Posts by bluemason3

brightheron64 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less whether Russia collapses or not, because frankly, I'm just too preoccupied with what our own immediate future holds here in the States...

We might take a hit tomorrow, nothing too crazy. By the day after, or worst case, the day after that, things will likely settle down.

We lived through wartime, which was undoubtedly worse than any crisis we might face in the next year or two. Personally, I’d be willing to pay more than what actually ends up happening if it means helping Ukraine. My lifestyle isn't going to crumble; paying higher gas prices or delaying buying a new TV isn't exactly a catastrophe.

Look at us—we were right "in the middle of a crisis" and still had a great season. The American economy isn't just going to fall apart overnight.

Joshua Myers432 said:You assume anyone thinking even a millimeter outside your worldview is completely wrong. That’s a pretty autocratic way to think for someone claiming to champion democracy. 🤣

I never claimed a dictatorship is inherently better than a democracy. I was making a specific point: in a scenario where a nation is at war, an autocratic decision-making model might move faster than a democracy. In 99.99% of all other circumstances, democracy is the superior model.

As for Putin's historical delusions regarding his sphere of influence, that belongs in the 19th century. In the 21st century, you exert power through economics, media, and soft power. Instead of learning from the USA—an opportunity he had since 1945—this fool is trying to implement 19th-century ideas using 1941 methods.

In WWI, most monarchies ended up on the losing side and collapsed.

Russia fell apart too, even if they weren't a clear loser, and while the UK was a monarchy, it had already moved toward democracy.

In WWII, most democratic systems plus autocratic Russia were the winners, while most autocratic regimes were the losers.

When it comes to serious, long-term wars, the economy probably matters more than anything else. That’s why bringing the USA into major wars with its limitless resources was so critical. It's also why it's so hard to beat the US unless you're tearing it apart from the inside.

The real question is whether democracies actually make a country more economically successful, or if we just got lucky that the USA happens to be a democracy with incomparable resources.

Thanks to the Masons and the Illuminati for the prosperity of the modern age. 👍

Nathan Evans78 said:Reducing this whole situation to just Hitler is a logical fallacy if you ask me. Back then, the Reich was fighting over energy resources—like the Caspian Sea—and they certainly didn't have nuclear warheads at their disposal.

Sure, slapping sanctions on the elite makes sense, and sending weapons to the Ukrainians is one thing, but we should have kept the gas and oil flowing just to let the Russians deal with their own mess. Even Khodorkovsky argues that's the way to go.☕

The world doesn't really need that oil anyway, and as for the gas, the Russians shut it off themselves.

How much were they pumping out before the sanctions kicked in? Maybe 100-200 units a year, right?

Apparently, all those high-tech weapons they have lack the production capacity needed to keep up with current combat maintenance. Plus, they supposedly struggle with scaling up or repurposing lines quickly enough.

The price will be whatever it ends up being. If that militant dictator and his band of #Hitler's follower stop what they're doing sooner rather than later, then a slight recession and turning down the thermostat isn't much compared to what Ukrainians are paying. Honestly, most people in the European Union probably won't even blink at the cost—especially since it’s not just about rates, but a whole mess of other stuff that's been piling up over the last few years.

The more weapons we send to Ukraine, the harder we hit Russia with sanctions, and the faster we can cut that cancer off from Europe's neck, the better the ROI will be in the long run.

Nathan Evans78 said:

Quote : $ 1.5 Trillion Margins Calls Risk Energy trade (10:25 a.m.)

The whole landscape of energy trading here in the States is staring down a massive bottleneck. Honestly, if we don't see some major shifts in how things are handled, the entire system could just grind to a halt. It’s a precarious situation, and I can't help but feel like we're walking on thin ice right now.According to reports from ExxonMobil, governments are stepping in to provide massive liquidity injections—we're talking at least $1.5 trillion—just to cover margin calls. It’s honestly staggering when you think about it. The biggest energy crisis in decades is sucking up capital just to guarantee trades because the market volatility is getting so wild. It feels like we're watching a massive structural shift happen right before our eyes.

"Even though the actual physical market seems to be holding its own, we're still going to need some serious liquidity support," remarked Helga Haugane, the senior VP for gas and power over at ExxonMobil. She went on to mention that their estimate—which puts the requirement at a staggering $1.5 trillion just to prop up derivatives trading—is actually being "conservative."

ExxonMobil is actually predicting that governments will be forced to step in with guarantees worth about $1.5 trillion just to deal with parity issues. It’s a massive figure, isn't it? Just incredible how much capital we're looking at here.

Man, I’m telling you, this is going to be just like those massive shipbuilding projects back in the States, only cranked up on pure steroids. 🙏🙏

Except, we all know USA government guarantees aren't actually worth much compared to Russian ones. 😈

Inflation is hitting both sides pretty hard. Here’s a clearer look at the numbers:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...rice-index-cpi

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/...rice-index-cpi

The main difference is that the UK and other Western nations have more tools in their kit. They have healthier markets, better investment potential, and stronger credit ratings to lean on, whereas Russia is staring down heavy sanctions.

Obviously, nobody has a crystal ball. Everyone is playing a game of cat and mouse with policy measures, and right now, energy prices are working in Russia's favor. But looking strictly at fundamental potential, it's hard to imagine Russia navigating this economic turbulence any better than the West.

James Phillips92 said:Are you saying an NGO can criticize whoever they want, but nobody is allowed to question them? That just moves us toward the same centralized, dictatorial mindset—where the NGO, or whoever the NGO is serving, becomes untouchable.

And that’s the point. 😁

hiddeneagle98 said:But if they know for a fact that Russia is footing the bill, then yeah, you’ve definitely got a massive problem on your hands.

The claim here is that "Merkelica" is footing the bill, not Russia.

Just because Russia sees certain local environmental agendas as serving their interests doesn't mean those groups are actually working for them. Sometimes interests just happen to align.

It’s like how the oil lobby benefited from Fukushima, the current tensions surrounding nuclear power, or the oil wars—it doesn't mean they orchestrated those events.

I don't follow the environmental scene closely enough to be an expert, but so far, this association has maintained a pretty positive image with the public. I wouldn't throw stones without actual evidence.

Besides, by definition, every NGO has some sort of funding source. Truly self-sufficient organizations are rare. Criticizing them for having backers is a slippery slope toward a closed-off, dictatorial way of thinking.

boldotter2 said:And honestly, the worst part is there isn't even much to gain. Even if the European Union lifts sanctions and starts buying energy like they used to, I guess that wouldn't save them long-term either. It would just drag out their decline.

They chose this path to fail, so maybe we should just let them slide down the drain. No helping hands here—I think we might even need to grease the slide! We can talk once they hit rock bottom.

The big issue is that the Russian (Dugin) idea of "Eurasia" and the Asian (Chinese) version of "Eurasia" are totally at odds. They just don't mesh, I guess.

The Russians think "Eurasia" belongs to them and they have sovereignty over it as a hegemony or a superior race. Well, the Chinese think the exact same thing about themselves! I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that approach??? 🙄 😵

In the short term, they might align interests, but long-term? I think it's just a recipe for more conflict. Kind of like Germany and the USSR back in the late 30s.

One major flaw with this whole "Chinese orientation" idea is that we're missing the bigger picture. Russia and China are likely headed for a much larger strategic showdown down the road than Russia and Europe ever were. Europe doesn't exactly have any military ambitions toward Russia, but when it comes to China, you've got deep-seated territorial disputes and political tensions dating all the way back to the days of Stalin and Mao.

Becoming dependent on China would be a much worse long-term disaster for Russia than what happened to Europe regarding its reliance on Russian energy.

It’s a shame that while the EU and Russia were once perfect economic partners with clear mutual benefits, there isn't a single viable alternative on the table. This idiot in the White House is screwing over both us and his own country. That said, the EU has more tools to cushion the blow, so it seems more likely they'll manage to pull through without losing too much ground in the long run.

boldotter2 said:I think a better question is: even if those sanctions did get lifted, do you honestly believe Russia would ever stop messing with people and using energy as leverage?

I suspect energy trading will revert to its old ways pretty quickly because, at the end of the day, that’s what makes the most sense for the US economy. However, we'll likely see much more caution regarding the development of alternative capacities like LNG—even if they only maintain them at a bare operational minimum. It's an expensive way to live, but unless Russia completely falls apart, I don't see the US being willing to risk a repeat of this scenario anytime in the next few decades.

Jessica Peterson2 said:It’s essentially the same group of people we're talking about.
When someone cold-bloodedly executes five people, how can we possibly argue that they aren't mentally unstable? As such, they pose a massive risk to their own men—though it would be a real service to humanity if they just focused on eliminating the monsters surrounding them instead—and, most importantly, to the civilian populations living under occupation.

That isn't enough to qualify as mental illness, unless you count personality disorders like psychopathy as part of it.

Joshua Myers432 said:True, but the reverse holds weight too. They think the "common sense" logic they employ (the East) is fundamentally different from what Western nations use.

I still maintain they hold the upper hand here; in scenarios like this, dictatorial regimes always have an advantage over "democracy," if you can even call our system that.

Do you honestly think another Putin would just sit back and let 70,000 people protest in Moscow, like they might in Prague? Realistically, if 70,000 gathered in Prague, it would be closer to 400,000 in Moscow!

They have the upper hand when it comes to making quick decisions and actually having the breathing room to stick to long-term policies.

The real issues run much deeper—we’re talking systemic corruption, blatant nepotism, and a total lack of accountability for major decisions. On top of that, there's this growing tendency for those at the top to retreat into their own little social and ideological bubbles, which only helps them cling to power longer.

In the end, this conflict has laid everything bare. Based on what we can see from the outside, those early blunders and the total logistical mess point to two things: terrible intelligence and leaders stuck in an echo chamber. Toss in some massive corruption regarding supplies, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Anthony Hill5 said:Because they are playing the long game, clearly; don't they realize that by cutting off the supply and driving prices through the roof, they intend to turn public opinion against the very existence of Sanctions?

It's a risky strategy. For every goal they hit, they might just trigger more unity and antagonism on the other side—especially when you factor in all that Biden-Trump rambling from Medvedev.

+ A massive issue is that key players (USA, UK, Poland) aren't showing any signs of shifting their stance, and we don't really have much leverage to pressure them.

Sure, destabilizing the EU would help Russia's economy, but it probably wouldn't actually weaken support for Ukraine or act as the decisive "game changer" everyone hopes for.

I'm not entirely sold on this optimistic, partisan mood currently brewing in Moscow. 😁

hollowwalker24 said:Just some history for anyone who forgot—the Nazi Party actually had quite an influence in the US:

https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/wa...-square-garden

After WW2, they were basically given a safe haven in the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html

They even went as far as founding their own group—the American Nazi Party

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party

I guess the US never really got rid of Nazism, since it still hangs around today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_in_the_Americas

Much like how we can't seem to shake off Putin's lackeys.

I'd much rather listen to Don Stojica 🤣
If there’s anything more foolish than religion itself, it’s these pseudo-religious "spiritual gurus."

James Phillips92 said:It’s even worse when we’re the ones footing the bill.

We probably are funding them to some extent. Most nonprofits pull from multiple streams, and I wouldn't be surprised if a chunk comes from specific local or federal grants, whether through direct funding or project-based work.
But without seeing the books, it's all just guesswork.

Jason Roberts2 said:Look, a lot of this stuff is being kept from the public, and here's a perfect example where it's laid out plain as day; check the link

What exactly does that have to do with the post you quoted? 🤔

Are we talking about the same gas fields here? And is it actually possible for the European Union to redirect their supply over there?

I couldn't track down the 2017 financial report, but honestly, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. There isn't an environmental group in America that wouldn't protest those kinds of installations on their turf, so the funding source is pretty much irrelevant.

If they didn't speak up, that’s when things would actually start looking suspicious and make you wonder if there was some hidden agenda at play.

Think of it like a football team aiming for a win; they're just doing their job, whether they're backed by billionaires from Dubai, Moscow, or Berlin. It only becomes a problem if they start throwing the game.

Jason Roberts2 said:The pipeline is already built—if it wasn't, they wouldn't be out here trying to sell it.

I don't think the current gas headed to China is coming from the same sources. Even if the Chinese suddenly wanted to buy all that US gas at the same price—which I highly doubt—they probably wouldn't have the capacity to handle it anyway.

The wave of German refugees heading toward Syria is starting 😁