEF IMF CBDC ownership. WEF ownership might actually be preferable to collapse but old dogs and new tricks yah know.

              Can you imagine the economic opportunities if reserve currency distortion was gone? The demand that would need to be filled?

              First this little nuclear war possibility needs to get resolved. The nukes need to go. This is our time to understand and try to evolve appropriately. The only tougher learning curve than collapse would be nuclear war. Nuclear war is not a option and it never was. MAD was a stupid crazy waste of resources. The nukes get mothballed. Now we have a difficult learning curve. Nuclear war or collapse arnt learning curves they are cliffs on K2. We evolve adapt or go extinct. If we get rid of the nukes and China invades we stack em up. Same as Compton. It wouldnt be nice but it still beats a strategic exchange.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Probably built it high so he could be able to see the bad guys coming and shoot them…

          When people panic they do irrational things… delusional thoughts overcome them…

          Heck I was a doomie prepper for a few years hahahaha… duh

          But then Fast Eddy arrived and ended all that

    • Fred says:

      “NiFe batteries last forever, there are problems but they do work.”

      Yep they do. I’ve got some that I’ve abused, but they just lap it up. Power density is low though, so they’re my backup system now. Gone with SunGrow for the main battery/inverter system.

      Preppers rule despite what FE says. I’ve got a shed full of shit, so I’m gonna live forever!

  16. Mirror on the wall says:

    WWIII has already started? This guy below thinks so, and his analysis of the geopolitical situation fits many of the facts. Whether it will actually come to a total USA-China war remains to be seen, but China is now focusing on its military just in case.

    ‘All life is will to power’, ‘centers of force’ will compete for dominance, and dissipative (energetic) structures will compete to order their environment to themselves, to their own maintenance, expansion and survival – it is what they do.

    Personally I try to avoid ‘moralistic’ interpretations that lie on the rhetorical, propagandistic level of swaying the ‘plebs’; ‘all morality is will to power’. Two centers of force seem to be preparing for an ‘off’ over dominance, and that is what they generally do.

    Humans have a ‘dominance hierarchical’ approach to social structures, like our cousin the chimps and our common ancestors, so for millions of years. They are tribal, territorial and they compete for dominance. This is that on a grand, global scale.

    It does not really ‘mean’ anything, our human existence is structured in that dominational way, and sometimes wars happen. Like it or loath it, it makes no difference. Hand-wringing or moral posturing about wars never changed anything.

    Without all of that, human civilisation would not exist, we would not be human at all. The war-starters are to be neither blamed nor thanked, they are simply being human.

    USA is the chief chimp, the king of the gang, and it will likely fight to maintain its dominant position. Humans have the foresight to see when potential competitors are approaching the strength to challenge for dominance, and USA wants to keep China weaker.

    > The One Chart That Explains Everything

    chart: https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ChinaUSChart-600×470.png

    Look at the chart above. The chart explains everything.

    It explains why Washington is so worried about China’s explosive growth. It explains why the US continues to hector China on the issues of Taiwan and the South China Sea. It explains why Washington sends congressional delegations to Taiwan in defiance of Beijing’s explicit requests. It explains why the Pentagon continues to send US warships through the Taiwan Strait and ship massive amounts of lethal weaponry to Taipei. It explains why Washington is creating anti-China coalitions in Asia that are aimed at encircling and provoking Beijing. It explains why the Biden administration is stepping up its trade war on China, imposing onerous economic sanctions on its businesses, and banning critical high-tech semi-conductors that are “are essential not just… for virtually every aspect of modern society, from electronic products and transport to the design and production of all manner of goods.” It explains why China has been singled-out in the US National Security Strategy (NSS) as “the only competitor with both the intent and, increasingly, the capability to reshape the international order.” It explains why Washington now regards China as its biggest and most formidable strategic adversary that must be isolated, demonized and defeated.

    The chart above explains everything, not just the hostile diplomatic jabs that are designed to discredit and humiliate China, but also the openly belligerent policies that are aimed at Russia as well. People need to understand this. They need to see what is really going on so they can put events in their proper geopolitical context.

    And what “context” is that?

    The context of a Third World War; a war that was thoroughly-planned, instigated and (now) prosecuted by Washington and Washington’s proxies. That’s what’s really going on. The increasingly violent conflagrations we see cropping-up in Ukraine and Asia are not the result of “Russian aggression” or “evil Putin”. No. They are the actualization of a sinister geopolitical strategy to quash China’s meteoric rise and preserve America’s dominant role in the world order. Can there be any doubt about that?

    This is why we are experiencing the redivision of the world into warring blocs. This is why we are seeing the roll back of 30 years of Globalization and massive suppyline disruption. And this is why Europe has been thrust headlong into frigid darkness and forced deindustrialisation. All of these suicidal policies were concocted for one purpose and one purpose alone, to maintain America’s exalted spot in the global system. That is why all of humanity is presently embroiled in a Third World War; a war that is designed to prevent China from becoming the world’s biggest economy; a war that is designed to preserve US global primacy.

    …. Once again, look at the chart. What does it tell you?

    The first thing it tells you is that the hostilities we see in Ukraine (and eventually Taiwan), can be traced back to a fundamental shift in the global economy. China is growing stronger. It’s on a path to overtake the United States economy within the decade. And with growth, come certain benefits. As the world’s biggest economy, China will naturally become Asia’s regional hegemon. And, as Asia’s regional hegemon it will be able “to settle regional disputes in its own favor and to de-legitimize U.S. regional and global leadership.”

    Can you see the problem here?

    For nearly two decades, the US has oriented its foreign policy around a “rebalancing of forces” strategy called the “pivot to Asia”. In short, the US intends to be the dominant player in the world’s most populous and prosperous region, Asia. Can you see how China’s rise derails Washington’s plan for the future?

    The United States is not going to let this happen without a fight. Washington is not going to let China muscle-it-out of the markets that it plans to dominate. That’s not going to happen. And if you think that’s going to happen, you’d better think again. The United States will go to war to avoid a scenario in which the US plays “second fiddle” to China. In fact, the foreign policy establishment has already decided that the US will engage China militarily for that very objective.

    So, our thesis is simple; we think WW3 has already begun. That’s all we’re saying. The ructions we see in Ukraine are merely the first salvo in a Third World War that has already triggered an unprecedented energy crisis, massive worldwide food insecurity, a catastrophic break-down in global supply lines, widespread and out-of-control inflation, the steady reemergence of extreme nationalism, and the redivision of the world into warring blocs. What more proof do you need?

    And it’s all economic. The origins of this conflict can all be traced back to the seismic changes in the global economy, the rise of China and the unavoidable decline of the United States. It is a case of one empire replacing the other. Naturally, a transition of this magnitude is going to generate tectonic changes in global distribution of power. And along with those changes will come more flashpoints, more devastation, and the looming prospect of nuclear war. And this is precisely how things are playing out.

    So, how does the chart explain what is happening in Ukraine?

    Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is actually aimed at China not Russia. Russia is not a peer competitor and Russia does not have the economic wherewithal to displace the United States in the global order. NordStream, however, did pose a significant risk to the US by greatly strengthening Moscow’s economic relations with the EU and particularly with Europe’s industrial powerhouse, Germany. The Moscow-Berlin alliance—which was mutually beneficial and key to German prosperity—had to be sabotaged to prevent further economic integration that would have drawn the continents closer together into the world’s biggest free trade zone. Washington had to stop that in order to preserve its economic stranglehold on Europe and defend the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Even so, no one expected the US to blow up the pipeline itself in—what appears to be—the greatest act of industrial terrorism in history. That was truly shocking.

    In essence, Washington sees Russia as an obstacle to its “pivot” plan to encircle, isolate and weaken China. But Russia is not the greatest threat to US global primacy; not even close. That designation belongs to China.

    The Third World War is being waged to contain China not Russia. What the war in Ukraine suggests is that—among foreign policy elites—there is general agreement that, The road to Beijing goes through Moscow. That appears to be the consensus view. In other words, US powerbrokers want to weaken Russia in order to spread US military bases across Asia. Ultimately, the military will be called upon to enforce Washington’s economic rule over its new Asian subjects. If that day ever comes.

    We think it is extremely unlikely that Washington’s ambitious plan will succeed, but we have no doubt that it will be implemented all the same. Tens of millions of people are likely to die in a desperate attempt to turn-back the clock to the fleeting ‘unipolar moment’ and the equally short-lived American Century. It is a tragedy beyond comprehension.

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-one-chart-that-explains-everything/

    • since weapons were first used by primitive man, all wars have been fought over energy resources

      only the tools of war have changed

      conflict must inevitably be over the energy resources remaining

      • reante says:

        it’s true that all wars have been fought over energy resources.

        but not only have the tools of war changed. what also changed was the nature of war. the purpose of war. before civilization there was no such thing as expansionary warfare. that was anathema to subsistence living. now expansionary warfare is the rule.

        • i might have missed the odd war or two in summation,

          but i can’t think of any war that didnt have some kind of expansion at its core

          • reante says:

            Well for the animist warfare before civilization we have to imagine. 🙂 The anthropological record shows — via the archeological record — that Dunbar’s Number was in full effect during this time, so expanding territory beyond what could be held by numbers of humans below DN was not an option. So the purpose of warfare was limited to maintaining ecological equilibrium with your neighbors. Wiping out your neighbors altogether raised the specter of you getting wiped out by the rest of your neighbors hanging up on you altogether, so you didn’t do it. Kind of like how bandits breaking a stronghold during collapse will result in all the other strongholds wiping them out, like we talked about last thread.

    • drb753 says:

      I find it hard to believe that China’s economy is growing.

      • I agree. China is past peak coal, and this is a problem. There is quite of bit of coal at a distance, but this is very expensive coal by the time it is moved in trucks (or, perhaps trains) long distances to where it needs to be used.

      • Withnail says:

        I don’t believe it is and I don’t believe the US has the resources spare to build yet more military bases.

  17. Slowly at first says:

    A fellow academic told me that it is necessary to get both the Jab and the Boosters, but NOT the flu shot because the flu is ‘natural’ and ‘has always been around’.

    • D. Stevens says:

      Did you accuse this academic of being a conspiracy theorist for implying it engineered and not from bat soup?

    • Student says:

      😀

      • Student says:

        I don’t know if I can make it in English, but there is a famous joke by an Italian comic/singer who says in a famous song:

        ‘my cousin once told me that when he was young he died.’

        (trying to explain what is the importance of reporting things said by another person, regardless of who he/she is)

        the phrase is inside the famous song ‘my cousin’ 🙂

    • Bob says:

      Thought for the day: How do tranquilizer darts work? Shouldn’t the sedative just stay in the muscle?

      Clearly that doesn’t happen. And even small children know this, if they stop and think about it for a second.

      But nobody thinks about it. They just hold two mutually contradictory “facts” in their minds for their entire lives and the two facts never get introduced to each other.

      • nikoB says:

        Excellent comparison. Hadn’t thought of that rather obvious example. Thanks.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Let’s consider a line of High Grade Bolivian Blow…

        You inhale it through your nose… does it stay in your nose? Does your nose get high as a kite?

        Of course not! It enters the blood stream — into the brain with it … a woo hooo… u-foria!!!

        Dunno why people shoot rat juice… no U-foria… all they get is that spikey shit into their brains… wrecking them… WTF… what is Wrong with people????

        Well I suppose it’s free… is that why norm? People can’t turn down free stuff

  18. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 | ZeroHedge

  19. https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/electron-cryotomography-of-sars-cov

    Dr McCullough now has a substack.

    Guess he feels it is important to bring attention to fact that viruses exist and to dispute virus deniers by linking to research with “pictures” of Sars-Cov-2 isolates.

    I have also recently read of discovery of centralized coordinated effort to knowingly spread false informaiton to pollute blogs with mis/dis-information re existance of viruses to misdirect/distract and discredit anti-vax proponents.

    Vaccine development and decisions to vaccinate should be based on understanding relative risks between outcomes factoring in potential adverse effects of vaccination and potential mitigating factors of alternative therapeutic treatments and relative uncertainies in knowledge or each. Denial of germ theory prevents that discussion/analysis from ever happening just as denial of terrain effects/variation (variations in physio/biochemical state or comorbidity status of individuals) leads to an incorrect determination of individual risk/reward as regards infection and alternative treatment options.

    • reante says:

      Microbes cannot cause disease in people because they are saprophytic WRT eukaryotic multicellular organisms (people). They can only eat acutely hypoxic (diseased) and possibly, even, only post-apoptotic human cells. Nobody on the planet can scientifically dispute this.

      ‘Viruses’ (exosomes) cannot DO ANYTHING because they have no metabolic/mechanical functions. Nobody on the planet can scientifically dispute this. They are just strands of nucleic acids, and nucleic acids are highly-reactive, specialized protein chains in an informational format; as such, ‘viruses’ are passive, discrete information ‘bodies’ for cells to ‘read’ via the natural polymerase chain reactions inside the cytoplasm so that the cell can decide what to do with that information, if anything. One of the things the cell can decide to do is replicate that message, sometimes many times, and package those replications for intercellular communication. This dynamic is obviously not disease causation on the part of the ‘virus.’

      McCullough, though he means well, is the virology’s equivalent of a world famous agronomist who doesn’t have the faintest clue about the microbial fundamentals of biological farming. What else is new besides it being just another case of the blind leading the blind? Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

      Germ theory and terrain theory are mutually exclusive BTW. Either microbes and exosomes cause disease or they don’t. Can’t have it both ways.

      Chronic biological dis-ease with its environs causes symptomatic disease. Hence the
      word. If we are ill-at-ease with a microbial community inside us, it is because we are ill-at-ease with some precursor dynamic in our environs. Candidiasis, for example, wherein candidae overgrowth within us causes symptoms, is caused by the precursor cultural dis-ease dynamic of shoveling too many starches into our faces every day, which causes candidae populations to explode because they help us digest starches. Yet McCullough would ludicrously insist on calling candidae in candidiasis contexts pathogenic. Because his fame and his paycheck continues to depend on him doing so.

      • Fred says:

        Reante, My view is a well kept terrain is the best defence against whatever nasties are floating around.

        What’s your view on what, if any, role viruses play in illness?

        Can you lay it out simply. Thanks.

        • reante says:

          Fred

          There are no nasties. There are no microbes that seek to do us harm out of self-interest because there are no microbes capable of it. ’99pc’ (almost all) of microbial pathogens occupy a completely different (anaerobic) ecological niche from what our cells occupy (aerobic). Just being around the levels of the dissolved oxygen that flows in and out of our healthy cells via the interstitial fluids will kill or severely weaken them, and this includes the facultative anaerobes that can withstand low oxygen levels. The other ‘1%’ of ‘nasties’ are saprophytic aerobes that live on the surfaces of our airways, breathe the free oxygen in the airways, and eat the dead and toxic organic matter on the surfaces of our airways and in our mucus.

          ‘Nasties’ are just the gnarly composters of the homeostatic animal tissue death that is constantly occurring inside is all the time. Because homo industrialis doesn’t like to take responsibility for his (self-)destructive he engages in shadowplay and blames ‘nasties’ for his ills.

          Understand the fine line between some truths and some lies. Microbes can finish you off to be sure. Dying isn’t when the doctor closes your eyes for you. Dying of chronic disease is a long process. If you’re in a terminal stage of dying, by having to give up on more cells than is sustainable, microbes will feast on your growing death until the chemical toxicity generated by their anaerobic metabolisms that excrete alcohols and esters cause a runaway positive feedback loop of acute disease on adjacent already struggling tissues. Which is why antibiotics are so powerful and can save lives – antibiotics are capable stop the runaway positive feedback loop of ecological decomposition in the terminally dying body. But that doesn’t make antibiotics godsends and the culture that realized them worthy of supplicating yourself-to. It just makes them a ‘get out of jail free pass’ but there’s nothing that people in the dominant culture love more than to get something for nothing.

          The key to understanding the fundamental difference between germ and terrain cultural theories is that germ theory holds that disease symptomologies are undesirable and must be suppressed, so out of germ theory came allopathic medicine. Allopathy etymologically means “beyond suffering.” In short, it’s a religious belief; allopathic ‘medicine’ shares the foundational belief common to all religions that only ‘god’ can alleviate suffering, and that self-imposed suffering is a Hallmark of the human condition. Which is of course just more shadowplay designed to avoid the (unnecessary) structural cause of the self-imposed structural suffering, in civilization which, by definition, only ever takes place in compacted ecologies, ecologies that under natural law are clearly in overshoot WRT to the human population. Yet we blame the anaerobic microbes who very (essential) ecological adaptation is to anaerobically bioremediate compacted ecologies.

          Civilization is a human cultural adaptation to forestall the deleterious effects of
          compacted ecologies on humans, by insulating ourselves and ourselves alone, from the ecological compaction. Which is exactly why civilization plows and we tills every year or twice a year. And when that insulation starts to fail and the inner ecological compaction emerges as an extension of the outer ecological compaction, we blame the ‘nasties’ that are in truth still the same bioremediators, which brings us to terrain theory.

          Contrary to allopathy which seeks to deny suffering — which seeks nothing less than to deny the effect in Cause and Effect — terrain theory recognizes that SUFFERING IS HEALING. When we have disease symptomologies that cause us to feel poorly, that is our intelligent body deciding that it’s time to resolve the disease. When we have a headache, for example, it is because our nightly bioremediation cycle (detox cycle)
          during sleep has cumulatively been inadequate for some number of days and the intelligent body has decided that it needs to perform a daytime intervention and go into a somewhat intensive detox mode, and the headache is from the body diverting nutrient flows away from the ravenous brain in order reallocate them for the healing which is nutrient intensive (white blood cells have enormous nutrient requirements) while also the headache acts in service of the resting function of healing. When we have a headache we’re not behaviorally inclined to exert ourselves.

          Simply put, Fred, ‘viruses’ (the word stupidly means “poison”) are what the field of biology called proteomics (the study of the ecological roles of proteins generally, and more specifically nucleic acids) recognizes as exosomes, which are intercellular messages in a genetic format. The major class of exosomes operate in service of the adaptive evolutionary function which is the only function of evolution. Successfully adapting to the ever-changing ecology around us is how maintain our health, and cells constantly communicating to each other about the external stimuli they are encountering is the cellular equivalent of language. Exosomal communication is the highest-order executive function of cells. Remember that our cells are STILL just single-celled microbes that evolved to live in trillion-fold cultures of cellular hypercomplexity we call the human being. The ‘human being’ is just a mind-blowing emergent phenomenon of 4B years of microbial cultural growth. And the human mind emerged out of exosomal genetic communication function because language emerges from language.

          So ‘viruses’ is the same shadowplay as ‘nasties’: when we are maladapted to our ecology because our ecology is highly imbalanced/unhealthy, the exosomal healing communications are amplified (in number) and virology calls that a ‘high viral load,’ and allopathic culture, in Shadow, calls a ‘viral infection’ what is in biological truth the symptomatic healing coordinated by the washing waves of highly specific ‘red alert’ exosomes across the trillion -fold cellular culture. Correlation does not equal causation.

          In order to understand biology it’s extremely important to recognize that intelligence doesn’t originate in the mind. It originates in the body. The mind’s intelligence is merely a nested intelligence that is an emergent phenomenon of the body’s intelligence. Emergent phenomena are by definition made in the likeness of the source phenomena. Biochemistry is embodied intelligence. Nucleic acid formations are the intelligent organizing principles of biological life – the language of Life. Exosomes are field communications. Field comms. Intelligence is an embodied phenomenon, and that’s not a materialistic statement, it’s a holistic biological statement.

          Holographic reality is an embodied reality. Everything that exists within it is energy and that which animates energy (consciousness/intelligence) in symbiosis.

          Just because there’s ecological uncompetitiveness (disease) in the world doesn’t mean that ‘nasties’ exist and just because there’s maladapted states in life doesn’t mean that ‘viruses’ exist. Both represent evolutionary mind-learning opportunities for chrissakes – opportunities for mind to come back into alignment with body.

          • Humans are incredibly complex. It is hard to believe that individual cells can communicate with one another, but other sources say the same thing.

            • reante says:

              Yeah it’s the inner beauty of intelligent design. We folks here truly believe in humans creating intelligent societies from the bottom-up rather than from the top-down exactly because biology creates humans from the bottom-up. The creating itself, of biology, was a ‘top-down’ creating by the creator, but biology itself — the intelligent creation itself — is bottom -up.

          • JMS says:

            “The ‘human being’ is just a mind-blowing emergent phenomenon of 4B years of microbial cultural growth.”

            A little known and insufficiently repeated truth, I think. I would say we are closer to being cattle of bacteria than top predators (not to mention children of god).
            Thanks for your thoughtful exposition, Reante

        • reante says:

          Fred

          To tie up a loose end regarding exosomes, there are endogenous exosomes and exogenous exosomes. Endogenous exosomes become exogenous when they leave the source organism (breath, farts, sweat, oils, etc) and enter another organism. So obviously when virology talks about ‘viruses’it is talking about exogenous exosomes. Indeed we live in a biospheric soup of exogenous exosomes because exosomes, as the genetic primers in the natural cellular PCRs that drive all biological synthesis, are the mechanism for horizontal gene transfer which constitutes ’99pc’ of evolution. Vertical gene transfer — sexual reproduction — is really just a replication of two genomes into one, and that’s obviously the single -biggest discrete evolutionary occurrence in the biological lifecycle but ultimately represents a miniscule proportion of the evolutionary activity of an organisms evolution throughout its lifetime as it constantly recalibrates itself to the ever-changing ecology, and builds upon those recalibrations by turning genes on and off, and patterning those gene expressions into higher-order cyclical expressions such as intelligent detox/healing cycles. Evolution is just the history of biology learning well from Cause and Effect. Devolution is the history of the loss of that ability. Exosomal horizontal gene transfer is the language in which these processes take place.

          • Fred says:

            Thanks reante. I’ll have to read that several times and then digest it for a while.

            Personally I think we were designed by some higher intelligence, rather than evolving out of the primordial ooze. However the problem with that is you always get back to who designed them i.e. who came first and where did they come from?

            In the meantime I’ll relax by watching those lovable Russkies efficiently and methodically blowing up shit in Ukraine.

            • reante says:

              You’re welcome Fred. Sorry it wasn’t more simply put like you asked. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Yeah I have come to believe that evolutionary biology syncs up perfectly with my prior journey to animism. I see according to my use of reason that the creator imbued all things with the same baseline Consciousness/Spirit — what indigenous people variously referring to as the great spirit/mystery in the sky, with sky meaning both earth and sky, with sky meaning everything. I realize it’s an abstract concept to think of the primordial elements of the early universe evolving successive emergent properties that enabled them to eventually create the emergency we call ‘biology.’ The ‘unconscious’ insides of it will always remain shrouded in mystery to our metaconscious mind in the same way that a leaf knows nothing of the root’s exudate production and the root knows nothing of photosynthesis, but I feel like we can glimpse divine intimations of the immortal mystery by patterning natural law.

              It meant a lot to me earlier this year when I realized that, with the many PCRs that happen both in our cytoplasms and in our nuclei, the biological primordial soup never ended and that it continues to be the source of the continual source of biogenesis 24/7/365 that is required for us to exist. The conscious primordialism that ties us seamlessly all the way back to the beginning. There’s HAS to be a continuous linkage all the way back to the beginning. I don’t know what the totality of the linkage is between the nucleic acid-based biological primordial soup and the elemental/energetic primordialism of the early universe is but conscious water and conscious sun and conscious rock are the nearest links that interacted to create and harbor the acids such that they could start reacting with each other and hence learning from Cause and Effect.

              Under natural law you clearly get out of things what you put into them, unlike with political law. Getting out of life what you put into it tells me that the creator created the intelligent conditions but required of life that it started from scratch and that it had to earn everything it was to achieve on it merits, and that the unitary meritocratic action was the accurate patterning of local causes and effects, so that intelligence
              could begin to map out what to do with its existence. And here’s the result, in our locale at least, 4B years later or whatever. That’s where I’m at right now, following the breadcrumbs and always hewing to reason which is the word we use for accurate patternings of local cause and effect.

    • Rodster says:

      It is pretty freaking “immoral as well as criminal”, to silence one of the top disease and cardiovascular surgeon and expert in the entire world and to call what he says, disinformation.

      The word disinformation is now loosely used by The Establishment which basically means, to lie. That is the corrupt world we live in today. All of this made possible by fossil fuels because without it there would be NO internet, no cable news, no TV, no smartphones, no Twitter/Facebook, etc.

    • postkey says:

      “132:48 next slide please this is
      132:52 what source code v2 looks like and if
      132:54 and i will i will send you the video so
      132:55 you can show it
      132:57 of the side on the right shows it goes
      132:59 up and down and you can see the actual
      133:01 source corona
      133:02 cov2 virus uh with its spiked proteins
      133:06 in its corona shape i’ll send that to
      133:08 you so you can play that
      133:10 it’s it’s incredibly important because
      133:13 there are people out there that are
      133:14 actually of the opinion that
      133:16 sars cov2 doesn’t exist and has not been
      133:19 isolated
      133:20 these individuals not only have
      133:22 demonstrated they don’t understand
      133:23 viruses
      133:24 but they interfere with the with the
      133:26 serious discussion going on with this
      133:28 virus “

      • reante says:

        I went to 1hr 32m and didn’t find the clip that the transcript references.

        Showing an EM image of an extracellular vesicle doesn’t make it a submicroscopic terrorist. If a submicroscopic terrorist existed then the body would have long-since evolved to prioritize the disposal of them. As soon as a cell supposedly had one of its ribosomes hijacked by the submicroscopic terrorist, the cell would signal for macrophages to come and engulf the cell in its entirety and destroy the virus. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.

        Exosomal replication is body-mediated. ‘Viruses’ (nucleic acid formations) evolved before cells ever even existed. And the ones that still exist haven’t structurally changed since then. Others since then evolved into cells and ultimately evolved into human beings. To think that the oldest evolutionary ancestor of complex biology, the genetic strand, seeks to destroy complex biology, is to think that evolution is self-defeating. That makes zero sense. See the Orwellianism. The shadowplay.

      • reante says:

        doh.the lightbulb went on and I found the clip at 2h12m. Showing that image is just an appeal to authority. They have no evidence nor justification for valuing viral theory over exosomal theory, and they have no justification for regarding the associated disease symptomologies as the disease itself rather than the healing response to the disease. Why is it that if we are in fundamentally good health we feel great after having a ‘cold’ or ‘flu?’ Is it just relative to the feeling terrible or is it something more than that? Why is it that we feel great after kicking an addiction? Because we got ourselves cleaned up.

  20. Lastcall says:

    Are there any calculatons out there for the carbon cost of a kWh of electricity?
    Getting sick of seeing ‘Zero emission’ badges on EV’s.
    Never mind the capital cost of said toxic vehicles.

    • Fred says:

      I saw an article a while back about overall lifecycle carbon cost of an EV was slightly worse than a FF vehicle (mining and processing battery minerals etc).

      But the carbon thing is a load of BS greenwash anyway and the world can’t run without FF and certainly not on EVs, so what’s the point of the debate?

    • Kowalainen says:

      Assume 20% thermodynamic efficiency in converting raw materials into product, say an EV or electricity.

      To make it easy: Take the weight of an EV and multiply it by five.

      2.000kg * 5 = 10.000kg -> 100 barrels of oil assuming a density of 1.

      Of oil equivalent, say 100 barrels of oil for its manufacturing.

      An EV git about ~80% efficiency in converting the energy stored and what ends up in the wheels.

      The average coal power plant got some ~40% efficiency. Assume some looses in the grid and charging cycle and we’re down to about ~20% roughly speaking.

      This will make the total thermodynamic efficiency of an EV at about:

      0.8 * 0.2 = 16%

      Say a good EV can give some 300.000km’s before the battery pack need to be replaced.

      Now, let’s make a reasonable assumption that an EV consumes about 2 liter of gasoline equivalent per 100km. Which gives:

      2*(300.000/100) = 6.000 liters of gasoline.

      About 40% of the oil in a barrel can be converted into gasoline.

      6.000 liters of gasoline is about:

      6000 * 1.6 / 136 = 70 barrels of oil.

      In total 170 barrels of oil for manufacturing and its usage through the lifecycle excluding all else, service, tires, roads, etc.

      In weight it’s about 23.000kg of oil. Or about 50.000 pounds.

      —————————

      A state of the art commute bike weigh in at about 10kg’s and consumes zero gallons of oil. However, the cyclist need to consume more oats to keep it operational.

      10(weight of bicycle) * 5(20% conversion efficiency ) -> 0.36 barrels of oil.

      Assume a well maintained bike can reach the same distance as the EV.

      Well then;

      The thermodynamic efficiency in muscles is about 20%. The ordinary person can sustain about 100W of power excursion to the pedals.

      Total 500W of power required to move at about ~30kph. The time required to pedal those 300.000kms is about 10.000h, which is about 400 days spent cranking those pedals.

      Anyway, 10.000h * 0.5 is about 5000kWh.

      5000 kWh is about 3 barrels of oil (in increased food consumption).

      I’m total it’s 3+0.36, let’s be a bit outrageous and say a bicycle during its lifetime (same as for the EV), well used and abused by an oat munching Rapacious Primate consumes about 4 barrels of oil.

      A direct comparison:

      4/170, which is about 2% of the oil needed for keeping the eco fantasies rolling in the Tesla.

      Not to mention the overall health and pollution benefits.

      Now; what’s your excuse? Let me guess; you’ve gotta project your status and prestige from that Tesla and Mc Mansion of yours? Plus, it’s rather convenient for undisciplined people. Repeat after me:

      HYPERS GONNA HYPER DESPITE THE PREDICAMENT!

      YOLO!

      MOAR!

      TRYHARD!

      JUST SEND IT!

      🌍💥☄️☄️☄️

      🤣👍👍

    • Ed says:

      Lastcall, 2460 kwhr/ton of coal
      34 kwhr/100 miles or 0.34kwhr/mile
      0.27 lb/mile
      15,000 per year gives 4146 pounds of coal per year or 2.1 tons of coal per year
      4172 lb of co2 per ton of coal burned
      gives 8761 lbs of co2 per year for your Tesla

    • It depends a whole lot of what the electricity is made of. Nuclear electricity has a low carbon cost. Coal has a high carbon cost. Natural gas that has been shipped around the world as LNG probably produces electricity with a higher carbon cost than coal.

      • Artleads says:

        Can you help me with a semantic explanation of what “carbon cost” is? I’m always trying to share your explanations (selectively) among the ignorant many, and I need very simple wording.

  21. Pingback: TheRedWave News

  22. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - Exposing the Matrix

  23. Pingback: The Scotfree | Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005

  24. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – Truth Vetter

  25. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – Sovereign Vision

  26. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – Activist Donor

  27. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - Investing Book Deals

  28. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – UltraMAGAGOP

  29. JesseJames says:

    Great Post Gayle
    And the UK gets closer to the abyss…
    Solar Firm Collapses, Owing UK Taxpayers £655 Million

    Toucan Energy’s 53 solar farms to be sold off by administrator
    Thurrock Council in Essex loaned the company £655 million

    Seems a lot of pensioners will get burned by solar!

  30. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - The Daily Conservative Report

  31. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – altnews.org

  32. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 - Grand Ole Party

  33. Pingback: Today's Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – HedgeAccordingly.com

  34. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 : by Tyler Durden – Dawson County Journal

  35. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 | New Covenant Network News

  36. Rodster says:

    “Oman’s Energy Minister: It’s Foolish To Assume Renewables Can Meet Global Demand”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/omans-energy-minister-its-foolish-assume-renewables-can-meet-global-demand

    “The world’s energy needs will only grow, and it would be “foolish” to think that rising demand can be met with renewables alone, Oman’s Energy Minister Salim Al-Aufi told CNBC on Tuesday.

    Oman’s energy minister tells CNBC’s @_hadleygamble it would be “foolish” to assume that the world’s growing energy needs can be met with renewables. pic.twitter.com/BL0TUcWhFz

    — CNBC Middle East (@CNBCMiddleEast) November 8, 2022
    Energy needs to be affordable and this is the first pillar of energy supply when the energy transition is concerned, the minister said.

    Oman’s official also defended, again, the OPEC+ decision to reduce the headline target oil production by 2 million barrels per day (bpd) as of this month, saying that the group is proactive in trying to balance the market.

    Al-Aufi also said that he wasn’t surprised by the U.S. blowback after the OPEC+ decision was announced.

    “It was expected,” he told CNBC.

    Referring to the energy transition and renewables, Oman, like many Middle Eastern oil and gas producers, believes that all forms of energy will be needed to meet the world’s growing energy demand in the coming years and decades.”

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      ‘foolish’

      Other states have their own interests and perspectives, and they are not gullible or obedient to the West.

      The West can come out with whatever silly narratives ‘make sense’ from its perspective, and it can expect its silly own sheep, its ‘plebs’, to “baaah” along with them, but the rest of the world is not its flock, is not subject to its narratives and does not conflate them with reality.

      The rest of the world increasingly says in unison that the West ‘can go do one’ and ‘stick’ its narratives. Good for them.

    • Ed says:

      Thank you Rodster, good one.

  37. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – MAGAtoon

  38. I see that ZeroHedge has my post up, but they only linked to OurFiniteWorld.com, rather than to the individual post, so we are not getting all the link notices.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/todays-energy-crisis-very-different-energy-crisis-2005

    • Student says:

      Congratulations.

      • Student says:

        I think that the more your articles are read the better it is for everybody.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            I disagree. given there are no solutions what is the point of trying to force people to understand that we are doomed… it would only cause unnecessary despair

            • It is a real dilemma. Parents of small children particularly have a big problem.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Hey bobby come here… mummy is gonna give you some of this nice candy – it’s called Super Fent — see it’s like Smarties — which is your favourite? Oh I like the red ones mummy … ok let’s pick out 3 red ones…

              But before we take them let’s read the story about the little boy being captured by the hungry mob and cooked in the pot… its our favourite right? Yes mummy. Let’s read that then take the Super Fent.

              Ok Bobby – let’s do that

              hahahahahaahahahaha crazy… huh? Yes .. crazy

              Hoolio is resting … he took down a big ol rabbit earlier — I picked it up and tossed it into the compost … had a bit of heft to it …

            • eye rolling time again eddy

    • drb753 says:

      Of course, the comments about the article there are disgraceful (as they always are). Why, Gail, do you not know that we are sitting on hundreds of years of oil waiting to be extracted? This crisis is all invented!

      • 50 ft beneath my chair here, now, is a seam of coal 6ft thick, in theory it should deliver ‘prosperity’ but the cost of accessing it, distributing it would exceed the energy value contained in it.

        it was last mined when miners were paid about £1 a week

        now a miner wants £700 a week–and that if you can find anyone with the incentive and skills to do it.

        this is the case in places all over the world, whether for coal or oil.

        we are reaching, or have reached, the stage where the cost of energy extraction exceeds what we get in return.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        The comments section of ZH are where I go when I want to be reminded of why I try to limit my contact with the world….

        They are a good barometer of the st-ewpidity level of the billions.

        And we wonder why the Elders treat humans like barnyard animals…. as expendable

    • Herbie Ficklestein says:

      “Harry” , Justin also posted your latest article today on his website …climate and economy.org
      Wrote it was excellent

      • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

        already 159 comments.

        I hope they all actually read the entire thing, where most of them would have learned a lot about reality.

        • Foolish Fitz says:

          I had a quick look at the comments and at least one person got it.

          “This is easily the best and most honest description of the World energy situation I have ever seen anywhere. Well done.”

          Unfortunately, it was answered with this

          “Except it’s a myth! Fact checkers would shred this article!”

          Not even a hint at why they think it’s wrong, just the religious belief that it must be wrong and the idiotic hope that someone else will do the leg work for them(and the least honest of people at that).

          Some will never learn, because they don’t want to know.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Yahoo = MSM … odd.

        ZH comments – as we can see the PR Team has done a great job of providing a wide range of excuses for why energy prices are through the roof. If you scan through them you will see everything from a range of alternative energy as the solution .. I am sure somewhere in there the Ukey war will be mentioned.

        2 days ago
        (Edited)
        remove
        This is a hopeless wall of drivel.

        If you’re not writing about delusional US attempts to sanction away oil and gas from Russia, Iran and Venezuela – three countries that contain amongst them the world’s largest oil reserves, the world’s largest gas reserves, is the world’s largest gas exporter, and is the world’s second largest oil exporter – you’re not a serious author.

        🤡

        2 days ago
        I’ll take that one step further. If you’re not writing about deliberate US attempts to constrict global supply in order to increase oil/gas prices in order to usher in the NWO, you are not a serious author.

        2 days ago
        reduce supply to crash economies to usher in/facilitate “multipolar” [transnational neofascism] great green reset.

  39. Pingback: Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different From The Energy Crisis Of 2005 – iftttwall

  40. Fast Eddy says:

    A representative for Roberta Flack announced Monday that the Grammy-winning musician has ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and can no longer sing.

    https://apnews.com/article/roberta-flack-als-diagnosis-403caf46fc277d8fddeb438a1f57979d

    Oh wow! Of course it’s not the vax… just like my ex neighbour… oh no vax safe vax effective

  41. Fast Eddy says:

    Donny Osmond cancels two shows “due to illness”; B-52s postpone concert “due to illness”; Roberta Flack’s ALS has “made it impossible to sing”; Morrissey halts LA show after 30 minutes

    So many performers went through “vaccination”—and often avidly promoted it—in hopes that it would help keep everybody “safe”; yet it’s now killing them softly.

    https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/donny-osmond-cancels-two-shows-due

    My reaction to this is … I find it very amusing … funny even

  42. reante says:

    Gail

    Great pictorial analysis of the bell-curve-side peak in peak oil that comes before the senecan-cliff-side. Thank you.

    What I’d like to know, beyond the fitted -0.4pc per capita decline since 2017, is the true decline since 2019. What is that looking like, a -3% decline? Now I realize that that was a politically-managed decline (the plandemic), but I also realize that the political management of the decline was undertaken so that the decline was not worse. Just as is the case with the second war economy that has followed immediately on the heels of the plandemic war economy fought against submicroscopic terrorists without boxcutters.

    War economies are planned economies. This what transitory Degrowth looks like, as it transits out of growth politics into a true Degrowth economic politics of the kind that all the Degrowth literature has explored for a decade or more now.

    • Comparing 2021 to 2018, production is down by an average of about 2.4% per year. The per capita calculation is worse, however, because population is growing at a little over 1% per year. Per capita consumption is down by about 3.4% per year.

      I am afraid financial problems will make the degrowth more severe, as we go forward.

      • reante says:

        Thanks Gail for that legwork. Yeah for sure, the financial dislocation is going to make the -3.4% YOY look like a cakewalk. This plandemic-shaped ‘recovery’ is just a stairstep they built into the end of the Undulating Plateau. The next step will be more like parkour off a high ledge so that they can try and buy, with the manufactured demand destruction, another five years of relative stability for nuclear nation states.

  43. Fast Eddy says:

    Breaking: RN Shares the most powerful and horrifying testimony I’ve heard since the vaccine rollout started and she corroborates her story with internal hospital emails on The Highwire.

    Full interview (https://rumble.com/v1td1im-episode-293-miscarriage-of-science.html)

    • Lastcall says:

      Very nice.
      But …’The Science’ is a cult, so treat its prognostations as such; as they emerge one by one from the trance we should not be surprised at such revelations.
      Scientology would envy such gullibility.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Former neighbour who has vax induced Lou Gehrig… drives EV .. has solar panels.

        She fell for everything .. betcha she’s a Zelensky groopie!!!

  44. Fast Eddy says:

    The Demon is in Possession!

    Mother Gives a Heart-Wrenching Testimony at Souderton Area School District Meeting

    “Teachers coaxed her daughter to be trans. They shaved her head and changed her name without notifying her parents. Her daughter is now on testosterone and got a double mastectomy.”

    Rumble (https://rumble.com/v1uzoiq-mother-gives-a-heart-wrenching-testimony-at-souderton-area-school-district-.html)

  45. Fast Eddy says:

    Is RSV More Severe in Covid Vaccinated Kids Due To Destroyed Hematopoietic Stem Cells?

    Oops, we destroyed your stem cells, sorry we did not know, never mind

    https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-rsv-more-severe-in-covid-vaccinated

    norm reads this and thinks … who cares about the children … as long as I’m still alive and able to spend me pension munny on Super Snatch’s Snatch … Out Back the Dumpster (OBTD)

    Hey maybe Fizzer can make another MRNA shot for this hahaha… they seem to be able to pump these vaxxes out in months … now that testing is not needed.. cuz it’s MRNA and it’s always Safe and Effective…

    Let’s have Operation Warp Speedo 2.0! Just Do It!

    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdbd910b8-f295-48ba-97b5-4e598fadc3d8_2200x1800.jpeg

    https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd97a4294-11c4-46d5-b8c4-0793258a9ce9_2040x1020.jpeg

    Punchline Time — hahaha :

    Note that the RSV virus is not exactly new. It appeared in 1956 due to an accidental lab release while “scientists” worked on monkeys to develop polio vaccines, as the Naked Emperor explained. RSV is everywhere. The first instance of RSV is always the worst and RSV seasons often supplied hospitals with numerous infant patients. In the past, while many kids were hospitalized, deaths were minimal at only 100-300 kids per year.

    And covid kills how many infants??? Like zero??? hahahaha

      • Fast Eddy says:

        The parents will blame it on Covid and respond by boosting their kids. Cuz Stooopid.

        Vax = Salvation.

        (Vax is Devil)

        Are we observing Devil worshipping????

        • Student says:

          The problem that children from covid-vaxed mothers suffer has been explained also in the following research

          https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(22)01816-8?fbclid=IwAR1alcMdt8Big0vdYV1yf2GvudgjY3llsXV26SluBDwTLi7BXXme7Ye1yYI

          • The summary of this article is

            Summary

            Umbilical cord blood (UCB) is an irreplaceable source for hematopoietic stem progenitor cells (HSPCs). However, the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination on UCB phenotype, specifically the HSPCs therein, are currently unknown. We thus evaluated any effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 vaccination from the mother on the fate and functionalities of HSPCs in the UCB. The numbers and frequencies of HSPCs in the UCB decreased significantly in donors with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and more so with COVID-19 vaccination via the induction of apoptosis, likely mediated by IFN-γ-dependent pathways. Two independent hematopoiesis assays, a colony forming unit assay and a mouse humanization assay, revealed skewed hematopoiesis of HSPCs obtained from donors delivered from mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection history. These results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination impair the functionalities and survivability of HSPCs in the UCB, which would make unprecedented concerns on the future of HSPC-based therapies.

            • Student says:

              My impression is that because almost all the vaccinated people then had also Covid, the sum of the negative effects from Covid + the vaccine, creates such a very negative result for the body that it is very difficult to bear (living aside from this topic all the adverse events from the vacciine itself..).

              I can tell you that a very good friend of mine in another Country had 2 doses of mRNA vaccine and then she had Covid.
              She felt so bad that she couldn’t get up from bed.
              From some friends knew that an important Doctor treats people like her with a therapy which – roughly said – ‘clean’ the blood with Ozone therapy, adding high doses of Vitamin C and Glutation to the her blood.
              The blood is reinserted in the person affected.
              She told me that the Doctor showed her the vial after the passage of her blood and the vial was full of sticky and viscous red substance to the walls of the vial.
              The sticky and viscous red substance deteriorated after some treatments and her blood became again fluid.
              Maybe that it is also the reason why people have clots and heart attacks (but I’m not a Doctor).
              Unfortunately she asked me not to name the Doctor.
              And by checking myself that Doctor in his website, he doesn’t talk pubicly of his therapy, so I cannot name him, because I should quote my friend.
              She told me that she knows that well-known people and professional sports people go to him for that reason.
              Of course I trust her, but I don’t expect that people trust her or myself for what I’m saying.
              My impression is that, if that is confirmed, it will come out in the next months/years.
              Anyway I found it credible because my friend was happy to do the jabs, at the time, then she feld very bad and after some time I have not meet her, I found that she has changed opinion.

    • The first article you link says:

      In a statement today Friday, November 18, Japanese Education Minister Keiko Nagoya asked all education departments to inform all families about the rapid increase in adverse reactions after the covid boosters.

      It then goes on to list various deaths that have occurred after boosters.

  46. Rodster says:

    Im pretty sure there’s nothing to worry about here because once they go CBDC, there is no way out. As George Carlin would say: “they got you by the b@lls man”.

    “G20 Pushes Vaccine Passports For All Future International Travel”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/g20-declares-vaccine-passports-needed-future-international-travel

    • Rodster says:

      The best is this paragraph: “The section of the final communique, which is republished and available on the White House website, which deals with vaccines and the Covid-19 pandemic begins, “We recognize that the extensive COVID-19 immunization is a global public good and we will advance our effort to ensure timely, equitable and universal access to safe, affordable, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (VTDs).”

      Let’s ask Tony Fauci how well that’s worked out so far?

    • Main beneficiary would seem to be the vaccine industry.

Leave a Reply