The Economy: Eventually, Basically Everyone is Going to be a Single Issue Voter

[Andrew Anglin]

Thanks for the explanation, man. I was trying to get answer on Google, which as you can imagine was a fool's mission. Anything connected to Trump, Biden or the regime in general is now obscured under partisan interests, and it's very difficult to get to the truth of things. And that includes with Trump himself, who wasn't above a sleight of hand, to knowingly mislead - I for example, was under the impression that the USA had achieved crude oil independence, and I know for a fact that this is because of the things that Trump said that had led to me to this conclusion. The fact that the USA isn't crude oil independent, and is going round with a begging bowl to hairy bone-saw camel-jockeys and greasy latino demagogues to try to get some, is an absolute indictment on the genocidal ZOG leadership of the West.

Ironically, this is why these people are telling you to buy an electric car - the shale from fracking produces electricity you can use to charge your Tesla.

Meanwhile...

A 2011 study published in Climatic Change Letters claimed that the production of electricity using shale gas may lead to as much or more life-cycle GWP than electricity generated with oil or coal.[46] In the peer-reviewed paper, Cornell University professor Robert W. Howarth, a marine ecologist, and colleagues claimed that once methane leak and venting impacts are included, the life-cycle greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is far worse than those of coal and fuel oil when viewed for the integrated 20-year period after emission. On the 100-year integrated time frame, this analysis claims shale gas is comparable to coal and worse than fuel oil.

Maybe that's true or not - who knows? But it's at least comparable to just driving old-fashioned cars.

This Greta stuff is all just a massive hoax. The techno-futurists themselves - who are actually worried about running out of fossil fuels, not that they change the weather - say that we need nuclear power until someone figures out a fusion reactor.

The wind thing is just a massive, evil scam, that is destroying the environment and causing all kinds of pollution.

If you really wanted to stop fossil fuels, either because you think we're going to run out or because you believe in the warming hoax, you would build nuclear power plants everywhere and keep supporting Tesla and trying to make electric cars more affordable. I'm not even against this idea - Teslas are pretty cool. When it comes to the car thing, I think the bigger issue is a total lack of public transit, which is a result of niggerization and can't really be fixed without fixing niggers. But of course, none of these problems can be fixed, so sometimes it feels like it's just pointless to even talk about it.

"There's an easy way to solve this problem, but you don't actually want to solve it because you created it in the first place" applies to pretty much anything the government presents as a problem needing a solution. Therefore, the solutions they offer are always going to make everything worse.

 

[Flaps McKinley]

Please see new chart.

"Energy independence" is just a slogan. Yes, you can become a net exporter of fossil fuels, but you're still locked into global markets regardless, and blocking the export of energy would be illegal under various treaties. Yes, the US can unilaterally cancel treaties, but they're linked to all of these other things, because globalism. If Russia is locked out of the global market, prices necessarily go up. Not just because they produce 10% of the world's crude oil, but also because of natural gas and other commodities. These markets are all tied together.

View attachment 106850

Globalism is stupid, I think everyone agrees about that. But it exists, and the United States would starve without it. It would take decades for the US to become an autarky, and even then we'd be behind.

This stuff with "bringing the factories home" is just ridiculous, the way people talk about it. We don't know how to build the machines that build the machines that build things in consumer electronics factories (as one example). To bring these factories home, we would have to pay the Chinese to come show us how to build and operate the factories.

When Trump sanctioned China, China just moved factories to Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, etc. They just packed them up and moved them - and they also moved their own workforce, because paying them to relocate was easier than training locals on how to operate the factories, dealing with language barriers, etc. Mike Pompeo was saying that the factories should move to Southeast Asia, but he had too much fat in his brain to understand the implications of that. It was an inconvenience for China, but all of this stuff you now see that says "made in Thailand" is made in a Chinese owned factory operated entirely by Chinese nationals.

There is no belligerent method for ending America/West's commitment to globalism that doesn't set the West back 200 years. The peaceful way of doing it requires Chinese cooperation, and would still take 20 years. China is running out of reasons they would cooperate. Under Trump, we could have surrendered Taiwan, and demilitarized Japan, South Korea, and Philippines, in exchange for Chinese people teaching us how to build and run factories.

The hollowing out of the USA's manufacturing base has not just destroyed much of Middle America and impoverished the real economy, but it has left America dangerously exposed in times of war. The video below is interesting, because it discusses how the USA no longer has the manufacturing capability to be able to do the wartime-level manufacturing required for an old-school ground war of the type that Russia is currently prosecuting. A top-level military think-tank in the UK has calculated that Russia can simply out-produce US in terms of munitions in times of war, having been working these past eight years to get itself to its current war-capable point, and according to this think tank, can go on producing indefinitely. The US, by contrast, would need at least ten years to get its manufacturing to that point, ten years that the USA doesn't have.

Although I'm not American, I feel for the USA's plight - because exactly the same forces that outsourced US manufacturing did the same to the UK ten or so years before, leaving us both hollow shells for the (((service economy))).

The report in question is discussed from the 12-minute mark on in the video.

 

[Angryguy]

Gas was under $3 and now it's over $5. That three month pump you're pointing at isn't meaningful if you pull back the graph to the left. Gas bills in Germany are 5X what they were before the Russia sanctions, and all of these global energy markets are tied together.

Are energy prices in Europe also because Joe Biden stopped Keystone XL? What about in the third world, where gas is in some places 6-8 times what it was in February? This is all Keystone?

You cannot blockade the biggest commodities market in the world and have it not affect energy prices. This is a ridiculous argument.

Oil yes gas no. Gas or what we call natural gas is very local. There is very little lng to make a difference. Gas prices very dependent on pipelines. But it has shot up in Canada too because of inflation before the invasion Not sure what the issues are but we saw the ending of the decade and a half low price situation.

 

[JR_Rustler_III]

Is Dennis Hopper still alive?

No he died of covid

 

[JR_Rustler_III]

but a lot of the lost Whites, particularly the urbanites, whose convictions are inextricably entangled with the jews' for whatever personal reason, a lot of them will just leave too.

I don't think the Jews will let them--if for no better reason, than spite.

This is the slope. The rate didn't change after "Russia sanctions begin." It became more volatile, but the upward trend continued at the same rate as between Dec. 2021 and "Russia sanctions begin."

You can't just project a line upwards and then claim that that's where it was going to go no matter what.

What is far more likely to have happened is this: the price of oil started rising on a nice trend due to (1) demand increasing thanks to the Davos crowd gradually lifting the covid boot off of everyone's necks and (2) supply problems due to a massive hangover from all the supply chain disruptions. Then, the Davos boys said--"this nice trend won't last forever because demand and supply will adjust and adapt. So how do we keep these prices going up and to the right for the foreseeable future, so we can crush our domestic economies and bring on the Great Reset?" and the answer was, let's start a war with Russia and then do Russia Sanctions. And the Jews were like, "Hell yeah! FINALLY! Let's kill us some Ukrainians and Russians! Hopefully we can kill most of the Ukrainians and then we'll make a second Jewish homeland by recreating the old Pale of the Settlement!"

If you want, you can tell that same story with the Jews being the ones suggesting the war with Russia/Russia sanctions. Either way the outcome is the same, because it's an idea that works for everyone who matters (Davos + Jews + CIA/Deepstate)

 

[JR_Rustler_III]

and blocking the export of energy would be illegal under various treaties

Just FYI, until relatively recently, oil exports from the USA were illegal. Those laws were put in place during the 70s oil crisis. They finally got repealed during the fracking boom when our oil and gas production spiked up massively.

 

[JR_Rustler_III]

Maybe that's true or not - who knows? But it's at least comparable to just driving old-fashioned cars.

This Greta stuff is all just a massive hoax. The techno-futurists themselves - who are actually worried about running out of fossil fuels, not that they change the weather - say that we need nuclear power until someone figures out a fusion reactor.

Fun Fact: natural gas can be converted to ammonia (NH3) + Carbon via the Haber-Bosch process, and the ammonia can be burned as a "green" fuel because all it produces is H2O and N2 (some NOx pollutants are also produced but those can be managed). Gasoline-burning internal combustion engines can be easily converted to dual-fuel engines that burn either gasoline or ammonia as fuel--the conversion is trivial, involving some additional fuel plumbing and a second tank to hold ammonia. In fact it's very similar to converting a gasoline engine into a dual-fuel gasoline/natural gas burning engine, except of course that ammonia is a liquid which makes it much easier to use in cars than natural gas. And I'm not even going to touch on how this impacts the economic retardation of replacing the entire installed base of internal-combustion engines and their supporting refueling infrastructure with battery-powered cars that rely on electricity produced by power plants that aren't "green", and setting up a massive network of "recharging stations".

Why isn't this being done, or even suggested? Because (1) there isn't enough graft involved, and (2) it doesn't comport with the real politics behind "green energy", the goal of which is not to "save the earth" but to crush the western economies as a pretext to implement the "Great Reset".

What are some surprising details about using ammonia as a fuel?

Surprising details about using ammonia as a fuel.

www.nh3fuel.com

Also, attention Elon Worshipers: he is part of this giant swindle via his promotion of the electric car retardation.

 

[Isolated]

No he died of covid

Died of covid back in 2010. Truly a pioneer ahead of his time. RIP king.

 

[ItsAlwaysSomething]

Peak oil is a joke. It's not a fossil fuel and it's renewable. My most schizo theory says that it's generated from the damned souls of man, but regardless, you have people openly contradicting the old "wisdom" on the subject.