Half a century ago, raw emotion drove an anti-nuclear energy campaign that still stifles clean energy development in the U.S. Today, that same fear-driven playbook is being deployed in a campaign to shut down data centers.
Between 1970 and 1990, America built 95 nuclear power plants that still supply nearly a fifth of the nation’s electricity, but the minor incident at Three Mile Island led to cancellation of another 67 planned builds.
The U.S. did not build another nuclear powerplant between 1996 and 2016. Even today, efforts to revitalize the nation’s nuclear power industry face skepticism and legacy regulatory roadblocks.
Small modular reactors were first tested decades ago and could already be powering data centers had anti-nuclear fearmongering not stopped the Integral Fast Reactor program in 1994.
Many Americans today are rightly riled up about data centers robbing communities of precious drinking water resources and raising their electric bills. Others ask whether data centers are part of a vast secret conspiracy to take away their jobs, their freedom, and perhaps even their lives.
Goldman Sachs estimated that U.S. data center power demand could grow from 31 gigawatts in 2025 to 66 gigawatts in 2027. The push for an all-electric society has helped cause demand to rise faster than the nation can build new capacity. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise.
Neither the media nor the political establishment had prepared Americans for these shocking developments – so it is no wonder that data centers have become a political football.
The growing divide today is between the anti-nuclear playbook – now repurposed in ways that risk crippling the American economy – and the recognition that some data centers have disrupted lives, an unacceptable trade-off no matter how badly they are needed.
Fuel for the anti-data center fire stems from real-life stories of an Oregon community that found nearby Google data centers were using a quarter of their water supply. Data centers connected to the power grid also tend to drive up electricity costs, according to Consumer Reports. These real-life impacts have even the strongest supporters of the American Dream up in arms.
Many data center developers have failed to explain that every time we look up a movie showtime, tap a card at checkout, back up a video or ask Google a question we can thank a data center for making those tasks easy. They have also failed to fully address citizen concerns.
President Trump pushed the data center industry into signing the Ratepayer Protection Pledge at the White House back in March. But that commitment was voluntary – and people too often tricked by pledges not followed through on remain skeptical.
The Chinese government and its proxies, which thrive on exploiting fear, are funding a national campaign against data centers to slow the growth of the U.S. economy.
A May report from the Bitcoin Policy Institute traced three interlocking vectors that demonstrate China’s targeting of American AI data centers.
These include Chinese and Russian state media propaganda; a U.S.-based NGO network bankrolled by expatriate Neville Roy Singham; and billions in foreign dark money from such sources as Switzerland’s Hansjörg Wyss and the Oak Foundation, funded by British billionaire Alan Parker.
Lead author Sam Lyman says the choice facing America is not between AI or no AI but between American AI or Chinese AI – just as it is between continued Chinese dominance over critical minerals or an America-first mining and processing renaissance.
The Trump Administration’s push for nuclear energy both for the grid and for stand-alone units to power cloud and hyperscale data centers, military facilities, and remote industrial sites is part of a national strategy to expand electric generation without injuring ratepayers – an effort that had quietly begun during his first term.
After years of neglect, just before leaving office President Biden issued Executive Order 14141 (Advancing U.S. Leadership in AI Infrastructure), which authorized leasing federal sites for gigawatt-scale data centers “with clean energy resources” to prevent public rate increases.
At the signing ceremony for the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, many of the nation’s largest AI and technology companies agreed to cover the costs of all new power generation for their facilities so as not to negatively impact ratepayers.
White House AI and Crypto advisor David Sacks contrasted this “common sense” approach over Bernie Sanders’ demand for a total ban on new data centers, which he said would halt a nationwide construction boom, stunt wage and job growth for blue-collar workers, and effectively cede the future to the Chinese.
Even better, Sacks said that, by allowing AI companies to pay for grid upgrades and sell excess power back to the grid, ratepayers might even see lower bills.
The only problem is that small modular reactors are just now undergoing testing and still have to work their way through a still-labyrinthine permitting process – the legacy of decades of anti-nuclear opposition.
As new data centers begin to generate their own off-grid electricity, the feared escalation of electricity bills should subside. But what about water use?
Most big data centers rely on water-based cooling towers or evaporative chillers to prevent server overheating and equipment failure. While many are using closed-loop water cooling in which the same water circulates in sealed pipes or coils that prevent evaporation, a technique that cuts water use by up to 70%, the public still sees them as stealing their drinking water.
Direct-to-chip cooling, which pipes cold liquid directly to servers, and immersion cooling, which submerges entire servers in a bath of non-conductive fluid, also minimize water use.
Norway is siting data centers near cold-water rivers and fjords, and in cold climates outside air can also keep servers running smoothly. Elon Musk is moving data centers into orbit, connecting them via satellite and Starlink, and requiring no cooling waters. SpaceX and Nvidia are planning to launch the first orbiting data center by 2028.
The trouble is that, with fast-emerging technology, any delay can result in a catastrophic loss of advantage.
Moratoriums, like that issued by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s move to strip data center projects from his state’s fast-track program (which he created in November 2024), can turn into long-term prohibitions for a short-term problem.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow Shawn Regan contrasts the actions of these governors with that of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who is in a dogfight reelection campaign. Texas, he says, mostly refined its existing process “to better sort through a chaotic data-center development pipeline without abandoning growth.”
Texas requires an audit for “Batch Zero” projects under consideration for connection to the state’s grid. Developers must disclose expected electricity and water use, plans for on-site generation, cooling systems, tax incentives, and measures to mitigate noise, traffic, and other local impacts.
The contrast could not be clearer. The same fear-based politics that once stalled nuclear power, amplified today by “No Kings” style protests (funded by Singham NGOs), has left some politicians throwing in with the Chinese. Those who agree with President Trump’s vision for American hegemony do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but need a little help from tech giants who many fear do not serve the public interest.
Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
“I am determined that we meet the commitment on which Labour was elected and reach net zero by 2050,” Burnham said. “I want Britain to believe in itself again.” – The Guardian
Ok, I’ve mopped up the spilt coffee having read that utter… Which was fortunate as tiny Andy then continues:
“Punishing heatwaves left nurses collapsing on hospital wards and bus drivers working in 40C cabs. Wildfires destroyed homes, leaving families with nothing. And more extreme weather is forecast in the months ahead.
TINH – There Is No Hope. And to prove that painful fact…
In his first speech since Keir Starmer’s resignation the man tipped to be the next Prime Minister has set out a 10 year plan to transform the nation and put back “hope in every heart”.
There really is no hope – in our very real world.
There will never be Net Zero in the UK by 2050 because the humans exhale 70 million kgs of CO2 everyday. To this should be added all the CO2 exhaled by domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. Moreover, the UK has cold rainy winters. All the CO2 produced in the life cycles of the plants and animals is “good” CO2. The CO2 produced by the use of fossil fuels is “bad” CO2.
For a UK temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in
a table. Here is a summary for these two dates:
Year——-Thi——-Tlo——-Tav Temperatures are °C
2024——12.9——6.9——-9.9
1901——-11.8——4.7——-8.2
Change–+1.1—–+2.2——+1.7
Range Thi: 10.9–13.6
Range Tlo: 4.3—6.9
CO2 Concentration Data
2024: 423 ppmv, 0.83 g of CO2 per cubic meter of air
1901: 297 ppmv, 0.58 g of CO2 per cubic meter of air.
The temperature data show that there has no significant warming in the UK for 123 years. The slight warming is well within the range of natural variation in temperatures as shown by the Thi and Tlo range data. Note how little CO2 there
is in the air. There is no need to reduce the emission of CO2 because this small amount of CO2 in the air can have no effect on weather and climate.
The challenge is how to commute this information to the citizens and especially to the politicians on the various political parties of the UK. You got any ideas?
When are the scientists of the UK going to come forth and explain to the people and politician that CO2 does not cause warming of the air? Do you know how to forward my comment to Climate Change Committee?
It has nothing to do with anti-nuclear fearmongering.
Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider on the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear energy production: ‘Trumpism enters energy policy’
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
The fossil fuel industry knows that nuclear is not viable in this day and age but rallies behind it because, compared to renewables, it doesn’t endanger their profits.
cfact saving the koch and exxon whales again.
COP28 pledge to…
I understand a number of pledges were made, but predictably enough, it/they will never ever be enough…
the pledge to triple global renewable power capacity by 2030
the methane pledge of the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter
while the pledges are positive steps forward in tackling the energy sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, they would not be nearly enough to move the world onto a path to reaching international climate targets – IEA
You have got a job for life.
They can not be satisfied.
It’s part of their playbook.
It does not matter how much you pledge,cede,change,tolerate to whatever new Agenda-demand there is.
It can never be enough as your existence is the problem.
They can not be satisfied.
This is so very, very true. And they have ways of obtaining easy money – even for their obsession with open borders. Everybody playing the National Lottery believes they fund good [often sporting] causes. They don’t.
National Lottery under fire over £143m funding for ‘left-wing pro-migrant’ charities
On the beaches and camps around Calais and Dunquerque…
Apparently India, China and a number of nations in Africa think nuclear is viable as they are planing and building nuclear power plants.
No one needs to urge people to eat meat.
But veganism needs tons of propaganda , institutional indoctrination and a ton of cheering clowns.
The real thing sells on its own.
Who were the were most astroturfed 1st ladies in recent years.
Michelle Obama and Brigitte Macron – I wonder why?
Renewables are intermittent sources of electricity. Their actual electricity production is between 15 and 35% of nameplate. Consequently, renewables must be backed up by dispatchable power plants. Therefore, considering the cost of required backup power, renewable electricity can not be cheaper than the cost of dispatchable power. The only way renewables endanger profits is if their use is subsidized by massive tax payer bribes to build them. If renewables are so cheap, then let them compete without tax payer subsidies.
90% of new generating capacity worldwide and in the US that has been installed in recent years is solar, and some wind. Nat gas is about 10%. Nuclear almost nonexistent. It appears that you are wrong.
“If renewables are so cheap, then let them compete without tax payer subsidies.”
You are so wrong and isthatright is so right.
Without subsidies, renewables are the cheapest form of generation. That’s why they’ve accounted for 90% of new generation, worldwide, for the last several years. Going forward, new projects are showing even a higher % penetration of renewables.
This is a load of lies.
Deniers have little knowledge of climate change or this solution:
New utility-scale solar power plants are generally cheaper than new fossil-fuel plants when measured by their lifetime generation costs. Data from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows that the vast majority of newly commissioned renewable power projects beat fossil fuel alternatives on cost.
Cost Comparisons (Levelized Cost of Energy)
Why Solar is Cheaper
Warren wrote, “Solar is Cheaper [because of] Zero Fuel Costs: Sunlight is free…”
You’ve confused value with cost. Wind & solar are not low cost, they are low value.
Electricity from gas, coal & nuclear has lower cost. Electricity from wind & solar fetches lower prices because it has lower value, because wind & solar are unreliable.
Even Bill Gates understands that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU
Electricity is only valuable if produced when it is needed. Gas, coal & nuclear provide reliable baseload and dispatchable electric power generation, when it is needed.
Wind and solar don’t. They generate power capriciously. They have a nasty tendency to stop generating just when electricity is needed the most, and prices are highest.
Relying on wind & solar means paying exorbitant electricity bills, and freezing in the dark on cold, windless, winter nights.
It also means closing all your steel mills and blast furnaces. You can’t run steel mills on batteries during a dunkelflaute.
Less than 1/4 of human energy production is in the form of electricity, and only about 1/3 of CO2 emissions are from electricity production. Even if all that electricity were produced by wind, solar & nuclear, it would still only reduce CO2 emissions by 1/3.
Another 15% of CO2 emissions is from motor vehicles. Even if ALL emissions from electricity production plus ALL emissions from motor vehicles were eliminated, that still accounts for less than half of CO2 emissions.
The climate industry propagandists who pretend that “net zero” is possible if only we give them enough additional $trillions to waste… are just plain lying. Full stop.
⠀
Warren, you say, “sunlight is free,” and wind is too. But that doesn’t mean solar is the most cost-effective electricity source, or sailboats are the most cost-effective transportation. There’s a reason they say, “nothing is as expensive as a free boat.”
“Free” solar energy is like that.
That is because of the reliability and longevity of fossil fuel plants.
It’s because of the lowest lifecycle cost offered by renewable power generation.
Now count the ecological damage of covering millions of acres of the planet with solar panels and wind turbines- and the damage of all the new mines that will be needed.
Lol! Have you been to West Virginia and seen the environmental damage from the mining of coal?
How about comparing environmental damage from NG production and ruinables.
https://watt-logic.com/2023/08/26/challenging-the-cheap-renewables-myth/
Thank you for this, Bob. I was unaware of Kathryn Porter and her blog. I just subscribed for notifications.
Lowest lifecycle cost?
Not when one includes production of the equipment.
Transportation and installation.
Maintenance and repair.
Disposal at end of life.
And a life cycle that is much less than any of the thermal electricity generators in existence.
All the factors you list are included
Thanks for posting about the tremendous waste of materials, money, and opportunity cost.
It’s a tribute to the ignorance of Deniers about the ongoing transition to renewables.
It’s a tribute to the Trans-Reality Activists the infallibility of their religion.
excuse me, but it’s Deniers who believe in the tooth fairy and ignore the conclusions of scientific research.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
Don’t waste your time responding to Warren Beeton. He is either an ignorant buffoon or a bot. In either case, nothing he says warrants engaging his foolishness. Simply ignore him. It is amazing to me that a semi-educated man in his 80s such as Warren can be so blinded and exhibit such a profound lack of wisdom or discernment.
A number of weeks ago, he revealed his entrenched closed-mindedness with four bullet points — all …, all …, all …, all … . He is incapable of engaging in critical analysis or nuanced discussion. I pity his family who must endure his psychotic obsessions every day.
Beeton posts are “Denier”, “peer review”, over-and-over.
LOL, France is less in trouble from an energy standpoint than other Western European countries, precisely because it didn’t sabotage its nuclear fleet like Germany did, and didn’t bet almost everything on renewables like Spain. Fortunately, attempts to destroy France’s nuclear industry failed. And thank General de Gaulle for launching the Messmer Plan in 1974. It’s precisely because nuclear energy is abundant and inexpensive that we sell it to the British, Italians, and Germans.
thank General de Gaulle
That, Charles, isn’t easy to do, in fact it isn’t possible. The chair is… empty.
Santé
Nuclear is far more expensive than fossil fuels generation , and even more so vs renewables.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists interviews the lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report from 2023 in which none of the interview comments made by the lead author appear.
You are posting 1 person’s opinion as undeniable fact.
Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Note: In the interview the terms fossil fuel, coal, oil, petroleum, natural gas, do not appear.
You state your personal opinion as fact…. again, inferring it is an interpretation of statements attributed to someone else.
In other words, you are lying.
You end with a disparaging comment.
It is obvious that you are not here to discuss, but merely to inflate your ego by scoring imaginary “debating points” and trying to trigger negative emotional responses for your personal entertainment.
Why not address the 2025 report?
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-Annual-Reports
Likely you did not read the 2023 report.
Probably because you couldn’t be bothered to read beyond the interview headline.
The catnip of seeing “Trump” made you pounce.
The catnip of trump– funny- reminds me of how it’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to turn on NPR and NOT hear Trump’s name in a scathing commentary- IMPOSSIBLE. And it only takes at most 20 seconds.
Nuclear doesn’t reduce oil and gas use?
Do you ever bother thinking before posting?
According to who? Certainly not China.
One wonders if sanity exists anymore from reading comments. Nuclear power can be less expensive than fossil or renewalable sources. The way to do that is get the regulatory and court delays out of the process and standardize designs that can be built not in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years like todays nonsense but in 2 years or less. When the USA started building nuclear plants that was the timeline and the reason they were cost effective. With standardized designs there is zero reason to spend years on the permit process.
Sanity departed the UK a long time ago and gathered pace in 2016…
PM Theresa May: we will end UK contribution to climate change by 2050
The Uniparty/Parliamentary dictatorship is fully committed to economic suicide.
Who will stop breathing for the planet? A few I’m sure.
The thermal efficiency of a nuclear power plant is about 30% whereas the thermal of CCGT system is about 63%. Since the US has an abundant supply of natural gas, there is no need to build power plants with nuclear reactors.
Didn’t Aus. build an SMR in 150 days ?
Posted on Jonova site ?
Is there no way to cool data centers using a closed-loop system?
The VAST MAJORITY are cooled in closed loop systems. Some of the smaller centers are cooled by refrigerant systems with no chilled water at all. Most chilled water cooled systems use air cooled heat exchangers. There are some legacy chilled water systems with evaporative cooling towers for heat rejection, but the prohibitive cost of water, sewer, and chemical treatment of open systems has pretty much eliminated them in new construction
Most of the hyper data centers in Northern VA use water-cooled screw or centrifugal chillers and cooling towers. Air cooled chillers use too much energy, and plenty of water is available in the region.
The vast majority of new data center build designs are closed-loop. But there are different types of closed loop. You have to get rid of the heat somehow. So the closed loops needs to flow through some cooling mechanism. Cooling towers work well, but they evaporate water, so in that configuration you’re reducing water use by half or more, but you still use water. At the other end of the spectrum you’ve got air cooling, but that’s more expensive to build and may not be practical in a warmer climate. Even with 100% air cooling you’re still going to have maintenance issues that require topping up from time to time.
The major objection to air cooled chillers is their energy consumption.
The House just passed the Ratepayer Protection Act yesterday, with a pretty overwhelming majority if I’m understanding correctly.
“moving data centers into orbit, connecting them via satellite and Starlink, and requiring no cooling waters.”
I’m curious about this – is radiative cooling into vacuum going to be sufficient? They still generate heat.
I am skeptical that this will ever happen, but in space you’ve got both a heating problem and a cooling problem. On one side you’ve got the sun hitting you with 1361 watts per square meter. On the other side, you’ve got outer space at -270 degrees C. So really cold. The problem is that you can’t touch it. but you can radiate heat into it. So you need to have big radiators that can radiate both the heat from the sun and the servers into outer space and some mechanism to circulate heat around the facility to keep temperature across it reasonably constant.
The radiators can be done. Not cheap. Not small. It is a simple engineering problem. The scale entails economics primarily getting the junk into space in the first place.
Since getting the thermal energy out is the biggie, circulating enough to keep things at reasonable temperatures is a piece of cake, relatively speaking.
The reason this will never work has to do with nuclear radiation physics.
The computer chips will need to be radiation hardened.
The disk drives will likely be computer chips as well (as opposed to magnetic tape).
A bit flip and one could have a serious problem, so extensive error detection and correction will be needed and that will slow processing.
Now that all the background environmental effects are taken care of, one needs a nuclear event detector to quickly power everything down in the event of a solar flare.
No way to estimates how many maintenance and repair missions involving astronauts will be needed, but those will not be techie nerds with pocket protectors. I can use that expression. 🙂
The size of the energy radiators will be prohibitive. Likely insurmountable.
No more so that the Hoover Dam.
The scale will be challenging, but its cost getting it into space in the first place is where it could be prohibitive. Given political will or sufficient economic backing, not insurmountable.
Sufficient is an engineering challenge.
So is a sufficiently large SV array to power the baby.
Practical? Not with today’s technology and limited launch capacity.
Nuclear will come into vogue when/if fossil fuels start running out, get too expensive, or political machinations prevent its’ use or transport. The fear mongering over nuclear has been successful so far.
More likely when political machinations are eliminated that prevent timely and economical nuclear reactor construction and operation.
Still, you have a point.
What a muddle. Duggan is trying to get traction by needlessly tying together that which does not need to be tied together — which actually makes his argument weaker and less compelling than it would have otherwise been.
Does AI drive up electricity costs? Answer: Yes, as measured and reported by several studies.
Does AI consume huge amounts of fresh water and (with blow-down) add concentrated pollutants to water table? Answer: Yes, as many county water boards have reported across the country.
Could SMRs help with the first problem? Answer: Yes.
Could closed-loops help with the second? Answer: It depends — all closed loops actually require a second cooling loop; the ‘closed’ loop only applies to what’s going to the equipment itself, but not the loop that cools the closed loop. The cooling loop also (if tower-based) risks blow-down pollutants.
Does any of this involve or is any of this clarified by referencing some mysterious ‘play book’? Answer: No.
No evidence provided for the claim that the Chinese or a US ‘anti-nuclear crowd’ are responsible for the lack of nuclear power acceptance by utilities. Instead, utilities have been burned so many times by nuclear project delays and cost overruns, most want nothing to do with nuclear ever again.
Mostly due to the regulatory burdens.
As to not wanting them at all, if there is a way to do it cost effectively and with reasonable expectations of return on investment, it will happen.
The only hope for less expensive nuclear is SMR technology. However right now its costs are very high
No. Not the only hope. Perhaps best hope.
As to costs?
Remember how much you paid for your first PC versus a new one today?
Granted, SMR offers production economies of scale.
Initial new technologies always have high costs.
Once production in routine, costs come down.
The historical costs had nothing to do with the technology.
It had everything to do with regulatory burdens.
If SMRs face the same hurdles, well the outcome is non-deterministic. but likely low probabilities of success.
South Korea has a very successful nuclear sector – 13 reactors built since 1996 at an average construction time of 4.5 years the more recent ones actually quicker than that.
While I marvel at the University class ying and yang about this part of a larger subject, until this is clearly understood, literally nothing in this arena matters. As a forensic correlations historian Mil. and other. These two dates in abbreviated style when understood in entirety must be the focus, not the continuing political deception.
– 1917 – United States manipulated into WW1 – coupled with – The arrest of antiwar dissenters under the Espionage and Sedition acts inspired the formation in 1917 of the Civil Liberties Bureau, which in 1920 became the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
(This entrance was pre-planned by those hiring (yes hiring) Woodrow Wilson. Rockefeller & Morgan bought up 159 News Corporations, while J.P. Morgan financed the Roosevelt “Bull Moose” vote splitting campaign.) Taft, stated he would veto the installation of the Fed. Res.
– 1917 – Rockefeller & other Fed Res. members gave $22, 000,000 dollars to the Russian rebels, solidifying their success. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, and charter members like Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, were ardent Fabian Socialists identified with the Communist movement from the start of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
(Wealth mongers needed an enemy to create dysfunctional family – wealth from both sides.
This from weak Russian leadership and evil in the use of humanity for economic gain.)
– 1926 – Communist Psychopolitics – The description of a course taught at the “Lenin Institute” to Americans sent by John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller was member of the CFR This course still exists. What is “Psychopolitics? The art & science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of Individuals, Officers, bureaus, and Masses and the effecting of the conquest of enemy Nations through “Mental Healing”. Psychopolitics, is a less known oblique to Geo-politics, dealing with molding the highest strata of the “Mental Healing” arena – through this effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through “mental Healing”. Objective, conquest through social chaos. Beria, Mass Murderer of entire villages in the Russian conquests, was the Professor of the 2 year course.
Authors note: Beria was the longest-surviving and the most influential of Stalin’s secret police chiefs of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD). The responsibility of the NKVD was to ensure the internal security of the Soviet Union and it systematically did so through massive political repression, authorized murders of many hundreds of thousands of politicians and citizens, kidnappings, assassinations, and mass deportations. He was murdered when his works were accomplished.
– 1928 – Origin or genesis of the Totalitarian New World Order. This through Environmental mental fear application. At the Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in 1928, Communists wrote and approved “The Program” to bring in the New World Order. What most Americans cannot comprehend is the real nature of this diabolical criminal scheme. The Program of the Third International called for a global environmental program for transformation of all human beings on earth to accept the New World Order. These and other facts are brought to light by General Benton Partin in his videotape, Globalism: The Program. This through the above 1923-6 continuing Rockefeller Psychopolitics education program. Now think; 1892, 1904,1913,1923,1926,1934, 1945 and on.
We are in a global hidden war between good and evil. That war is between the Founding documents or Christian ethos of enlightenment of the individual and the psychopathic three legged milking stool of London City-State, Vatican City-State and Washington DC City-State. Creation of NGO and Association’s none standing while being hidden non-governmental handlers over control of the individual by the group.
See this little powerpoint for evidence – Slide # 13 (UNEP) if in a hurry: Globalhttp://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/28345505
In order to control the Global population they need Dysfunctional family – therefore they fight fossil fuel (algae) not fossils and Nukes, as the intent is something different – depopulated globe and enslavement of the remainder. Stop word Liberal (communism or Socialism are control) or progressive (are you kidding) – last (social justice)= group over individual. Raven6 1965 – 1993 Oath to Defend From Both Foreign and Domestic.
Here again is the modern gnostic impulse: history as hidden code rather than lived tragedy.
The ancients understood that empires rise and fall from ordinary vices—greed, fear, hubris, human nature—not clandestine committees issuing century-spanning scripts. This post mistakes weak correlation and bespoke timelines for conspiracy, treating disconnected dates as a unified plot, all the while ignoring counterfactuals and (most importantly) the archival drudgery that real history research demands.
The tragic conclusion, from Thucydides onward, accepts that humans repeat folly without needing a puppet master. Grand unified theories flatter believers with secret knowledge; they rarely survive contact with primary sources.
The ancients did not have the communications technology that enable clandestine committees.
Haha… I guess it depends on how one defines ancients and comm tech. None of the examples provided above took place in an era of advanced and secure comms, at least not any more secure than homing pigeons and runners!
I’m not saying that there’s no group of numpties orbiting Davos, getting up to mischief, or that the US had a dog in the WWI fight, or that ‘news’ doesn’t look coordinated, or that Black Rock’s success has been earned. I’m not saying any of that.
But that is exactly what Thucydides said — all of it is explained by human nature at the root. No need for a puppet master; fallen people choose poorly and take advantage of others, repeatedly.
No clandestine operations spanning centuries required.
I am enlightenend in that the One World Order predecessor was the New World Order dating back decades earlier than I previously understood.
Did you forget about Roswell and the invasion from Mars?
No.
I get all my scary science fiction at The Guardian.
Talking about data centres…Anyone see a problem/conflict? Trump is openly saying that AI risks are overhyped and at the same time his Media & Technology Group, entered a $6 billion merger with TAE Technologies to power AI data centers. What could possibly go wrong here?