오늘 문죄인이 마지막 퇴근을 했다. 그는 함박도를 북한에 양도하고 탈북자를 다시 북송하고, 식량과 각종 물자를 북한에 제공하는 반역을 저질렀다 또 임기 중 부정선거를 해서 일당독재를 획책했다. 과연 윤은 그를 법정에 세울수 있을까? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 푸틴 전승기념일 연설 전문 요약해 줄게 에어컨좋아 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11413465745 연설 내용 요약하면 다음과 같아 1. 서방이 계속 나토 확장해 와서 노무노무 무서웠다, 이긔 2. 그래서 우크라이나가서 싸우는데 서방 존나게 세다 3. 죽은 병사들 국가를 위해 죽은 기야, 죽은 병사들 가족 국가가 잘 돌봐줄게 4. 서방 존나게 세고 우리 국가존망 위협하지만, 난 항복은 안할란다 이게 다임 일부 기대하던 "핵전쟁 선포" "전면전 선포" 이건 여러번 이야기했지만 꿈도 꿀수 없는 선택권이야 전면전이야 선포할수 있지만, 별다른 차이가 없어, 러시아는 지금이 전면전 정도가 아니고 총력전이야 러시아 미사일 바닥 사실상 났고, 탱크 전투기도 가용 가능한 수의 70% 이상 소모되었다는게 서방 평가임 일단 푸틴은 자살하거나 물러나지 않고 지금 상태에서 항복 안하고 버틴다는거임 유럽은 이 연설 직전에 푸틴에게 선물 보냈음 1. 러시아 무역 새로운 조항으로 더 규제한다 2. 러시아 석유 수입금지하고 대체 수입으로 바꾼다 푸틴은 선택권이 없어, 막다른 골목이야 러시아 상류층들이 알아서 푸틴 제거하고 협상하는 수 말고는 러시아는 해법 없음 오래 갈수록 러시아가 싫어하고 무서워하는 미국의 힘은 급수적으로 더 커질거임 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 우크라이나 젤렌스키는 망명할 듯. 좌좀민주화 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11413314516 유튜브 여러가지를 보는데, 어제 오늘자를 보면 1. 마리우폴에 있는 민간인들이 모두 나와서 러시아군에 의해 조사를 받고 각자 가고 싶은 곳으로 보냄. 2. 루한스크 도네츠크 등 동쪽에서 우크라이나의 최전방이 무너져서 상당한 지역이 러시아 군에게 점령당할 우려가 있음. 3. 마리우폴 지하 벙커에 들어간 군인들의 선택지가 없어짐. 항복하거나 아니면 죽거나. 여기에 서방의 장교/장성 들이 있어서 항복했다간 지금까지 서방이 거짓말 했다는 것이 드러나기 때문에 항복을 못하고 있다고 함. 4. 러시아 경제가 망하고 있다는 멍멍이 소리는 거짓임. 현재 루블화 가치는 전쟁 전보다 더 올랐음. 5. 러시아 내에서 푸틴에 대항하여 쿠데타가 계획되고 있다는 소리도 멍멍이 소리임. 지금 5월 9일 전승절을 성대히 치르기 위해 분주함. 전승절 행사 리허설도 했음. 6. 러시아 석유와 가스를 2024년까지 끊겠다는 유럽 나라들의 우스개 소리가 들려옴. 러시아는 그 때까지 석유와 가스를 팔아먹을 수 있음. 7. 젤렌스키의 시계는 이제 마지막 초읽기에 들어간 듯 함. 8. 서방이 대준 수 많은 무기로 러시아 군대가 박살나고 있다는 멍멍이 소리가 사실이라면 러시아는 이미 퇴각하고도 남았어야 함. 러시아에게 500명 죽고 있으면서 20~30명 죽이고 있는 영상을 올리고 있는 듯 함. 예상되는 그림. 1. 러시아는 이번에 서방이 우크라이나 안에서 무엇을 하고 있었는지를 밝혀내서 발표할 것임. 유럽 영국 미국 등이 얼마나 ㅈ같은지가 뽀록나게 됨. 2. 러시아 경제는 건재함. 하지만 서방이 장기간 재제를 하면 러시아도 피곤해 짐. 3. 500만이 넘는 우크라이나 난민들은 우크라이나로 돌아오기 싫어할 것임.유럽 경제를 좀먹으면서 여러 나라를 피곤하게 할 듯. 4. 젤렌스키가 항복하지 않고 끝까지 개기면 러시아는 진짜 젤렌스키를 제거할 수도 있음. 하지만 지금 당장은 그럴 생각은 없음. 5. 우크라이나가 동부와 남부를 러시아에게 뺏기면 우크라이나는 거의 2.5세계 국가가 됨. 이렇게 되면 우크라이나를 떠났던 우크라이나인들이 돌아오지 않을 가능성이 많음. 6. 우크라이나는 조지아 꼴이 날 듯. 더 이상 아무런 힘도 못쓰는 그런 농업국가. 요약. 1. 좆된 것은 우크라이나임. 2. 우크라이나의 용감한 군인들에게는 진심으로 경의를 표함. 러시아에 투항하여 소중한 생명을 잘 지키시길. 3. 광주는 총기를 들고 일어난 그 하나으 눞욷임. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [5.7 자유통일 천만 서명대회] 거짓과 오해로 물들여진 역사, 그 실체를 밝혀 심판합시다! - 지만원 박사 너알아TV https://youtu.be/KkK0UzwPl4s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙일보 민주당 만든 법 때문에 새 정부 73조 떠안는다 더불어민주당이 압도적 과반을 차지한 국회에서 지난해 법률 제·개정을 통해 늘어난 재정 부담이 향후 5년간 연평균 14조6113억원(재정지출 증가+조세수입 감소)에 달하는 것으로 분석됐다. 전년도의 3배에 달하는 규모다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정치인들과 언론이 에너지에 대해 오해하는 것 화석 연료에서 그린 에너지로의 전환은 기술적으로 불가능하고 , 만일 한다면 세계경제는 붕괴한다 Lighting the Gas under European Feet: How Politicians and Journalists Get Energy So Wrong Joakim Book “We live in a time where few understand how things get made. It is fine to not know where stuff comes from, but it isn’t fine to not know where stuff comes from while dictating to the rest of us how the economy should be run." —Doomberg Eighty-five percent of human energy usage comes from burning things. Either plants or trees grown in a geologically recent past or plants or trees (and decomposed animals) from ancient times. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.—all the things that occupy a climate-conscious citizen, activist, or politician’s dreams—are frizzles around the edges. Human civilization is powered by combustion; human beings are a fossil fuel–burning civilization. You can take away the civilization part, which seems to be the end goal for some environmentalists, but bar that, you can’t take away the fossil fuel part. If we listened only to our energy overlords’ preaching, we would get a very different impression of what the world is like. Wind turbines powering all those electrified vehicles on our roads, solar panels and batteries of immense capacities light and heat our homes. Dirty oil and polluting coal are out; green, clean, and smart machines on the way in. Nothing could be further from the truth. Renewables don’t power our societies, they’re not about to any time soon, and the fact that they’re not isn’t a policy choice—or “greedy capitalism” preventing this utopian (dystopian) vision. First, some housekeeping: Energy is not the same as electricity. Electricity is a secondary energy source, derived from primary energy sources through a conversion process—combustion or turbines spinning. The 85 percent figure above is for energy use. The bombastic figures in the press about the massive growth and expanse of renewables are for electricity, which is only a subset of all the world’s energy use (some 20 percent). Oil, coal, and gas for transport, heating, fertilizers, and construction dwarf the symbolic solar panels governments paid people to place on their roof. Solar panels and wind turbines produce a minor part of the electricity needs, but do nothing to address the larger energy needs. In contrast, fossil fuels are energy-dense, reliable, on-demand sources of either energy or electricity, and we have excelled both at storing and transporting them. Dreams of a green revolution, per the energy theorist Vaclav Smil, were always mirages: We are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Instead, suddenly facing an adversary rich in raw materials and fossil fuels, the West’s talking heads doubled down on their green dreams. From behind comfortable newspaper desks, heated and electrified by natural gas, it’s remarkably easy to say things like: “The new reality is that we have to go all the way to universal electrification even faster, powered by 100% renewable energy with green hydrogen filling the gaps” (Andreas Kluth, at Bloomberg). For the New Yorker, John Cassidy recently told us that we must “prevent future Putins from trying to hold the world to energy ransom—at least one worthy outcome of the tragedy that is Ukraine.” In a powerful speech in the middle of the Russia flurry in March, Isabel Schnabel of the Executive Board at the European Central Bank rallied for renewable power: Every solar panel installed, every hydropower plant built and every wind turbine added to the grid are taking us a step closer to energy independence and a greener economy…. Our dependence on fossil energy sources is not only considered a peril to our planet, it is also increasingly seen as a threat to national security and our values of liberty, freedom and democracy. Luckily, Schnabel is in control of nothing less than the Eurozone’s printing press. One-upped by a fellow German, the reality-challenged finance minister Christian Lindner taught us that renewable electricity is “the energy of freedom.” What he failed to understand is that renewable electricity generation in Germany requires boatloads and pipe loads of Russian gas, Russian oil, and Russian commodities: the steel and cement to construct their precious wind towers are made from coal, not even counting the extreme heat needed to shape the steel and iron that makes up its body. A single wind turbine uses thousands of kilograms of nickel in its shaft and gear, plus some rare earth minerals from some pretty unclean sources. The gigantic structures, hundreds of meters tall and much too clunky to easily transport, are erected and moved there by machines that swallow diesel by the gallon. Fossil fuels are machine food, as Alex Epstein is fond of saying, and nothing drinks petrol like the machines that power a thirsty wind energy industry. When renewable sources are added to the electricity grid in large quantities, the cost of electricity goes up, not down, because their fickle reliance on weather requires them to be backstopped by thermal plants that run on coal or natural gas. The more renewables you add, the more natural gas you need. Actually, Fossil Fuels Aren’t Optional The conclusion from much political and media messaging on climate is the same: burning fossil fuels for energy is a choice, a bad one, and we must choose differently. The moral case against Russia is just a cherry on top. “Would you rather rely on Mr. Putin’s Russia?” The Economist asked in a recent cover story on energy security. The very same Russia that Bloomberg News described as: “a commodities powerhouse, producing and exporting huge amounts of materials the world uses to build cars, transport people and goods, make bread and keep the lights on.” But the writers at The Economist insist: “As the world weans itself off dirty fuels, it must switch to cleaner energy sources.” When we listen to the political overlords in Brussels or Berlin, or the intellectual ones in think tanks, political parties, or at influential media outlets, we get the impression that relying on “Mr. Putin’s Russia” can be done away with—as optional and care-free as picking a different ice cream flavor. To hammer home the “renewable revolutions are impossible” point, let’s use the poster child for renewables, Germany. Here is its energy use over the last half century: Let me know if you can spot Germany’s revolutionary Energiewende in the early 2010s. With a microscope, I can detect a little bit of wind crowding out some nuclear—while gas keeps growing and coal continues its fifty-five-year decline. What sort of fairytale must one believe to think that the purple and yellow shares—almost invisible at the top—could in any way supplant the others, preferably before next winter when Putin’s withholding of gas would once again be disastrous for Europeans. A prominent German think tank, Agora Energiewende, also thinks it’s perfectly possible. Its projections depend, not just on building and installing more wind energy plants than ever before, but raising that rate of construction by about one-third every year for years on end. To describe those plans as “optimistic” somehow doesn’t cut it: The International Energy Agency (IEA), staffed with the same sort of reality-resistant dreamers, produced this wonderful graph that plans for the energy production in a net-zero future (NZE): At great expense and inconvenience, the world can indeed increase its use of solar and wind—but remember: they destabilize grids and constitute a vanishingly small portion of world energy needs. To replace what we need, and accommodate growth for the billions globally who scrape by on a minimum of energy, the IEA says we must add solar and wind capacity at a vertiginous rate, never before achieved, at way faster than their own forecasts. As Alex Epstein writes in the preface to his future book Fossil Future: a net-zero policy, actually implemented “would certainly be the most significant act of mass murder since the killings of one hundred million people by communist regimes in the twentieth century—and it would likely be far greater.” If you believe, as so many politicians, activists, and deluded journalists do, that this is a mere policy decision, you are sadly mistaken. The impossibility of renewables is a technical and physical problem—not an economic, financial, moral, or political problem. Gaslighting Europeans According to mental health site VeryWellMind, gaslighting is “a form of manipulation that often occurs in abusive relationships. It is a covert type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their judgments and reality. Ultimately, the victim of gaslighting starts to feel unsure about their perceptions of the world and even wonder if they are losing their sanity.” Consider the following combination of expert-led gaslighting: The entire 2010s and beyond, politicians pooh-poohed nuclear: in words (rallying cries and moral suasion) and actions (strict regulations), they prevented any expansion and shut down capacity. European environmental regulation and climate activists have stopped as much oil and gas extraction as they could. Most countries have banned or otherwise prevented “fracking,” the natural gas extraction method that turned America into an energy exporter. For the last decade and more, climate warriors inside and outside governments have hauled boatloads of cash onto “green” energies—everything from wind and solar to experimental forms of tidal energy. Green electricity sources, because of the unpredictable load that makes them unsuitable for modern civilization, have expanded in consort with natural gas because the dirty secret of the former is that they require rapidly available backup power—for which the latter is the convenient choice. Because all things “carbon” are considered bad, politicians, journalists, and the Greta Thunbergs of the world have done everything in their power to sway more people into putting solar panels on their roofs and electric vehicles in their garages. That strains an already fragile grid by adding more demand and another variable supply: crucially, it requires lots more nickel, palladium, and silver—with Russia among the world’s largest supplier for those key commodities. One would suppose that, on the back of the war in Ukraine, the strict Western sanctions on Russia, and energy prices going through the roof, the green-washed politicians and policymakers who rule our lives would offer excuses. Now that the Russian invasion had those very same policymakers cutting commercial ties to that despicable empire-building strongman, and energy prices and access suddenly rose to the forefront of everyone's mind, we’d expect a bit of humility. Apologies are in order: Fellow Europeans, against market prices, physics, and sanity, we pushed you into worse forms of electricity generation and endangered our energy security. Instead of doing what we should have done, we relied more and more on the commodities exported from countries like Russia. For making Europeans more beholden to Putin, we apologize. Instead, we got gaslighting on a remarkable scale. “Weaning off” Silly The world isn’t weaning itself off fossil fuels—it can’t, and it shouldn’t. More importantly, “cleaner energy” aren’t options on a shopping menu, available as inconsequential choices the way consumers may choose Doritos over Pringles or a new toothpaste. It’s becoming increasingly clear, to more and more people, that withdrawing from fossil fuels “for environmental reasons” is not a choice. A society and a world of 8 billion people more advanced than that powered by a horse and buggy, cannot do without the explosive power of fossil fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------