Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.
This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.
What makes this entire agenda even more dangerous is that they are no longer speaking in vague terms, they are openly stating the objective. Ursula von der Leyen declared that “the global fossil fuel crisis must be a game-changer… let’s earn the clean ticket to heaven,” which is not economic policy, it is ideological rhetoric detached from reality. John Kerry has pushed that leaders must accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” or face catastrophe, while Ed Miliband continues to insist Net Zero is essential to eliminate dependence on traditional energy altogether. Then you have Ro Khanna advocating ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting new permits, which in practical terms means cutting supply before any viable replacement exists.
Yet even within their own ranks the cracks are showing. Tony Blair bluntly admitted that any strategy centered on phasing out fossil fuels in the near term is “doomed to fail.” They are publicly advancing an agenda that even insiders know cannot function in the real world.
What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.
Europe has already demonstrated the consequences of this madness. They went all in on Net Zero policies, deliberately restricting access to cheap and reliable energy, and now they are paying the price. Energy costs have soared, industry is fleeing, and economic growth has stagnated. Germany, once the industrial engine of Europe, has been undermined by its own energy policy. When you destroy your energy base, you destroy your economy. It is that simple. There is no way around it, no matter how many conferences they hold or agreements they sign.
The hypocrisy here is staggering. While they talk about eliminating fossil fuels, governments are simultaneously securing long-term oil and gas contracts. They are reopening coal plants. They are subsidizing energy just to prevent social unrest. They are saying one thing publicly while doing the exact opposite behind the curtain because they know the truth.
Energy is not something you experiment with at the expense of stability. When you artificially constrain energy supply, you drive up costs across the board. That feeds directly into inflation, reduces competitiveness, and ultimately forces capital to flee to regions where energy remains accessible and affordable. This is precisely why capital has been moving out of Europe. The policies are driving it away.
Governments are not preparing for a world without fossil fuels. They are preparing for conflict over the very resources they claim they want to eliminate. What they are proposing is not just unrealistic, it is dangerous. You cannot dismantle the global energy system and expect the economy to function. The attempt to force this transition prematurely is accelerating the very crisis they claim to be solving.
Germany has now openly declared its intention to become the dominant conventional military power in Europe by 2039. What Berlin is doing is a structural shift that has been building quietly for years, and now it is being formalized in plain sight. The plan calls for expanding the Bundeswehr to roughly 460,000 personnel, including reserves, with about 260,000 active troops, effectively doubling the scale of its usable force compared to today.
What stands out is that this is taking place at the same time Germany’s economy is stagnating, with growth forecasts collapsing toward just 0.5% while inflation rises due to energy pressures and geopolitical tensions. You are witnessing the classic historical pattern where governments shift resources toward military buildup as economic conditions weaken. This is precisely how capital is redirected during periods of rising geopolitical risk.
Germany’s military budget tells the real story. The Bundeswehr is now operating with roughly €108.2 billion in 2026, making it one of the largest defense budgets in the world, and a dramatic departure from the decades when Germany refused to even meet NATO’s 2% threshold. Just a few years ago, Germany was spending closer to €80–90 billion annually, and now projections show spending rising toward €150–160 billion by 2029, or roughly 3.5% of GDP.
This is a staggering transformation. For decades, Germany deliberately maintained a weak military posture as part of the post–World War II settlement. Now they are not only rearming, but they are also explicitly stating they intend to be the strongest conventional force in Europe. That would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.
From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model and the war cycle, this fits perfectly into the timing window we have been warning about. The arrays have been showing a convergence of civil unrest and international war cycles into 2026–2027. What we are seeing in Germany is not isolated. It is part of a broader shift across Europe, where governments are preparing for sustained conflict risk, not a temporary crisis.
Germany has also moved beyond simply increasing spending. They are restructuring the entire military system, including technology integration, AI-driven warfare, and logistics infrastructure that can support rapid deployment across Europe. This is preparation for long-term engagement capability, not defensive posturing. Once governments begin investing at this scale, they are not planning for peace. They are preparing for confrontation.
I have said repeatedly that Europe would move toward militarization as internal political cohesion breaks down and external threats rise. Germany, historically constrained by its past, is now being repositioned as the military anchor of Europe. That changes the balance of power entirely. It also raises serious questions about the future of NATO, particularly as the United States begins to pull back and Europe is forced to stand on its own.
This is why capital flows continue to favor the United States for now, even with its own fiscal issues. Europe is moving into a period of instability, and Germany’s military expansion is confirming that shift. The cycle is turning, and once it does, it does not reverse overnight.
Categories:War
COMMENT: I find it curious how people like ___________ pretend to be great forecasters but are simultaneously fund managers, which precludes them from speaking to central banks. Yet they seem to mimic you. You had to give up even personal stock investing to be able to even speak or advise. All they do is listen to you and copy what you say yet they do not have the database nor are they free of conflicts of interest.
Sometimes, you know… It just won’t fit. You can fiddle with it, you can try to accommodate it, but you will never make it work. They are doing the world a disservice because they lack the database to forecast the future all by themselves.
RD
ANSWER: That is the dark side of humanity. Then they turn and ask for money to manage. What they do not realize is that when you get too big, your performance declines because you cannot invest the same with $10 billion as you do with $10 million.
There is a large and well-established body of research indicates a negative relationship between fund size and performance across most major asset classes. A 2015 paper by Pástor, Stambaugh, and Taylor, for example, provided strong evidence of what is known as “diseconomies of scale” in the active fund management industry. The effect is widely recognized as a major factor that erodes performance, particularly in strategies focused on less liquid assets like small-cap or micro-cap stocksand real estate funds as we have seen.
The bigger they are, the more you should be on guard. The performance decline is driven by a few core challenges that come with managing a larger pool of assets:
Liquidity Constraints, Reduced Information Edge, and Difficulties in Exiting Positions Large funds struggle to take meaningful positions in smaller, less liquid stocks without significantly moving the market price against themselves. This is particularly true for small and micro-cap stocks, where a fund’s size can destroy its own potential for gain. Exiting a large concentrated position can be as challenging as entering it if not worse, when everyone knows you are the elephant in the room. When a very large fund tries to sell, its own selling pressure can drive the stock’s price down, eroding returns.
I had to develop Natural Hedging dealing with portfolios in the trillions. Everything had to be strategically selected and correlated. Even when I testified before the House Ways & Means Committee, I had 50% of the equivalent of the US national debt under contract. You have to come up with a whole new way of funds management to survive.
00:00
02:05
Gavin Newsom oversaw roughly $1 billion in spending tied to the influx of about 400,000 illegal migrants. According to the figures cited, California effectively expanded programs, contracts, and support systems at scale while already facing structural deficits and a collapsing cost-of-living environment. Newsom will never hesitate to spend California tax dollars on destroying the state.
The number that should stop everyone cold is not the $1 billion alone. It is the 400,000 additional people absorbed into a system that is already breaking. California is dealing with some of the highest housing costs in the United States, with median home prices hovering around or above $800,000 in many regions, and rents consuming a disproportionate share of income. Now layer in a population surge of that magnitude and pretend there are no consequences.
At the same time, the state has been running deficits that swing into the tens of billions depending on revenue assumptions. Yet despite that, officials continued expanding programs tied to migration, including tens of millions in additional funding for services such as legal aid, food assistance, and housing support. Healthcare expansion alone overshot projections by billions, forcing abrupt policy reversals and enrollment freezes when the math simply stopped working.
You cannot tell residents there is no money, raise taxes, watch businesses leave, and then turn around and commit massive resources to policies that increase demand on every strained system. Housing becomes tighter, emergency rooms become overcrowded, infrastructure deteriorates faster, and the working population is expected to absorb the cost. That is exactly what is happening.
The defenders of these policies argue that migration supports the labor force and economic growth. When you introduce hundreds of thousands of people into an already constrained system, the costs hit immediately while any theoretical benefits are delayed and uncertain. Housing demand spikes overnight. Public services are stretched instantly. The problem is visible in every major city across the state.
There is also a capital flight component that cannot be ignored. IRS migration data has shown consistent outflows from California, particularly among higher-income earners. These are the taxpayers who fund the majority of state revenues. As they leave, the tax base shrinks, yet spending commitments continue to rise. That is how you accelerate a fiscal crisis. You drive out revenue while expanding obligations.
If you increase population by hundreds of thousands, spend billions to support that increase, and do so while running deficits and losing your tax base, the outcome is predetermined. The system breaks.
The motive underscores Newsom’s ability to lead. Why import nearly half a million people who cannot contribute to the state economy? Polls. Taxes. Endless funds tied to NGOs and humanitarian causes that permit the state to seize endless tax dollars to combat the very issues it created.
California residents are watching their cost of living rise, their services decline, and their leadership act as if none of it matters. Newsom firmly believes that he will receive an infinite amount of funding, and he’s not wrong. It’s time that the people wake up and realize that Gavin Newsom and the far-left are destroying California.
Categories:Corruption
Tags:CaliforniaGavin NewsomMigrant Crisis
Subscribe to alerts for each new postEmail *
Zelensky Demands Ukrainian Men Abroad Return to Fight His War
April 21, 2026
California’s Corrupt $35 Billion Homeless Scheme
April 11, 2026
The Constitution Means Less Than Nothing
March 10, 2026
Calls to Neutralize Hungary’s Veto Power
February 24, 2026
The Dark Money Pool – Is Pelosi Still Connected?
February 8, 2026
COMMENT: Marty, where were you? Looked all over for you at the White House Dinner. Wanted to catch up. You missed all the action.
B
REPLY: I haven’t been there in a while. It was always good fun. The best one was 1996. Bill Clinton gave a fantastic speech. He really knew how to work the crowd. I was sitting at the table with George will and other conservative commentators. I remember saying that was a fantastic speech. Well delivered. They were all upset. I just appreciated his speaking talent.
There were no gun shots that year. Just moans. Sorry I could not make it. I’m sure this one will be more memorable.
C
President Trump details his experience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman charged toward the ballroom. President Trump says he wasn’t worried and praised the actions of law enforcement. WATCH:
.
UPDATE: The full extended 40-minute interview including the parts that did not air on television is below:
The leader of all things politically radical and progressive, transmits the message to all obedient followers.
[SOURCE]
Once again emphasizing that what David Mamet said almost two decades ago: In order for modern leftists and progressives to continue advancing a radical and extreme political ideology, they must pretend not to know things!
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 