What are you talking about? lol

@Krunoslav
International geopolitics and recent history.

As per our previous discussions , something you know very little about.

I don’t know if it is worthwhile to explain to you Chernobyl and the subsequent closure of the largest European nuclear power program that caused Germany to become energy dependent on France and Russia.
Hundreds of billions of euros were paid in the intervening decades to Russia that allowed them to remain a world power, military wise at least.

This also means the recent sanctions on Russia is not effective as they are still buying Russia oil and gas.

Not terribly hard to understand how European gas money has funded the current war.
It may not have been the direct cause…. There are many causes, however this made it possible.

@Hanno "International geopolitics and recent history."

First of all, this has nothing to do with import of energy from Russia, it has everything to do with crazy religion of EU and US forign policy and corruption. The climate change scam is not Russia's fault. US forign policy is not Russia's fault. Corruption in Ukraine is not Russia's fault. North Stream 2 cancellation is not Russia's fault.

Closing of Nuclear Power plants in Germany and push for windmills and solar is not Russia's fault. Energy expenditure and big socialist goverment in Germany is not Russia's fault. Interdependence on energy is not a policy that Russia made for Europe and many counties in it do it.

"Hundreds of billions of euros were paid in the intervening decades to Russia that allowed them to remain a world power, military wise at least."

How does that work exactly?

"I don’t know if it is worthwhile to explain to you Chernobyl and the subsequent closure of the largest European nuclear power program that caused Germany to become energy dependent on France and Russia."

Explain.

"Not terribly hard to understand how European gas money has funded the current war. It may not have been the direct cause…. There are many causes, however this made it possible."

Than why did the EU and Germany in particular committed suicide and listen to Victoria Nulands of the world? lol The German goverment is probably the most pathetic and weak and stupid in Europe right now, compared to the relative strength of the country. Mekrel was a corrupt ideologue and largely a moron, but nothing compared to Olaf Scholz, A weak , pathetic, stupid man who condemned German people to suffering for generations, because he is weak and stupid and listesns to ideologues. You can't blame Putin for that genetic mistake. or for Ursula, Klaus and the rest of the scum in EU. Hell on the contrary, Putin cured globalism and covid in one move.

@Krunoslav
Granted, both of us are second language English speakers.
However, you must pay attention to what people write and not interpret.

Nothing in your response pertain to what I wrote. The importation of Russian energy into Europe is not the cause, however it made it possible.
Analogy:
Flying planes was not caused by understanding aerodynamics, it made it possible. Man’s desire to fly is what caused us to built the first planes.
However if we never understood aerodynamics we would never have built a plane.

Your original post: Europe should stop buying Russian oil and gas and use other (green) sources of energy. Note that nuclear is also a “green” energy.
It is not wrong, if Russia did not have the large income from oil and gas it would not be in a position to invade Ukraine. It is not the cause, it is a condition that made it possible.

Germany abandoned nuclear energy not for climate change reasons…. But because of Chernobyl. And it is (unintentionally) Russia (or rather Soviet Unions and Ukraine) fault.

However, that is not really the point. It is not todays Russia’s fault, or yesterdays Germany.
The point is that oil and gas trade has enabled Russia to invade Ukraine.

You would also note that at no point in my response in this thread did I blame Putin.

You need to respond to what I actually write… not what you imagined I wrote.

@Hanno "Germany abandoned nuclear energy not for climate change reasons…. But because of Chernobyl. And it is (unintentionally) Russia (or rather Soviet Unions and Ukraine) fault."

What are you talking about? Chernobyl was in Ukraine than part of USSR and accident happened in 1986.

On New Year’s Eve, 2019, Germany took the latest step in its planned nuclear switch-off, disconnecting Block 2 of the Philippsburg power station, located in the Baden-Württemberg state. The reactor, which has been supplying homes and business with electricity since 1986, has generated in excess of 355 billion TWh of energy, according to World Nuclear News – approximately equivalent to one sixth of the state’s total requirements.

Making up the energy shortfall caused by the decommissioning of the Philippsburg reactor will be difficult, but nothing compared with the broader challenge Germany has set itself. In 2011, the country’s politicians decided that all 17 reactors in operation would be shut down by 2022. Today, only six remain. The ongoing phase-out will not only be bad for energy generation, but for the environment as well.

“We find that the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phase-out was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports,” explained a paper published late last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), titled The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out. “The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately $12bn (€11bn) per year. Over 70 percent of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.”

With renewable alternatives not ready to pick up the slack on their own, Germany has no choice but to turn to fossil fuels to replace the decommissioned nuclear reactors.

While Germany’s decision to move away from nuclear power was well-intentioned, it was perhaps an overly emotional response. Although events like Fukushima, which brought back memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986, are concerning, they are extremely rare. In fact, these are the only two incidents in the history of nuclear power to be classified as a major accident, according to the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Perspective is also one of the first casualties of any nuclear accident. The death toll from radiation exposure caused by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster stands officially at just one. The majority of the casualties attributed to the disaster occurred as a result of the evacuation, which was criticised for causing “confusion among residents” in a report released by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

For all the legitimate criticisms of nuclear power, it combines reliability, cost-effectiveness and low emissions in a way that few other energy sources can. Perhaps Germany’s decision to turn its back on this form of energy would have been better placed had it come once a similar move away from fossil fuels was already in progress.

Currently, coal and lignite (essentially low-grade coal) make up 35 percent of Germany’s electricity supply. Although the federal government blames economic development and population growth for the expected failure to meet its 2020 emissions target, ongoing coal reliance is a more worrying issue.

It is useful to compare the situation with that in neighbouring France. Unlike in Germany, nuclear power remains the biggest single source of electricity in France, meeting around 75 percent of demand with 58 reactors. France’s denuclearisation plans are much more gradual, aiming to reduce its contribution to electricity generation to 50 percent by 2035. Crucially, its nuclear fleet is not seen as an impediment to a green future, but an asset. France is looking to prioritise renewable energy production, but if this fails at least fossil fuels are unlikely to provide the fallback option. According to a 2018 study, Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions are as much as 10 times higher than France’s – and its citizens pay more for the privilege.

What’s the Russia?

Another problem with Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power is that it could make the country even more reliant on Russia for its energy. Estimates suggest that Russia contributes about 40 percent of Germany’s natural gas imports, but this figure is likely to rise significantly if the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline is brought online.

Though importing energy from other countries is not unusual, Germany’s dependence on a single importer – one with a reputation for being an unreliable partner – has faced criticism from both within and outside the EU. Former US Energy Secretary Rick Perry noted in 2019 that “Russian gas has strings attached”.

There are alternatives that Germany could explore: it could import energy from other markets, including the US, or from EU members. Talk of a Green New Deal for Europe, a key message for new European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her election campaign, could push Germany towards renewables. Although Germany has made some progress in this area of late – wind energy became the country’s most important energy source in 2019 – it has come at great cost; as much as €160bn over the past five years. And even with this funding, all is not well in the energy sector: recent regulations restricting the building of wind turbines threaten to derail the gains that have been made thus far.

The problem that Germany − and, indeed, the planet − faces is that a failed green policy could push public opinion away from renewables. If energy becomes less reliable or more costly because renewable technologies have not received adequate investment before governments transition to them, consumers are likely to push back. This is especially true of the decision to turn away from nuclear power, which produces far fewer emissions than some of Germany’s other energy sources. A more holistic approach would have prioritised a move away from fossil fuels before decommissioning reactors. Germany plans to end its coal reliance by 2038; its last nuclear power plant will go offline in 2022. Perhaps the country has got these dates the wrong way round.

[europeanceo.com]

Germany Rejected Nuclear Power—and Deadly Emissions Spiked
After Fukushima, the country opted to decommission its nuclear reactors.

Germans have always had a complicated relationship with nuclear power, but the radioactive cloud that swept over Germany following the Chernobyl disaster in the mid-1980s gave new life to the antinuclear policies supported by the country’s Green Party. Following Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant meltdown, Germany’s antinuclear lobby kicked into high gear, and tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The German government quickly passed legislation to decommission all of the country’s nuclear reactors, ostensibly to keep its citizens safe by preventing a Fukushima-style disaster. But a study published last month by the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that Germany’s rejection of nuclear power was an expensive and possibly deadly miscalculation.

Chernobyl disaster was way back when with old soviet technology, and Germany is not like that. It was hysteria to push for Green New Deal type pyramid scheme. Nothing to do with Chernobyl in any real sense. just propaganda for dumb people.

Germany has no tsunamis, vulcanos and major earthquakes. But is has a lot of watermelons. It is moronic to turn of nuclear power plants based on watermelon politics and religion. It has nothing to do with Chernobyl other than to scare morons who don't have more than 2 brain cells left.

@Hanno Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.
'Sustainable energy'

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again. An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.

Mr Rottgen said: "It's definite. The latest end for the last three nuclear power plants is 2022. There will be no clause for revision."

Mr Rottgen said a tax on spent fuel rods, expected to raise 2.3bn euros (£1.9bn) a year from this year, would remain despite the shutdown.

Mrs Merkel's centre-right Christian Democrats met their junior partners on Sunday after the ethics panel had delivered its conclusions.

Before the meeting she said: "I think we're on a good path but very, very many questions have to be considered.

"If you want to exit something, you also have to prove how the change will work and how we can enter into a durable and sustainable energy provision."

The previous German government - a coalition of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens - decided to shut down Germany's nuclear power stations by 2021.

However, last September Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition scrapped those plans - announcing it would extend the life of the country's nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years.

Ministers said they needed to keep nuclear energy as a "bridging technology" to a greener future.

The decision to extend was unpopular in Germany even before the radioactive leaks at the Fukushima plant.

But following Fukushima, Mrs Merkel promptly scrapped her extension plan, and announced a review.
Greens boosted

Germany's nuclear industry has argued that an early shutdown would be hugely damaging to the country's industrial base.

Before March's moratorium on the older power plants, Germany relied on nuclear power for 23% of its energy.

The anti-nuclear drive boosted Germany's Green party, which took control of the Christian Democrat stronghold of Baden-Wuerttemberg, in late March.

Shaun Burnie, nuclear adviser for environmental campaign group Greenpeace International, told the BBC World Service that Germany had already invested heavily in renewable energy.

"The various studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that renewables could deliver, basically, global electricity by 2050," he said.

"Germany is going to be ahead of the game on that and it is going to make a lot of money, so the message to Germany's industrial competitors is that you can base your energy policy not on nuclear, not on coal, but on renewables."

Shares in German nuclear utilities RWE and E.On fell on the news, though it had been widely expected.

But it was good news for manufacturers of renewable energy infrustructure.

German solar manufacturer, Solarworld, was up 7.6% whilst Danish wind turbine maker Vestas gained more than 3%.

[bbc.com]

@Hanno "However, that is not really the point. It is not todays Russia’s fault, or yesterdays Germany. The point is that oil and gas trade has enabled Russia to invade Ukraine."

I don't think that is accurate.

"The point is that oil and gas trade has enabled Russia to invade Ukraine."

a) this is part of the countries economy for a long time and it could have traded with China or India, and it could have used other ways of funding the war efforts. It could have borrowed money from China etc. Correlation is not causation.

"You would also note that at no point in my response in this thread did I blame Putin. You need to respond to what I actually write… not what you imagined I wrote."

b) you tried to link things that prove correlation not causation, which is what you argued for. You state "The point is that oil and gas trade has enabled Russia to invade Ukraine."" No it didn't.

Just like your bizzare assertion that Chernobyl is the reason for Germany cutting of nuclear power. That's absurd. It may be part of the watermelon propaganda, something you seem to have fallen for, but it is not the reason. Climate change is also not the reason, but it is used as excuse for dumb ideologically driven ideas. The real reason is NWO worldview of one world goverment, for which they need one world threat, sold as climate change and original sin of the people. Chernobyl is so far removed from this agenda, its not even funny.

@Hanno "Your original post: Europe should stop buying Russian oil and gas and use other (green) sources of energy. Note that nuclear is also a “green” energy."

I did not say that or though that. Must be your idea. I was mocking it.

The so called "Green energy" is redefined language for ideologies to win arguments of assertion. Its absurd idea to begin with. Rooted in scientism not science.

"Note that nuclear is also a “green” energy."

I guess that depend son which of the lefty lunatics you ask. Some say it is kosher to use Nuclear for the green stuff, the equivalent of vegetarians, and some are full vegan purists and claim it is not "green". Or in some cases not green enough. Its all baloney mambo jumbo religious nonsense that is not rooted in reality.

@Krunoslav

So you wrote hundreds of words before even beginning to understand what I wrote. Almost nothing you wrote pertain to the post you made or the comment I had on it.

Your ignorance regarding nuclear is too severe for us to discus. The fact that you so boldly speak about things you know so little explains why you post so much nonsense.
As I pointed in our previous discussion your complete ignorance regarding Finland and NZ for example compared to the bold statements you make indicate that you never learned to evaluate and critique your own thoughts.

You will never grow and develop until you start doing this.

For the record I am retired nuclear engineer who have worked with the German nuclear industry for some decades.
So I really know what I am talking about when I talk about the German nuclear program. These things happened before you were born. There effects are now.

In 1988 Germany in response to the Chernobyl incident decided to halt all nuclear research (they were world leaders in HTR at the time) and not install any new ones. Nuclear reactors have a 40 year lifetime and the last reactors are now reaching end of life. And yes I was involved in the industry when this came about.

What we see now is the conclusion of decisions made in 1988 and enacted by 1992. Germany continue to ignore nuclear and hence they cannot effectively sanction Russia. And that is what was the original posts point.
Germany needed to keep on expanding its nuclear reactor fleet, it did not and became reliant on France and Russia.

There are a couple of very knowledgeable people on this site… and lots of idiots. You would do well to write less and read more.
Some of us actually participated in the history you only read now.

Nuclear energy does not produce CO2 and are therefore a “green energy source”. I did not just make that up. Just because Green Peace hate it, does not make it produce CO2.

The vast majority of Russian petroleum income came from Europe the past 25 years.
Cause and effect.
Not what ifs.
That’s what matter when we evaluate the past to understand the future.

@Hanno "So you wrote hundreds of words before even beginning to understand what I wrote. Almost nothing you wrote pertain to the post you made or the comment I had on it."

If you say so.

"Your ignorance regarding nuclear is too severe for us to discus. The fact that you so boldly speak about things you know so little explains why you post so much nonsense."

Really? I bet you are the kind of guy who believed Volkswagen when they told you about emissions, because they said so. lol

I don't need to know how exhaust pipe works, to know that Volkswagen exces are corrupt.

Jesus, you know about politics as much as I know about breeding salamanders. I don't.

Stop taking what politicians says at face value and read between the lines and watch what they do. How do you even survive? lol I could sell you watches from a trunk of a car, and you would try to convince me what is the rate of taxes.

...................................................

"After the Chernobyl Disaster, a number of countries were reluctant to expand their nuclear programs. Italy and Switzerland tried to ban nuclear power all together. Other countries, such as the Netherlands and Finland postponed the addition of nuclear power plants. The disaster reaffirmed policy made by Austria and Sweden to terminate use of all nuclear energy. Germany set up regulatory organizations and new policy including the Federal Ministry of Environment and Reactor Safety and a new act for precaution protection against nuclear radiation.

The ministry was set up on 6 June 1986, about five weeks after the serious reactor disaster at Chernobyl. The Federal Government wanted to bring all responsibility for preventing a disaster in Germany, or clearing up if a disaster happened, under one ministry.

The first minister stayed for less than a year, because he became Minister President of Hesse. His successor became director of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. The time when Angela Merkel was in charge was not very good for the BMU. Economic problems became more important than environmental protection .

The red-green coalition of 1998 saw Jürgen Trittin of (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) become minister. The idea of an environmental tax and ending nuclear power became important. "

Now, should I explain to your naive self just what United Nation and Environmental protection link is? Hmmm. Do you have any brain cells left and can you pack your ego on ice, for two seconds and understand that you have no clue what is going on. Or you choose to ignore it.

@Hanno "The United Nations has had a uniform strategy across all of its many units to foster the creation of a so-called “green economy”. A partial definition of what this means is found in a statement by the United Nations Governing Council of the U.N. Environmental Programme (UNEP):

A green economy implies the decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth... These investments, both public and private, provide the mechanism for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes.

Sustainable consumption? Reconfiguring businesses, infrastructure and institutions? What do these words mean? This is not merely a reshuffle of the existing order but a total replacement with a completely new economic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the history of the world. This is underscored by UNEP when it further states, “our dominant [current] economic model may thus be termed a ‘brown economy.’” To UNEP, there is a consistent sense of urgency to kill off the existing brown economy in favor of a green economy.

Brown is bad. Green is good. Brown represents the failed past. Green represents the bright future.

However, to grasp what it means to decouple resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, the focus must be on the word decoupling. The International Resource Panel (IRP), another unit of UNEP, gives a clear definition:

While ‘decoupling’ can be applied in many fields, from algebra to electronics, the IRP applies the concept to sustainable development in two dimensions. Resource decoupling means reducing the rate of the use of resources per unit of economic activity. Impact decoupling means maintaining economic output while reducing the negative environmental impact of any economic activities that are undertaken. Relative decoupling of resources or impacts means that the growth rate of the resources used or environmental impacts is lower than the economic growth rate, so that resource productivity is rising. Absolute reductions of resource use are a consequence of decoupling when the growth rate of resource productivity exceeds the growth rate of the economy.

Note that decoupling has no meaning outside of the UN’s concept of sustainable development.

UNEP actually maintains a dedicated web site titled Green Economy where prominently labeled subsections are seen: Climate Change, Ecosystem Management, Environmental Governance and Resource Efficiency. Their initiative, Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE), states that it is,

…a response to the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), entitled The Future We Want, which recognizes the green economy as a vehicle for sustainable development and poverty eradication.

Who is the “we” in The Future We Want? Well, since none of this was ever put to a public vote in any country in the world, it is obvious that it refers only to themselves.

Nevertheless, we can see that the green economy is “a vehicle for sustainable development and poverty eradication.” It is also clear that the green economy concept is an outcome of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20, held in Rio de Janeiro on June 20-22, 2012). The U.N.’s first Rio conference held in 1992 created the original and definitive document for sustainable development called Agenda 21. The Rio+20 conference was held to further Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development on a global basis.

The above mentioned PAGE document further states that there are four main U.N. agencies that are focused in unison on creating the green economy:

• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
• International Labour Organization (ILO)
• United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
• United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
• Together, PAGE will build enabling conditions in participating countries by shifting investment and policies towards the creation of a new generation of assets, such as clean technologies, resource efficient infrastructure, well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good governance.

Note that it is the U.N. who asserts that they will shift investment and policies in order to achieve their desired outcomes of efficiency and governance. In direct Technocracy lingo, governance refers to management of society by engineering experts who alone can create a “resource efficient infrastructure”.

In this short treatment of the green economy, I have purposely tread lightly to show that it is wrapped up in a network of global agendas that is squarely focused on the original tenet of Technocracy, namely, Sustainable Development. No doubt a technocrat reading this book will cry “foul!” at this assertion. While it is true that the literal term of “Sustainable Development” was not coined by the original Technocrats, most would be jealous that someone else beat them to it. The fact of the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptually identical to Technocracy’s “balanced load”.

The foundational document for Technocracy, Inc. was the book Technocracy Study Course, written primarily by co-founder M. King Hubbert. In it he stated,

Although it [the earth] is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy.

As a scientist, Hubbert tried to explain (or justify) his argument in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work. Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity. In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place.

The Technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the efficiency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and measuring subsequent output in order to find a state of “equilibrium”, or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is further evidenced by Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts balance.

According to Hubbert’s thinking then, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys the ecology in the process, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again and man will cease to exist. Hubbert believed that mankind faces extinction unless efficiency and sustainable resource practices are maximized and that such efficiencies and practices can only be imposed by unelected and unaccountable scientists, engineers and technicians.

In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development. It calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in perfect balance with the resources of nature. Furthermore, this necessitates the “decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth” as stated above. In other words, the driver is resource availability rather than economic growth.

The introduction of the PAGE brochure reiterates this idea:

“A green economy is one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities”.

The bottom line is that the U.N. agenda for a green economy is nothing more than warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s.

Technocracy’s utopian siren call in the 1930s promised the same human well-being, social equity and abundance beyond measure. Technocrats failed to deliver on their promises and were generally rejected by society by the end of the 1930s.

It is necessary to review exactly how the United Nations arose in the first place, if for no other reason than to tie these policies to the same global elite as represented by the Trilateral Commission. Notably, the Commission was co-founded by and initially financed by David Rockefeller, who was at the time chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Rockefeller family also played a prominent role in the history of the United Nations, for which I will defer to the words of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 commemorating the Rockefeller Foundation’s “global philanthropy” and the establishment of the League of Nations Library:

I am honoured to be here on this eighty-fifth anniversary of the historic donation of John D. Rockefeller Jr. to the League of Nations Library. At the time, Mr. Rockefeller said he made the gift based on the conviction that “peace must finally be built on the foundation of well-informed public opinion.” This powerful statement rings true today.

It is fitting that we are naming this room after him. I thank the family for donating the portrait of John D. Rockefeller that was displayed at the Rockefeller Foundation for 65 years. In offering this generous gift, David Rockefeller said he hoped it would serve as a reminder of his father’s generosity – but more importantly his conviction that strong international organizations can help create a just, equitable and peaceful world.

The Rockefeller family has lived up to this conviction, providing immense support for the League of Nations and the United Nations over the years. The original donation to this library was particularly significant. Even today, the interest provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to this wonderful library. That makes it possible to care for its many priceless historical treasures, including a signed copy of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

This Library also safeguards more recent history, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with original letters from Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin. I applaud the mission of this library to serve international understanding. I am deeply grateful to all the staff. You make an enormous contribution through your help for researchers and citizens who are interested in the United Nations’ history and work. I personally want to thank the Rockefeller family for my own office — and the entire United Nations campus on the East Side of Manhattan.

When Rockefeller’s donation of the land was announced in the General Assembly in 1945, the Hall was filled with loud applause. The United States Ambassador cheered Mr. Rockefeller’s “magnificent benevolence”. I am deeply grateful to the esteemed members of the Rockefeller family and the Rockefeller Foundation for continuing the noble tradition of supporting international organizations devoted to peace. As recently as this past June, at the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, the Rockefeller Foundation and the United Nations Global Compact launched a new framework for action to help meet social and environmental needs.

“Magnificent benevolence”, indeed. The United Nations headquarters was built in 1949 on 17 acres of prime real estate - donated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. - in New York City on First Avenue between East 46th and East 48th Streets. It is not hard to see the tight financial relationship between the U.N. and Rockefeller interests that started so many decades ago. It is only slightly more obscure to see what the Rockefellers have received in return for their benevolent support.

In many ways, ideology can be compared to a virus. History is riddled with failed ideas that were forgotten as soon as they were uttered; many virus mutations terminated before they ever had a chance to infect other victims. What is necessary for a virus to spread is contagion, or a medium by which it can be transmitted. In order for Technocracy to make a resurgence on the world stage, it also required a contagion by which entire societies and social systems could be successfully infected. This medium is the United Nations, and the Rockefeller consortium used it with great effectiveness to deceive the nations into believing that Sustainable Development (e.g., Technocracy’s “balance&rdquo could solve all of the world’s problems and bring peace, prosperity and social justice to everyone. Indeed, the mass of global humanity is embracing the promises of technocratic utopianism as if there is no other possibility for the salvation of mankind.

As a writer with an economist perspective, it is very disappointing that economists of the academic world are completely ignoring the impacts and outcomes of the U.N.’s so-called green economy. If it were an argument in a vacuum, I would not be concerned in the slightest. But this is actually happening today where academia actually is leading the charge. No one is even questioning the outcomes of their utopian studies, much less repudiating them."

• Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

@Hanno Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Agenda 21 is Technocracy’s plan for the 21st century. The agent of implementation is Sustainable Development. The driver is the United Nations. The perpetrators are members of the Trilateral Commission and their globalist cronies. The victims are all the peoples of the world.

As you will see, it is no understatement that the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are already fully injected into the fabric of economic, political and social life everywhere. While the “what” is certainly important, the “who” is even more critical to understand. Where did Agenda 21 come from? Was it spontaneous? Was it created by legions of global wannabes at the U.N.?

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) sponsored the Earth Summit that met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was attended by representatives from 172 governments with 116 being heads-of-state, who labored for 12 intense days to produce several non-legally binding documents. First, there was the 300-page Agenda 21 document that was essentially the blueprint for implementation of Sustainable Development and all of its surrounds under the aegis of “green” and “smart”. Second, there was the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Rio Declaration, that set forth 27 principles that would guide implementation of Sustainable Development. Third, there was the Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, a set of recommendations for the sustainable management of forestry.

The Rio Declaration also produced three legally binding agreements that were opened for signature by participating nations. First, there was the Convention on Biological Diversity that covered ecosystems, species and genetic resources, and that ultimately produced the massive 1,140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment document. Second, there was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that led to the so-called Kyoto Protocol in 1997; the purpose of UNFCCC was to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Third, there was the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) that addressed Sustainable Development in countries that experience serious drought or increase in desert areas.

During the Rio conference, the then-Secretary General of the U.N., Boutros-Ghali, also called for the creation of the Earth Charter which was later completed and published on June 29, 2000. The preamble to the Earth Charter states,

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

It is not coincidental that the principal author of the Earth Charter was Stephen C. Rockefeller, the son of the former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller. Stephen Rockefeller has been a key player in the Rockefeller family by serving as a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and as a director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Stephen has never been a member of the Trilateral Commission, but he was a founder of the interfaith movement and has been active for decades to infuse globalization into religion all over the world.

At any rate, the Rio Declaration was a busy and productive event, kicking off the biggest salvo of globalist mumbo-jumbo the world has ever seen at one time. As you might expect by now, there is more to the story. Indeed, Rio did not materialize out of nowhere, but rather was carefully planned and orchestrated for years in advance.

According to an important U.N. document published in 2010 and titled Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012,

In 1983, the UN convened the WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development], chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Comprised of representatives from both developed and developing countries, the Commission was created to address growing concern over the “accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development.” Four years later, the group produced the landmark publication Our Common Future (or the Brundtland report) that provided a stark diagnosis of the state of the environment. The report popularized the most commonly used definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In the very next paragraph, the U.N. ties the knot between the Rio Declaration and the so-called Brundtland Commission:

The Brundtland report provided the momentum for the landmark 1992 Rio Summit that laid the foundations for the global institutionalization of sustainable development… Agenda 21 included 40 separate chapters, setting out actions in regard to the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, conservation and management of natural resources, the role of major groups, and means of implementation.

Thus, the Brundtland Commission can be directly credited with two important things: memorializing the phrase “Sustainable Development” and laying the groundwork for the 1992 Rio conference that produced all of the above-mentioned documents, agreements and memorandums.

There were admittedly other U.N. activities dating as far back as 1972 that provided some fuel to the fire that was ignited by the Brundtland Commission, but this Commission is and has been widely understood to be the quintessential creator of Agenda 21 and modern Sustainable Development.

The Chair of the Brundtland Commission was none other than Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland. She has been universally acclaimed as being the main driver behind the Commission and the principal architect and editor of its concluding report, Our Common Future. Formerly the Prime Minister of Norway, Brundtland was Harvard educated and a long-time activist for environmental causes.

If this were likened to a football game, the United Nations might have held the ball in place, but it was Brundtland who performed the initial kickoff.

It is an interesting side-note that Brundtland is currently co-chair of a global organization known as The Elders, whose website states,

“The Elders is founded on the idea that we now live in a ‘global village’, an increasingly interconnected, interdependent world.”

Other elders include Trilateral Commission members Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson and Ernesto Zedillo. Of course, The Elders are self-appointed but nevertheless view themselves as the real elders of the global village known to them as planet earth.

After the Earth Summit was completed, the Trilateral Commission’s influence was hardly over. President George H. Bush had personally attended the Summit in Rio, and while he rejected some parts of the signing ceremonies, he did sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Soon-to-be President William Jefferson Clinton blasted Bush for his inept leadership and stated, “I would be signing every one of those documents--proudly.”

After his election, President Clinton wasted no time in starting the implementation of Agenda 21. On March 3, 1993, just one month before the official Agenda 21 book was released, Clinton hastily announced a program called the National Performance Review (NPR) and appointed Vice President Al Gore as its first director. On September 11, 1993, Clinton finalized the NPR by signing Executive Order 12862. In 1998, the truer colors of NPR were revealed when it was renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.

Why the need to reinvent our government? In short, implementing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development would require a different form of government that was out of the view of the public and lawmakers alike. Agenda 21 would be implemented across America through a system of regional governance entities called Councils of Governments, or COGS. At the local level, these COGS quietly apply these un-American policies while generally keeping the public in the dark. Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Regional governance by unelected and unaccountable COGS is the polar opposite of a Republican Form of Government.

On April 23, 1993, the official Agenda 21 300 page, 40-chapter book was published, and it was widely heralded by the rest of the world. In the U.S., it was mostly a non-event. There is little doubt that if the Agenda 21 book had been circulated in the U.S. as an official policy document, there would have been a significant backlash, if not outright rebellion. Clinton instead opted for an “end-run around national sovereignty” by signing Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993 that created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Vice President Al Gore wrote about Clinton’s intent:

Its goal, he declared, was to find ways “to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future.”

This direct quote from Bill Clinton rings back to Gro Brundtland’s definition of Sustainable Development found in Our Common Future:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. [Emphasis added]

Although there would be no record of it, my guess is that somewhere in the 1980s, the Trilateral Commission (or some prominent members thereof) met to purposely hammer out a clever marketing slogan that would sell their Technocracy to the world. It has definitely made the rounds. You will frequently find this exact phrase in general planning documents for local cities, towns and counties all across America!

By 1998, the PCSD produced its own book, Sustainable America, that personalized Agenda 21 policies for the U.S. According to one report,

The crown jewel of the PCSD’s work is the national action strategy articulated in the report, Sustainable America. The report spells out a specific set of national goals, backs these with a broad set of policy recommendations, and details specific actions necessary to support their implementation. Finally, the report also includes a tentative set of indicators to measure the country’s progress toward achieving the goals proposed. The PCSD’s co-chairs and the task forces kept their eyes on the prize: articulating a road map for the U.S.104 [Emphasis added]

Roadmap, indeed. The only problem is that the rest of America was never told what was going on right under their nose.

In regional and local implementation scenarios, it became known as Local Agenda 21, or simply, LA21. However, don’t think the American public wasn’t catching on and throwing up a roadblock; and don’t think that the PCSD didn’t feel the heat. J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, gave a telling speech in June 1998 in England, titled The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium and let the proverbial cat out of the bag:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear “one-world government” and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined “the conspiracy” by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth. [Emphasis added]

If you have ever wondered why local officials don’t know what you are talking about when you mention Agenda 21 or LA21, now you know why. The language was changed. Instead, ask them what they know about comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth and you will have a lengthy conversation!

As Lawrence concluded his talk, he hinted at the sea of change directly ahead in 1999 and beyond: “The next step is organizational transformation so that LA21 is not a process but a state of being.” Today, his goal has largely been met with 717 regional government entities across 50 states, all continuously implementing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policies.

Some readers may still be wondering exactly how Sustainable Development is related to Technocracy. The answer is contained in the word “development” which in all cases refers to economic development. The U.N.’s so-called “green economy” is synonymous with Sustainable Development, which is prescribed by Agenda 21, which is derived from the Technocracy-based economic model. Virtually every local planning document created in the last ten years will have economic development language embedded in it; frequently used terms include public-private partnerships, smart growth, comprehensive planning, urban renewal, collaborative planning, land use planning and so on. In every instance, you must remember that the green economy is not the same as America’s traditional capitalist economy. The green economy changes the rules of the game and produces new winners and losers. Those who haven’t recognized this changing economic landscape will most often find themselves on the outside looking in wondering what happened to the world they once understood.

What is Sustainable Economy?

What does the green economy mean in practical terms? To answer this question we must turn to the official documents of Sustainable Development:

Agenda 21: Programme of Action For Sustainable Develop-ment. (A21) This 294 page, 40-chapter book, published in 1993, is the original specification for Agenda 21 that was decided at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992.

Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). This 1140-page document was published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 1995 and greatly expands many sections of the Agenda 21 document.

The following will give a short summary of a few areas that are clearly addressed in the A21 and GBA documents.

• Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

@Hanno "We use Chernobyl as the lesson for nuclear energy safety like we used the Titanic as a lesson for safety at sea"

Sounds about right way to explain the anti-nuclear rethorick pumped into people, especially in Germany. Why, because nuclear represent energy independence that limits the UN agenda of controlling everyone and everything.

"Nuclear energy does not produce CO2 and are therefore a “green energy source”. I did not just make that up. Just because Green Peace hate it, does not make it produce CO2."

And I said that CO2 assertion by the technocratic lunatics and their useful idiots is a bogus one to begin with, which means that classifying green or not green energy is a religious discussions. Scientism, not science. And for the technocrats it represents a threat to their control scheme.

The fourth industrial revolution, a term coined by Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, describes a world where individuals move between digital domains and offline reality with the use of connected technology to enable and manage their lives. (Miller 2015, 3) The first industrial revolution changed our lives and economy from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. Oil and electricity facilitated mass production in the second industrial revolution. In the third industrial revolution, information technology was used to automate production. Although each industrial revolution is often considered a separate event, together they can be better understood as a series of events building upon innovations of the previous revolution and leading to more advanced forms of production. This article discusses the major features of the four industrial revolutions, the opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution, and the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution.

On December 20, 2015, MIT Nuclear Scientist Richard Lester sent a note to correspondents about a new article he published in the Winter 2016 edition of Issues in Science & Technology. Titled, “A Roadmap for U.S. Nuclear Innovation,” it covers an ambitious agenda. Lester writes, “a greatly expanded role for nuclear energy will be needed if the world is to have any chance of avoiding the worst consequences of climate change. Some of us have also concluded that without significant advances in nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies — advances yielding cost reductions, shorter cycle times, a greater focus on passive safety, and other improvements — nuclear is unlikely to play that role.”

Lester then proceeds to layout a broad, three phase plan for innovation of nuclear technologies.

First – extend the operational lifetime of the existing fleet. Innovation focuses on cost control and efficient operation. It covers the current era to the end of the 2030s.

Second – build a new, expanded fleet, primarily of large and small LWR reactors, and bring to commercial deployment advanced nuclear technologies for use in power generation, but also desalinization, process heat, and production of fuels for the transportation sector. It begins in the 2030s and extends to the end of this century.

Third – develop a second generation of advanced nuclear technologies in the post 2050 timeframe to broaden their use globally.

Lester’s paper is an easy read, but it takes some time to absorb all of his ideas which generally are on the mark in terms of laying out the equivalent of a nearly century long vision of how to achieve deep cuts in carbon emissions with the substitution of nuclear energy for fossil fuel power.

Except their idea of controlling nuclear is like everything else, completely bonkers. These lunatics have nothing to do with energy, its religion. They think they can control everything.

[world-nuclear-news.org]

[internationaldirector.com]

[weforum.org]

.......................................

And than there are their green useful idiots, who are anti nuclear power, just because.

Ok, here is another "coincidence" for you.

Do you know who is the current "Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection"'?

Steffi Lemke (b. 1968) under Scholz, Steffi Lemke (born 19 January 1968) is a German politician of Alliance 90/The Greens who has been serving as Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety, and Consumer Protection in Chancellor Olaf Scholz's cabinet since 2021.

Lemke was one of the co-founders of the Green Party in the GDR in 1989. She first served as a member of the German Bundestag from 1994 to 2002, representing the Dessau-Roßlau and Wittenberg districts. During that time, she was part of the Committee on Food and Agriculture.

The Green Party was initially founded in West Germany as Die Grünen (the Greens) in January 1980. It grew out of the anti-nuclear energy, environmental, peace, new left, and new social movements of the late 20th century.

Grüne Liste Umweltschutz (green list for environmental protection) was the name used for some branches in Lower Saxony and other states in the Federal Republic of Germany. These groups were founded in 1977 and took part in several elections. Most of them merged with The Greens in 1980.

The West Berlin state branch of The Greens was founded as Alternative Liste, or precisely, Alternative Liste für Demokratie und Umweltschutz (AL; alternative list for democracy and environmental protection) in 1978 and became the official West Berlin branch of The Greens in 1980. In 1993 it renamed to Alliance 90/The Greens Berlin after the merger with East Berlin's Greens and Alliance 90.

The Hamburg state branch of the Green Party was called Grün-Alternative Liste Hamburg (GAL; green-alternative list) from its foundation in 1982 until 2012. In 1984 it became the official Hamburg branch of The Greens.

12–13 January 1980: Foundation congress

The political party The Greens (German: Die Grünen) sprung out of the wave of New Social Movements that were active in the 1970s, including environmentalist, anti-war, and anti-nuclear movements which can trace their origin to the student protests of 1968. Officially founded as a German national party on 13 January 1980 in Karlsruhe, the party sought to give these movements political and parliamentary representation, as the pre-existing peoples parties were not organised in a way to address their stated issues.[8] Its membership included organisers from former attempts to achieve institutional representation such as GLU and AUD. Opposition to pollution, use of nuclear power, NATO military action, and certain aspects of industrialised society were principal campaign issues. The party also championed sexual liberation and the abolition of age of consent laws.[9]

The formation of a party was purportedly first discussed by movement leaders in 1978. Important figures in the first years were – among others – Petra Kelly, Joschka Fischer, Gert Bastian, Lukas Beckmann, Rudolf Bahro, Joseph Beuys, Antje Vollmer, Herbert Gruhl, August Haußleiter,[10] Luise Rinser, Dirk Schneider, Christian Ströbele, Jutta Ditfurth, and Baldur Springmann.

In the foundational congress of 1980, the ideological tenets of the party were consolidated, proclaiming the famous Four Pillars of the Green Party:

Social justice
Ecological wisdom
Grassroots democracy
Nonviolence

1980s: Parliamentary representation on the federal level

In 1982, the conservative factions of the Greens broke away to form the Ecological Democratic Party (ÖDP). Those who remained in the Green party were more strongly pacifist and against restrictions on immigration and reproductive rights, while supporting the legalisation of cannabis use, placing a higher priority on working for LGBT rights, and tending to advocate what they described as "anti-authoritarian" concepts of education and child-rearing. They also tended to identify more closely with a culture of protest and civil disobedience, frequently clashing with police at demonstrations against nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and the construction of a new runway (Startbahn West) at Frankfurt Airport. Those who left the party at the time might have felt similarly about some of these issues, but did not identify with the forms of protest that Green party members took part in.[citation needed]

After some success at state-level elections, the party won 27 seats with 5.7% of the vote in the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, in the 1983 federal election. Among the important political issues at the time was the deployment of Pershing II IRBMs and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles by the U.S. and NATO on West German soil, generating strong opposition in the general population that found an outlet in mass demonstrations. The newly formed party was able to draw on this popular movement to recruit support. Partly due to the impact of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and to growing awareness of the threat of air pollution and acid rain to German forests (Waldsterben), the Greens increased their share of the vote to 8.3% in the 1987 federal election. Around this time, Joschka Fischer emerged as the unofficial leader of the party, which he remained until resigning all leadership posts following the 2005 federal election.

The Greens were the target of attempts by the East German secret police to enlist the cooperation of members who were willing to align the party with the agenda of the German Democratic Republic. The party ranks included several politicians who were later discovered to have been Stasi agents, including Bundestag representative Dirk Schneider, European Parliament representative Brigitte Heinrich, and Red Army Faction defense lawyer Klaus Croissant. Greens politician and Bundestag representative Gert Bastian was also a founding member of Generals for Peace [de], a pacifist group created and funded by the Stasi, the revelation of which may have contributed to the murder-suicide in which he killed his partner and Greens founder Petra Kelly. A study commissioned by the Greens determined that 15 to 20 members intimately cooperated with the Stasi and another 450 to 500 had been informants.

Until 1987, the Greens included a faction involved in pedophile activism, the SchwuP short for Arbeitsgemeinschaft "Schwule, Päderasten und Transsexuelle" (approx. working group "Gays, Pederasts and Transsexuals" ). This faction campaigned for repealing § 176 of the German penal code, dealing with child sexual abuse. This group was controversial within the party itself, and was seen as partly responsible for the poor election result of 1985. This controversy re-surfaced in 2013 and chairwoman Claudia Roth stated she welcomed an independent scientific investigation on the extent of influence pedophile activists had on the party in the mid-1980s. In November 2014 the political scientist Franz Walter presented the final report about his research on a press conference

.......................

You know who does Green party uses as their brown shirts today? Antifa.

With full support from the technocrats in the UN and EU off course.

If you think that this is all because of Chernobyl, I have an Arizona ocean property to sell you. Its brand new, Never been used.

Ever since the party's inception, The Greens have been concerned with the immediate halt of construction or operation of all nuclear power stations. As an alternative, they promote a shift to non-nuclear renewable energy and a comprehensive program of energy conservation.

In 1986, large parts of Germany were covered with radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl disaster and Germans went to great lengths to deal with the contamination. Germany's anti-nuclear stance was strengthened. From the mid-1990s onwards, anti-nuclear protests were primarily directed against transports of radioactive waste in "CASTOR" containers.

After the Chernobyl disaster, the Greens became more radicalised and resisted compromise on the nuclear issue. During the 1990s, a re-orientation towards a moderate program occurred, with concern about global warming and ozone depletion taking a more prominent role. During the federal red-green government (1998–2005) many people became disappointed with what they saw as excessive compromise on key Greens policies.

Energy policy is still the most important cross-cutting issue in climate and economic policies. Implementation of Green Policy would see electricity generation from 100 percent renewable sources as early as 2040.[according to whom?] The development of renewable energy and combined heat and power is also a great opportunity for technical and economic innovation. Solar industry and environmental technologies are already a significant part of key industries providing jobs which need to be developed and promoted vigorously. In addition, a priority of green energy policy is increasing the thermal insulation and energy efficiency of homes, the phaseout of all nuclear energy generation with possible high-efficiency gas-fired power plants operational during the transition phase.

Environment and climate policy

The central idea of green politics is sustainable development.[72] The concept of environmental protection is the cornerstone of Alliance 90/The Greens policy. In particular, the economic, energy and transport policy claims are in close interaction with environmental considerations. The Greens acknowledge the natural environment as a high priority and animal protection should be enshrined as a national objective in constitutional law. An effective environmental policy would be based on a common environmental code, with the urgent integration of a climate change bill. During the red-green coalition (1998–2005) a policy of agricultural change was launched labeled as a paradigm shift in agricultural policy towards a more ecological friendly agriculture, which needs to continue.

The Greens have praised the European Green Deal, which aims to make the EU climate neutral by 2050. Climate change is at the center of all policy considerations. This includes environmental policy and safety and social aspects. The plans of the Alliance 90/The Greens provide a climate change bill laying down binding reductions to greenhouse gas emissions in Germany by 2020 restricting emissions to minus 40 percent compared to 1990.

European Union

Alliance 90/The Greens supports the eventual federalization of the European Union into a Federal European Republic (German: Föderale Europäische Republik), i.e. a single federal European sovereign state.

@Hanno I can go on proving you have no clue about politics whatsoever, but how does one wake up a man, pretending to be asleep. How does one undress a naked person? You can't. Only they can.

@Krunoslav

Lol!!!

So in response you wrote thousands of words, almost nothing pertaining to what I wrote?
. Still not understanding anything I said ?

Lol!

Honest question:
Do you think ANYONE read those novels you wrote here?
I sure as hell did not read them and you wrote them for me!

I only got as far as: “I don’t need to know how exhaust pipes work to now Volkswagen is corrupt”…. Well actually you need to. Else you just believe whatever someone else told you about Volkswagen.
And sums up all your posts and responses.
You believe what ever fits whatever narrative you are currently believing.
And you end up just like the people you despise…. The left liberals who also just believe whatever fits their narrative.

As long as you don’t critically evaluate your own understanding, you will just remain an empty bell sounding whatever someone has indoctrinated you with. And you are indoctrinated, you just don’t realise it.

Now gaining the knowledge and understanding needed to critically evaluate your own thoughts takes hard work and years of effort and it never ends.
You still have to start.

@Hanno Look, genius, if you don't want to read my rebuttal of your strange assertions, than say that. And leave it at that. I'm fine with it. But how can you know if its a rebuttal when you apparently haven' read any of it or attempted to disprove it. Next time either stop saying dumb things, or start reading more.

"You believe what ever fits whatever narrative you are currently believing."

Hardly. I provided you with sources. If you take your head out of your ass for a change and start reading what you haven't, maybe it is your narrative will be in question. By the way, you haven't actually refute any of the information I provided other than resorted to lame attempts at insults and dismissal. Try harder.

Yup. Imagine netflix will buy rights to air his "Servant of the people" show. You can't make this shit up... or wait, that's exactly what they did.

Netflix snaps up US rights to Ukrainian president Zelensky’s political satire series Servant of the People

Netflix has bought back the rights to show Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s satirical comedy Servant of the People, following its release in the UK on Channel 4.

Kazaky - Love (Official Music Video) Latex and High heels Zelensky. Warning! It cannot be unseen.

Before the war, this was BBC The comedian who could be president - BBC News

Polls suggest Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a comedian with no previous political experience, has become one of the frontrunners in Ukraine's presidential election.

"At this point he might as well have a WEF flag behind him instead of the Ukrainian one"

Funny you say that, because WEF, sure as hell has Ukraine flag on their website, and Putin was canceled.

@Krunoslav that looks like sad, pathetic shit. But the cultists will eat it up.

@Tom81 Indeed they will and they will ask for seconds. Truly pathetic.