reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Over the past few days, the conversation covered rising U.S. gas prices, with average prices surpassing $4 per gallon on Tuesday, the highest in nearly four years. The discussion then shifted to geopolitical tensions around Iran, Israel, and the United States. It was noted that Donald Trump is reportedly seeking an off ramp from the war against Iran, but every time there are negotiations toward ceasefires or frameworks for talks, Israel allegedly bombs to scuttle those plans. Joe Kent was cited as saying that there is significant frustration inside the Trump administration because Israeli actions derail negotiations. Further comments stated that whenever Trump attempts to move toward negotiation, Israelis “come in and they kill negotiators,” “kill members of the government,” and “bomb the infrastructure” to show that the U.S. is not negotiating in good faith, with the implication that U.S. verbal assurances are hollow while Israel acts unrestrained. It was suggested that only when the U.S. actually restrains Israel’s support will their behavior change, despite reports of high-level admonitions from the Vice President or others. Trump published a note on Truth Social addressed to Europe and the UK, criticizing their inability to obtain jet fuel due to the Strait of Hormuz and urging the United Kingdom to buy oil from the United States, build up courage, and take control of Hormuz, implying the U.S. would no longer assist them. The program then brought in economist Professor Richard Werner to analyze global economic directions amid oil and gas price concerns, food stocks, fertilizer, helium, and related supply chains. Werner, based in Europe, emphasized Europe’s dependence on energy, fertilizer, and other raw materials from abroad, noting that Europe has thrived on an international trade model that moved up value-added production. He described the current situation as a policy-induced crisis or potential catastrophe, with energy supply already restricted by past policy choices (e.g., cutting ties with Russia for energy, decommissioning nuclear and coal plants). He warned of a possible major shock to the economy, comparing the risk to the 2020 experience of policy-induced throttling. The discussion touched on financial vulnerability, including concerns about how embargos or disruptions could affect food supply chains and economic stability. Werner described the situation as intentional policy shifts and indicated a broader realignment of the global order, with institutions like BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the New Development Bank fostering greater influence for China and other non-U.S. actors. He asserted that there is a push for a new international order that gives more power to alternative players, criticizing U.S. dominance in the IMF and World Bank. Werner argued that the “petrodollar system” established after the 1970s allowed continued U.S. economic supremacy, and suggested the world is witnessing a shift away from the dollar’s dominance toward alternative systems, potentially including digital currencies. He claimed Western countries are moving toward digital control measures, including strict currency surveillance and restrictions, while BRICS countries show more interest in gold as a store of value. He also described increasing censorship and sanctions in the EU regarding dissenting opinions, tying this to the rollout of digital currencies and the potential for controllable spending if governments “switch off” money. The exchange concluded with gratitude for Werner’s analysis and a hope for cooler heads to prevail to minimize impact, while acknowledging the likelihood of a new world order.

Speaker 0 argues that war is a precursor for lockdowns 2.0 and that everyone should be aware of this. They reference the International Energy Agency, noting that the IEA “just released a 10 report on measures to take as the price of oil increases,” and claim that the IEA’s recommendation sounds “just like the COVID lockdowns.” The speaker asserts that the goal behind these measures is to track, trace, and control people, and then lists several examples of the proposed behaviors: stay at home, work from home, use public transport, no cars in the city, carpooling, use electric cars, reduce speed limits, and reduce air travel. They compare the IEA’s approach to how the WHO operated during COVID, asserting that the IEA is now asking people to do their part while they themselves fly on private jets and laugh in the audience’s face. The speaker suggests that as governments implement digital ID and digital currency, the next step will be to block individuals from buying gas or plane tickets if they exceed the recommended limit. They claim that this outcome was anticipated, stating that it is “part of their agenda,” and express the view that it is time to push back. The speaker warns against “the climate hoax” and frames it as something designed to control people, urging listeners to stay free.

Speaker 0 argues that in the last four years there have been four “once in a century storms,” naming hurricane Helene, the Maui fires, and California wildfires. They claim these events are part of a pattern of engineered weather, stating that “they openly admitted at Davos, and our government is geoengineering” and that chemicals such as nickel ion are sprayed into the sky from aircraft to soak up moisture. The white trails seen across the sky are described as absorbing water, expanding, and then being guided with frequencies and directed energy weapons to create these storms. The speaker asserts that there will be “undeniable…proof that our government engineered this storm,” and asks how long it would take before someone is imprisoned for poisoning a road with water that freezes and causes deadly accidents, using an analogy about a steep hill and a road turned to ice. They claim the coming storm will kill American citizens and wonder when those responsible will be held accountable, inviting viewers to check out the video for proof of government geoengineering. Speaker 1 responds by stating the elephant in the room: the flight path is not normal. They note four different planes, including a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, flying highly unusual patterns right before the historic ice storm. They explain that the Stratotanker is typically used for aerial refueling, but these patterns suggest otherwise, mentioning that the KC-135 Stratotanker “could potentially be adapted for geoengineering purposes, such as stratospheric aerosol injection,” which releases reflective particles to cool the planet. They imply the United States Air Force is seeding clouds before the storm, calling it a coincidence yet suggesting it is related to geoengineering. They describe “the produce, the chemtrail” of USAF Stratotankers flying in circles over the Front Range. Speaker 0 adds that not only is there fumigation across nearly every state ahead of the historic ice storm, but in Tennessee there are visible signs of a massive amount of electromagnetic energy being pumped into the atmosphere ahead of the storm, while suggesting it is not a coincidence. They note Texas appears cloudy, followed by Indiana, and then claim to observe “frequency waves.” Speaker 1 reiterates the focus on Oklahoma, underscoring the widespread pattern and the associated frequency waves as part of the atmospheric manipulation preceding the storm.

Water is described as a precious commodity, and Stan Meyer's invention is presented as potentially increasing its value. He has developed a water fuel cell that replaces his old gas tank and breaks down water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen, with the hydrogen used to run his dune buggy. It is claimed that the water fuel cell can operate using various water sources: rain water, well water, city water, ocean water, snow, or even salt water, with no adverse effect to the fuel cell. Speaks note that Myers began working on this project four years ago. He is described as not being a scientist, not a chemist, and never having graduated from college. Meyer is portrayed as determined to design something to protect the country from oil embargoes. A calculation is cited: if the dune buggy is driven from Los Angeles to New York, it would roughly use 22 gallons of water. The Pentagon is mentioned as having flown a lieutenant colonel in last week to look at Meyer's invention. There is talk of possibly using it in the Star Wars defense program and to run army tanks.

A year ago, it took an hour of work for a middle wage worker to get 5.5 gallons of gas, but now they can get 8 gallons. This is a 40% improvement. However, the current gas price is around $3.60 per gallon, compared to $2.39 when Biden took office. So, in less than 2 years, we are in a worse place. The speaker admits that things are worse than before, indicating a pretty bad situation.

There is a claim that addressing this issue is a money-making scheme, similar to what the Rothschild family did in the past. The speaker challenges David Rothschild and accuses him of being involved in a scam. They mention that the polar ice caps on Mars are receding faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting. The speaker questions how SUVs could be causing this, stating that these planets are not closer to the sun.

- Speaker 0 notes that the United States Postal Service is adding a fuel charge to every package due to fuel cost increases tied to Iran–Israel tensions and says fuel costs have jumped more than 30% since the war began. - Reuters/Financial Times mention: US inflation to surge to 4.2% on energy shock; OECD warnings. Fuel lines are long worldwide, with coverage of shortages in Slovenia, parts of Europe, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines; some countries have run out of petrol or declared a state of emergency. - Speaker 1 paraphrases Putin, saying the energy shock from the Iran war is devastating globally, harming global logistic and production chains and the fuel industry. He claims Europe will beg Russia for oil and gas, referencing a pipeline blown up by the United States. - Mike Adams (Speaker 2, Health Ranger) joins to discuss fuel and food shortages and global impacts. He asserts: energy is the primary driver of affordable food, transportation, and personal freedom; farming is hydrocarbon-intensive due to energy inputs for fertilizer and for planting/harvesting; the Strait of Hormuz constriction worsens scarcity. He argues the Strait was open before the war and that actions against Nord Stream pipelines and the Strait have created energy constraints, predicting severe economic and food shortages until Hormuz reopens. - Speaker 3 (a senator) is shown commenting on the war costs ($2,000,000,000 daily) and casualties; notes that policy decisions and actions have led to escalating prices and potential long-term impacts on Americans. - Speaker 4 and Speaker 2 discuss a pattern of energy lockdowns, global shortages, and potential government controls: universal basic income (UBI) tied to digital control via a CBDC, with quotas on food and energy consumption; off-ramps include off-grid solar power and EV adoption. They suggest this could lead to government-delivered food and fuel, and to a broader move toward centralized control. - The conversation covers the European angle: Putin and the diplomats say Europe may beg Russia for cheap energy as Nord Stream pipelines were disrupted; China–Russia energy deals and Mongolia–Northern China gas transmission are noted as supporting Chinese industry. - Speaker 4 observes European leadership as having pursued energy restrictions and nuclear shutdowns, calling it “energy suicide” and expressing sympathy for European people, while criticizing their leaders for energy policy. - Speaker 2 discusses the petrodollar system’s fragility, noting potential shifts as allies and non-allies trade outside the petrodollar; warns of inflationary effects on the U.S. and potential mass selling of U.S. Treasuries by indebted economies like Japan. - The discussion touches on broader implications: a potential shift toward AI and robotics replacing human labor, with energy scarcity viewed as a driver for social and economic controls; concerns about large-scale power disruptions and rationing, and the possibility of a 10-year horizon for significant changes in labor and energy policy. - In closing, Mike Adams emphasizes the need for viewers to be informed and distinguishes between differing levels of information sources, inviting continued engagement.

Speaker 0 argues that there is insider information at play, noting that people inside the administration are making huge stock bets ahead of President Trump’s announcements on oil, with tens of millions of dollars in Brent crude futures short bets placed twenty minutes before the news breaks, and questions why there is no investigation. They assert that somebody has insider information and imply it should be illegal. Speaker 1 discusses potential legal and regulatory issues surrounding prediction markets, distinguishing them from traditional gambling. They explain that in Texas they cannot gamble on sports via apps, but in Missouri those apps work, and prediction markets are not considered gambling. They reference a Trump administration stance that effectively signaled insiders within the administration should stop gambling in prediction markets, suggesting awareness that people inside the administration were making plays on these markets. Speaker 1 notes uncertainty about whether the big players are inside or outside the administration, but emphasizes that the insider trading angle during the administration hasn’t received much attention. They recount following the topic sinceTrump’s election, noting early claims that Trump would crash the stock market, which Speaker 1 says did not happen and, in fact, the market rose for those who invested then. They describe the market as fluctuating with corrections, and remark that Pam Bondi stated the market was hovering around 49,000–50,000, implying continued manipulation. Speaker 1 asserts that Trump often makes declarations on Fridays right before the stock market closes, attributing this pattern to market manipulation. They claim to have bet against the narrative that the stock market would collapse under Trump, and that those bets performed well. The speaker says they feel a bit guilty about profiting, noting that friends who run stock brokerages look at them as if from the future, and claims that the White House is effectively running an insider trading operation. They state that knowing someone is coming to the White House or that a person from a big tech company is arriving allows one to get ahead of the news and secure about a 5% stock bump, or a 5% gain by investing before the news becomes public. Speaker 0 adds that with a Trump tweet, markets swing drastically—either ending civilization or extending a ceasefire—implying that market movement is driven by Trump’s statements.

Speaker 0 questions whether 40-year high inflation is attributable to price gouging, stating this is the premise of ads they are watching. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 is misrepresenting what is being said. Speaker 0 asks what caused the 40-year high inflation, questioning if supermarkets or Galaxy had anything to do with it. Speaker 0 suggests it was putting too much stimulus on top of a supply constraint. Speaker 0 states that it looks like "they're not being truthful" and are trying to deflect blame onto corporations.

The first speaker warns of an international disaster and a potential World War III scenario, explaining that national gasoline could move toward roughly $3.50 to $3.70 a gallon if disruptions persist over the next week. They frame this as how the war starts showing up in family budgets and note that Box News reports the US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. The second speaker introduces a Box News Alert: the US economy did not add jobs in February; it lost 92,000 jobs, with unemployment ticking up to 4.4%. The first speaker says the Labor Department tried to soften the data by pointing to strike activity, winter weather, seasonal factors, and post-Christmas effects, but argues those factors aren’t enough. They contend the real problem is the timing: a weaker labor market paired with a war-driven energy shock, which could revive stagflation fears and prompt markets to reassess. They point to one of the worst weeks in months for global bond markets and say traders worry the energy-driven inflation crisis will keep central banks more hawkish for longer. They reference the Cleveland Fed president suggesting a policy shift toward holding rates longer, with future rate cuts already sliding as markets brace for energy costs to feed into inflation data. The first speaker emphasizes that energy is central because higher oil affects more than oil itself: it flows into trucking, food, airfare, home building and real estate, appliances, freight, fertilizer, utility bills, and everything related to growing, moving, cooling, heating, packaging, and delivering goods. They claim it’s not theoretical and note that companies are already warning about rising costs across supply chains. They state that air and sea corridors through the Gulf have been dramatically disrupted. The speakers highlight an underreported angle: a viral Fox News Weekend segment in which hosts asserted that they have already beaten Iran, listing claims of how they are winning.

The speaker demonstrates how to generate hydrogen gas from water using a simple setup involving a plumbing tube, metal pieces, and a battery pack. The process creates a flammable gas that can potentially be used as fuel for cars. The speaker suggests that the government and oil companies are aware of this technology but choose to keep it hidden from the public. This method provides a way to produce fuel from water on demand, challenging the conventional belief that oil is the only source of energy.

"If you cannot see that the government is lying to you on a regular basis, I don't know what to tell you. Like, I honestly don't." "It's both sides. It's all sides are the Federal Reserve. They're the ones who orchestrate all the lies." "The government lies to you on a regular basis to tell you that you're running out of water when in reality there's unlimited water under our feet." "There's the primarywaterinstitute.org that people can check out." "You gotta save the whales. Save the polar bears. Turn off that water." "The water is unlimited." "Oil's never running out." "There was a car that came out that was in the nineteen thirties that ran on compressed air." "Imagine that, Bill. You got air all around you at all times. You'd never run out of anything." "Same with water. Since we're never running out of water, you'd have unlimited fuel." "So the people have to realize that they're being lied to because when you have the Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds in control of all of all of the things that people are using on a regular basis, why would they give somebody something that doesn't run out?"

Speaker 0 asks Donald what happened to lowering gas prices and says they need answers. Speaker 1 assumes Speaker 0 lives in California and suggests they should talk to their governor instead of Trump. Speaker 1 states they are paying $2.69 for gas. Speaker 1 concludes by saying California is a ship and they don't know what to tell Speaker 0.

The speaker claims small businesses are very important and expresses interest in the listener's restaurant. He states that "they" want to get rid of gas, even though the U.S. has abundant gas and oil. He criticizes the push for electric cars, citing California's blackouts and brownouts, and promises to lower utility costs by 50%, offering both electric and gas options. He rejects hydrogen cars due to their alleged tendency to explode, rendering occupants unrecognizable. Lower energy costs and interest rates will give people more money to spend at restaurants.

This is a 1998 Ford Explorer Sports, known for being a gas guzzler. However, the speaker has found a solution to improve gas mileage. By using distilled water with a teaspoon of baking soda as a catalyst and applying 12 volts of electricity, they separate hydrogen from oxygen. This hydrogen is then sent into the combustion chamber, resulting in a 100% burn instead of the usual 30%. The benefits include improved engine performance, quieter idling, increased torque, and horsepower.

Speaker 0 proposed a two-part plan regarding oil and the Strait of Hormuz. First, he suggested buying oil from the United States of America, stating that “we have plenty. We have so much.” Second, he urged building up “delayed courage,” saying it should have been done before and should have been done with us as we asked. He instructed: “Go to the straight and just take it. Protect it. Use it for yourselves.” Regarding Iran, Speaker 0 asserted that Iran has been “essentially decimated,” and that “the hard part is done, so it should be easy.” He claimed that when this conflict ends, “the strait will open up naturally. It’ll just open up naturally.” He concluded that Iran’s neighbors “are gonna wanna be able to sell oil because that's all they have to try and rebuild.”

Speaker 0 argues that there is extreme manipulation of oil futures prices in the paper market, diverging from the physical price of oil. He claims the paper market price for oil is around $92–$95, which is heavily manipulated by the U.S. government, while the actual physical price is about $142 a barrel. He asserts the manipulated paper price will eventually collide with the physical price, but the U.S. government and treasury will prevent that from happening soon, noting that markets no longer have true price discovery across gold, silver, stocks, and treasuries due to central bank actions. He contends that from the White House outward, messaging is fake, including a staged DoorDash incident and the claim that there is no inflation, as well as misrepresentations about Iran. He references JD Vance, stating that Vance characterized Iran’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz as economic terrorism and suggested, “two can play at that game,” while later claiming we will abide by international law. He views Vance as revealing a contradiction in good-faith negotiations, alleging Vance did not have authority to negotiate and had to consult Netanyahu to decide to walk away, portraying Netanyahu as driving the push to keep the war going. Turning back to oil, Speaker 0 discusses global oil supplies and an estimated daily deficit of around 8–10 million barrels per day, projecting that by June the world will run out of above-ground oil. He explains that “above ground oil” is what matters for immediate demand, and that even though oil remains underground, it won’t help fill immediate needs like for tractors. With oil running short, he says desperate buyers could bid prices higher, potentially reaching $200–$250 per barrel if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. He views this as a scenario in which the United States could face economic pain and allied countries could experience industrial, power grid, and economic collapse, possibly even regime collapse, with prolonged damage taking years to recover. Speaker 0 predicts that the United States could lose Taiwan as an ally, risking loss of Taiwan’s semiconductor supply, which he says would be devastating to the U.S. and Western countries but a victory for China. He argues that the opposite narratives about “winning” are incoherent; he portrays a cycle of changing claims about whether the Strait is open or closed as evidence of a lack of consistent “winning conditions.” Finally, Speaker 0 urges preparedness, promoting his podcast and websites for further information, and endorses satellite communications as part of resilience planning. He does not endorse the promotional content at the end in this summary.

Speaker 0 questions whether the climate change narrative is dying, noting that many people are afraid to say so for fear of being called a climate denier. They claim a growing number of people believe “this is bullshit.” They relate conversations with energy industry people who said, “the thing is collapsing because the money people are realizing we can't pay for this,” and that the grid cannot rely on solar and wind because it “needs to maintain frequency.” They reference Spain shutting down last year and describe the grid as unstable now. They say, for the last ten years, engineers have known there’s a major problem but won’t say it in meetings because “the climate stuff comes from the top and you can't question it,” yet this is starting to break down as people realize trillions of dollars have been spent to move from “85% of our energy is from, you know, real fuels” to “84.2” or so, which they view as insane. Speaker 0 asserts that “Real fuels are gonna be needed,” and notes a shift in stance on the climate hoax. They claim the pivot is happening because “they want data centers and they want to pour massive energy into them,” and suddenly “don’t care about the climate because all the boys up the top who are pushing the climate are now saying, no. We need data centers. We need CBDC. We need a crypto,” which is described as a huge energy use, along with mentions of AI. They conclude that it’s “always crypto,” and state that these developments reveal the climate pushers to be liars.

First speaker: Iran doesn’t really need to attack American ships or force the strait to open because it could actually be advantageous for the strait to remain closed. There are floating oil reserves and cargo ships in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea that Iran could rely on. In fact, Iran has a substantial stockpile: 160,000,000 barrels of Iranian crude already floating at sea, outside the Persian Gulf, past the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. That amount could fuel a country like Germany for over two months, and most of it is headed to Chinese independent refiners. Exports remain high, and the blockade is real, even if the timing is late. Do you agree that Iran is prepped for this day? Second speaker: I do agree. I think this is not harming the Iranians as much as it is harming the United States and the rest of the world. First speaker: What is Trump’s thought process? He has spoken with secretary Besant and other advisers, so he’s already sought advice. What alternative could work in Trump’s favor? Second speaker: Whenever the first round of negotiations ended, the president believed that his style of brinksmanship would produce immediate capitulation and agreement by the Iranians. The Iranians have never negotiated like that. Even the first treaty in the late 2000s took a long time to negotiate, not one and done. This administration wants short-term gains, and that isn’t possible with the Iranians. In the short term, the Iranians are in the driver’s seat. Negotiating and diplomacy are very difficult work; you don’t bully your way through. There is no unconditional surrender. There is none of that except in the president’s mind, unfortunately.

Speaker 0 asserts that governments claim they must invade countries for oil, and says, "Oh, you didn't know it's unlimited? Oh, that's just a banker's tale." They claim Russian petroleum geologists have drilled past the strata and have noticed that the oil doesn't run out.

Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 only protests Western energy and never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia. Speaker 1 denies ever doing so. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 will condemn OPEC Energy and their use of private jets, and if Speaker 1 has ever been on a private jet. Speaker 1 claims to own 100 private jets and admits to frequently using them. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over Speaker 1's evasive responses.

Speaker 0 explains that once goals are achieved, Americans understand that “we’re real partners.” Speaker 1 reinforces: “Real partners.” Speaker 0 contends that what has to be done is to have alternative routes instead of going through the choke points of the Hormuz Straits and the Bab El Mandeb Straits in order to have the flow. Speaker 1 prompts: “Wait for it.” Speaker 0 continues: “Just have oil pipelines going west to through the Arabian Peninsula To where? Right up to Israel, right up to our Mediterranean. There” Speaker 1 interjects: “you have it.” Speaker 0 asserts that the real objective of all of this was to intentionally—“they knew that starting a war with Iran would cause a shutdown of both the Bab El Mamdab Straits, which is what the Houthis can affect in the Red Sea, and then the Strait Of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down.” He states that they knew that would happen because their long-term goal has always been to force the Muslim countries in the Arab states, the Gulf Arab states, to route all of their oil exports through Israel. Speaker 1 adds: “Therefore, Israel can now control up to 40% of the world's petroleum. And that amount of control would absolutely make them a superpower, and that's exactly what they want.” Speaker 0 goes on to say that if Iran falls, it’s not going to be Turkey next; it’s going to be Egypt because they have to take back the Suez Canal. He notes that Egypt had control during the Arab-Israeli war for a brief time, but the UN forced them to give it back to Egypt. He emphasizes that they have always wanted that back. Speaker 1 contributes: “Because if they can control the Suez Canal and take that away from Egypt and they can force all the Gulf states to run all their oil through Israel. Israel controls the world, and that's their ultimate objective. That's the objective of this war.”

Speaker 0 explains that petroleum wasn’t what they thought it was and asks if it’s just a mineral or how to classify its origin. He notes that when petroleum was first found, as motors and rails expanded in the early 1800s, oil shifted from a lubricant to a fuel, increasing its value. Rockefeller is described as the smartest man in the business at the time, making much of his money from both the transport and sale of petroleum. He describes the pricing challenge: oil has essentially no initial ground cost, so to raise prices, the industry would make it appear scarce, implying the need to conserve barrels. A pivotal event is highlighted: in 1892, at a Geneva convention of scientists determining what organic substances are, a definition emerged. The convention defined organic as a substance with hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, usually living things. Rockefeller reportedly sent scientists who stated that oil is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, thus derived from rotting formerly living matter, leading to the conclusion that oil is a fossil fuel. He claims the definition was used to describe oil as residue from formerly living matter, and that today petroleum is labeled a fossil fuel. He challenges the idea of fossil fuel by pointing out that there has never been a fossil found below 16,000 feet, while oil is drilled at depths of 28,000–33,000 feet daily, arguing this fact contradicts the fossil-fuel claim. He asserts the term “fossil fuel” is used to create the impression of scarcity and depletion, linking it to depletion allowances and the belief that oil supplies are running out. He contends the world’s oil supply is not near depletion and is the second most prevalent liquid on earth, with many deposits still untapped. Regarding pricing, he asserts that those in charge of petroleum aim to keep prices high, using the rhetoric of increasing scarcity to justify higher costs, including advocating for a world price rather than disparate national prices. He claims this pricing objective is part of a broader strategy, as seen in attempts to set a world price for oil and other commodities like wheat. He recounts a four-year federal staff energy seminar during the so-called energy crisis, attended by high-level officials and even Henry Kissinger. The purpose, he says, was to propagate a propaganda line to establish a world price for oil. He mentions Kantrowitz, head of Kantrowitz Laboratories, who, at the table with geologists, challenged the fossil-fuel assertion, dismissing the notion and prompting laughter at their expense. Kantrowitz reportedly urged the geologists to drop the fossil-fuel claim, noting it’s in all books and papers, tracing the idea back to the 1892 conference, described in a thick scientific encyclopedia by Dieben Ostrand Company. In summary, he argues there is a deliberate push to classify petroleum as a fossil fuel, supported by scientific and political maneuvering, with a substantial financial motive behind maintaining high prices and controlling markets. He concludes that “there’s a dollar sign behind almost everything.”

The speaker claims the elite and oil companies are suppressing the fact that cars and houses can be powered by water. The speaker demonstrates a device made from a plumbing tube, a metal piece with rubber bolts and washers to prevent metal-to-metal contact, and two wires. When the tube is filled with water and connected to a car jump-starter battery pack, it creates hydrogen and oxygen separation, producing hydrogen gas. The speaker ignites the gas, causing an explosion, and suggests this on-demand hydrogen production could fuel cars. The speaker concludes that people have been lied to their whole lives.

The speaker discusses how the current energy policies of the president have led to an increase in oil prices, which in turn may be providing Iran with more funds to support terrorist groups. Speaker 1 disagrees with this viewpoint, stating that they do not believe our actions are directly funding Iran. Speaker 0 argues that by restricting oil supply in the US and regulating the industry, the administration is indirectly contributing to higher oil prices and potentially benefiting Iran. Speaker 1 avoids commenting on this hypothetical scenario and does not provide a clear answer.