SELASSIE

Sports enthusiast|| Special interest in financial speculation|| Messi|| Cule|| Phobian|| Retweets ≠ Endorsements

[Navy Or Die⚓️ @rihsadvocate]

Comparing Tyla to Rihanna is cute until you realize she doesn’t have a single VOCAL performance to show for.

It’s always waist this and whine that, but where are her VOCAL performances? Is she a belly dancer or a singer?

All she does is drop a cute airy vocal in between her underwhelming performances and then goes back to twerking.

She’s 24 still making that bubble gum pop it girl music Rihanna stopped making at age 19. At 24, Rihanna was singing strong ANTHEMS that Tyla would choke attempting to belt, She’s didn’t need her waist to entertain a crowd🩷

[Macro Liquidity by Sunil Reddy @Macrobysunil]

Commodity prices since the Iran war began:

Cocoa +116%
Heating Oil +68%
Gasoline +58%
Rice +41%
Cotton +35%
Wheat +30%
Crude Oil +28%
Sugar +27%
Coffee +13%
Corn +10%
Copper +5%

This is no longer just an Oil story.

The important part is the broadening.

Energy moved first. Now food and agricultural commodities are beginning to participate.

Energy inflation hurts margins.

Food inflation hurts households directly.

And once staples such as Rice and Wheat start rising sharply, the problem quickly moves from financial markets into inflation expectations, politics and social stability.

Energy shock → production costs → transport costs → food prices

The commodity complex is getting much more interesting.

[Chetuya Chinagolum @Chetuyachinago]

The Suez Canal was initially owned by British and French investors. In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the waterway, transforming it from a money-minting machine for Western oligarchs into a sovereign national asset and public good to support the Egyptian economy.

Desperate to regain control of the canal and depose Nasser, Britain and France brought Israel into the equation and concocted an elaborate, secret conspiracy known as the Protocol of Sèvres.

Here was the script: Israel would stage an unprovoked invasion across the Sinai Peninsula toward the Suez Canal. To justify the attack, Israel would claim it was merely defending its right to exist, framing the Sinai campaign as a necessary preemptive military operation to eliminate Palestinian militant bases and protect its border communities.

Britain and France would then suddenly intervene as "neutral peacemakers," issuing a theatrical ultimatum demanding that both Egypt and Israel immediately withdraw their forces from the canal zone to ensure the safety of international shipping.

When Egypt predictably refused this absurd "peace deal", which demanded they abandon their own sovereign territory, Britain and France would invade under the guise of "protecting the canal" and separating the combatants.

This theatrical script was necessary because, in 1956, Britain and France found themselves in a political and legal corner. Nasser had not broken any international laws. When the Egyptian President nationalized the Suez Canal Company in July 1956, he was careful not to give Western powers a clear legal casus belli. The canal was located entirely on Egyptian sovereign territory, and Nasser legally promised to financially compensate the foreign shareholders. Furthermore, Egypt kept the canal open to international traffic. As a result, international legal bodies and the United Nations made it clear that while the nationalization was deeply hostile to British and French financial interests, it was not an act of war.

If Britain and France had simply invaded Egypt to take back a corporate asset, it would have been universally condemned as naked, 19th-century imperial plunder and gunboat diplomacy. Crucially, there was no support from America either. President Dwight D. Eisenhower repeatedly and sternly warned British Prime Minister Anthony Eden that the U.S. would not support military aggression over the canal. Eisenhower accurately recognized that a Western attack would push the entire Arab world straight into the arms of the Soviet Union.

London and Paris knew they could not act openly without facing harsh diplomatic pushback from Washington. To solve this dilemma, Britain and France needed a narrative where they were not the aggressors, but the reluctant "saviors" of global trade.

All of this bloodshed was engineered specifically to appease Western oligarchs and protect the profit margins of British and French shareholders. Heavy fighting ensued; thousands of Egyptian soldiers and civilians were killed, along with British, French, and Israeli casualties. Ultimately, the Suez Crisis turned into an unmitigated diplomatic and military disaster for the dying European empires.

Today, Britain and France are no longer supreme global superpowers, but this historical reality has changed little to nothing regarding Israel's structural role as a Western attack dog in the Middle East.

Today, we continue to witness Israel initiate wars and launch preemptive strikes in the name of "defending itself." In response, Western powers predictably issue hollow condemnations, draft unanimous declarations, and urge the warring nations to negotiate. These diplomatic efforts predictably yield zero results as Israel "refuses" to withdraw, and the invaded nations rightly reject the absurd terms of relinquishing their own sovereignty. In turn, Washington uses the ensuing regional instability as a pretext to deploy naval strike groups to "protect global trade routes" and secure shipping lanes.

Even in the case of direct military invasions on foreign soil, such as in Lebanon or Syria, Western powers continue to write glorious, empty declarations urging restraint. Israel is often portrayed in Western media as a rogue actor that refuses to listen to America, creating the illusion that it is acting out of control. In reality, these devastating attacks would be absolutely impossible without American satellite telemetry, real-time aerial reconnaissance, and advanced targeting intelligence. The Israeli military could never sustain any prolonged aggression without the endless supply of 155mm artillery shells, heavy bunker-busting munitions, and billions in financial aid that America and European powers continuously funnel into their corridors. Furthermore, it is the guaranteed U.S. veto power at the United Nations Security Council that ensures the international community can never legally unite to end the conflict or force Israel to respect international law.

Of course, many argue that Israeli leaders are not sacrificing the lives of their citizens, their soldiers, and their international reputation merely at the behest of Western powers, and that they are genuinely pursuing their own independent survival interests in the region. While one could debate which specific regional interests Israel is chasing, we cannot help but notice a glaring, consistent pattern. These unprovoked aggressions and manufactured regional escalations somehow always end up protecting the Petrodollar hegemony on the global stage.
They conveniently clear out territories and secure offshore natural gas fields for Western oil majors like Chevron and TotalEnergies to exploit.

And above all, this forever war model, anchored entirely around defending "Israeli security interests" in the Middle East, somehow generates hundreds of billions of dollars in guaranteed annual revenues for the American military-industrial complex and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

[This Account Will Boost Your Knowledge @Dposts7]

I learned it 29 years later.

[么 ꜱ ᴀ ᴍ ꪜ, @___TheGOOdWitch]

Evolutionary Professor explains why we are all Africans🤔💯

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

🇻🇪🇺🇸 A country with the world's largest oil reserves cannot keep the lights on long enough to pump them.

That is roughly where Venezuela sits, and economist Steve Hanke, now advising through a member of the National Assembly, thinks there is a single move that changes everything.

Dollarization.

Hanke's argument is that the inflation rate he measures at 354.1% (the highest on earth) does not need years of adjustment programs. Replace the bolívar with the dollar officially and it disappears in days.

He has done this before. Ecuador in 2000. Montenegro. A currency board in Bulgaria. He also advised Caldera in 1995 to do exactly this, and Caldera agreed but never had the votes.

His view is that the failure to fix the currency then is part of what fertilised the ground for Chávez.

The country is already dollarized in practice anyway. Prices are quoted in dollars, people transact in dollars. The only holdout is the government, which keeps issuing the currency that produces the inflation.

Resistance, he says, does not come from ordinary Venezuelans. It comes from the bankers and businessmen who profit from a junk currency, and the politicians they fund.

Hanke puts the odds of it happening at between 50 and 80 percent. On a straight referendum, he thinks it wins in a landslide.

Then comes oil.

Venezuela is depleting its reserves at 0.2% a year. The majors run around 6%. At the current pace it would take 380 years to burn through half of what is in the ground. Which in economic terms means those reserves are worth roughly nothing today.

To change that you need investment. To get investment you need a stable currency, working power, and petroleum and mining laws with hard property rights. Production has fallen from 3.4 million barrels a day in 1998 to just over a million, and the physical infrastructure has rotted.

Exxon has called the country uninvestable. Hanke thinks dollarization is the confidence shock that flips that. Necessary, though not sufficient on its own.

On the dollar's own future, he is dismissive of the collapse narrative. In 2,500 years there have been fourteen international currencies, and knocking the king off the throne is rare. Add up reserves, swaps, trade and bonds over the last three years and dollar usage has ticked up, not down. The yuan is gaining fastest, but from almost nothing.

And on Canada, his read on why talks collapsed is blunt: the professionals on both sides were close to signing, then white House appointees walked in at the eleventh hour and piled on demands nobody could accept.

He thinks Carney will match tariffs dollar for dollar, with the American auto industry taking the hit.

Why would you want 85% of the Canadian public against you?

@steve_hanke

[Mirren @0gMirren]

A French writer explained the error in 1850. A Nobel economist repeated it in a Pennsylvania lecture hall in 1978. Governments still make it every year. Almost nobody watches the clip.

This is Milton Friedman on the parable of the broken window, the oldest mistake in economics.

The trick is that the destruction is visible and the cost is not. You see the glazier get paid. You never see what the shopkeeper would have bought instead.

Watch how he sets it up before he names the fallacy. He lets the audience agree with the wrong answer first.

176 years of warnings. Still the most persuasive bad idea in politics.

[SELASSIE @Vince_Dedu]

@_syfy_ He turn prime Ronaldinho after scoring the World Cup winning goal. I think we already have capable replacements for him

[Cedric Ferguson @SmoothFerg]

Gym Chronicles: Not focusing on what’s right, but focusing on what’s wrong. Teaching🦾🦾.
-
-
-
-
#boxing #teaching #focus #gymlife #learning

[SELASSIE @Vince_Dedu]

@_syfy_ Lollll 😂 I see bro. We just had to cash in on him

[SandyCrush❤️ @SandyCrush912]

This is definitely the type of woman men will want to bring home to mom ❤️

[chief Nke omere jụọ oyị ™°🔺 @Owenchief_]

Very simple and smart

[Anambra 1st son @UchePOkoye]

How the Ghana Prime Minister Kofi Busia sent Nigerians out of their country in 1969, during Nigeria Biafra war.

[classic clips🍟 🎥🍿 @babygold37]

Love don't cost a thing.
Incredible movie🍿

[LUKE @LukeFurryjo]

Your trainer will have you work on certain exercise. Your punches are an essential exercise repeatedly done until you perfect it! Your jab is a guide essential finding your target in executing of your punching techniques.

[XLadyGlow @xladyglow]

Wait for the last part🫵 😳🥰✨

[Every Movie Plug @everymovieplug]

Denzel Washington cried in this scene and the tear was completely real.

Director Edward Zwick revealed that the tear wasn’t planned. Denzel was so deeply immersed in the character during the practical whip takes that his body reacted naturally while maintaining eye contact with the camera.

[Worldboss @Morayoorr]

This guy deserves a channel on dstv😂😂😂

[Rincol @RincolFi]

Pep Guardiola did not teach Erling Haaland how to score. He taught him how to become more than a goalscorer.

Thierry Henry asked Pep a brilliant question about how he had improved Haaland. Pep’s response was a masterclass in player development.

Haaland was already an elite goalscorer. Pep’s focus was on adding layers to his game, from his connections with teammates to his understanding of spaces and how he could make those around him better.

Then Pep referenced Eric Abidal. He remembered coaching Abidal at 27–29 and still seeing significant room for improvement in his build-up play.

This is one of the core of Pep’s philosophy. He does not look at a player and say, “This is what he is.”

He asks: “What can he become?”

The conversation is worth watching...