Tag: corporations

‘Making a Killing, Literally and Figuratively’: Big Oil Profits Set to Double Amid Deadly Heat

An analysis published Tuesday highlights how the world’s top fossil fuel companies are expected to rake in nearly twice as much in second-quarter profits as they did during the first quarter of 2026, a windfall that comes as their polluting products help fuel extreme heat that kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world annually.

Oxfam International’s analysis warns that the profits of the world’s six largest oil and gas companies are on track to skyrocket from $23 billion during the first quarter of the year to $45 billion in Q2 as emissions from their products intensify deadly heatwaves.

“Projected full-year profits of BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies amount to $147 billion, more than their combined profits over the previous 21 months (Q2 2024 to Q4 2025),” the report states. “Among the biggest winners, Chevron is expected to report that it has quadrupled its profits to $1,200 a second in the last three months, while ExxonMobil’s profits are expected to have tripled to $1,800 a second.”

“Oil and gas corporations share an outsized responsibility for the climate crisis,” the publication continues. “Emissions from BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies were sufficient to cause around 1 in 4 heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023—heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change.”

Keep reading

The Fourth Amendment Is Being Liquidated by Subscription

The black pole does not look like tyranny.

That is the point.

It looks like street furniture. A small black camera. A solar panel. A utility box. Nothing dramatic. No uniformed officer standing beside it. No marked police vehicle. No flashing lights. No warrant presented to the driver. In many communities, there was barely any public debate before it appeared.

Yet the device photographs nearly every vehicle that passes. It reads the license plate, records the time and location, identifies the make, model and color, and may catalogue distinctive features such as bumper stickers, roof racks, dents, scratches and damage. That information is uploaded into a cloud platform where police can search for vehicles across time and geography. [1]

The government once needed detectives, informants, stakeouts and court orders to follow someone across a city.

Now it can type a plate number into a privately operated dashboard.

Flock Safety calls this public safety.

A more accurate description is a privately administered ledger of American movement.

This is not merely a story about one overly ambitious technology company. Flock is the case study, but the real subject is the creation of a public-private surveillance regime in which corporations collect the data, venture capital finances the infrastructure, local governments purchase access, federal agencies find side doors into the system, and ordinary citizens are told that none of this is particularly concerning because they were technically visible while driving on a public road.

The state did not formally repeal the Fourth Amendment.

It outsourced its erosion.

Keep reading

The Technocrats Want Your Water: UN’s “Global Water Bankruptcy” Exposed

In 2005 the CEO of (WEF partner) Nestlé famously announced that water was not a human right.

Having announced their intentions, the technocrats set about crafting a crisis narrative to take control of this precious resource.

This year—not coincidentally coinciding with the UN/WEF announcements that we were entering a food crisis and must adopt genetically engineered crops—that crisis rhetoric was amped up to 11.

In a January 2026 report, the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) declared “Global Water Bankruptcy.” Far worse than a mere water crisis, “water bankruptcy” describes a persistent post-crisis state wherein long-term human withdrawals from surface and groundwater exceed inflows, causing “effectively irreversible degradation” of water capital.

The term “bankruptcy” itself telegraphs their intention to seize it all, framing society as insolvent and taking our water into receivership so that technocrats can step in control the resource.

The UNU-INWEH, naturally, was quite thrilled, calling the need for a form of global “bankruptcy management” governance an “opportunity that cannot be overlooked” [PDF, p6] They quite openly salivate at a chance to codify their temporary crisis measures into permanent technocratic oversight of this lasting condition. Specifically, they cite a need for:

  • Transparent [monitoring and] accounting of and enforceable limits on water use,
  • protection of “water-related natural capital,”
  • equity-focused transitions that protect vulnerable groups (smallholders, women, Indigenous communities, low-income populations),
  • and a rebalancing of demand, restructuring of rights, and reorienting of infrastructure, technology, finance, and trade.

Let’s look at each.

Keep reading

Why are taxpayers paying for pipelines private companies used to build?

Canada’s pipeline sector, once entirely funded by private investment, is now leaning on taxpayer subsidies after years of federal regulatory hurdles.

On Tuesday’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, Noah Jarvis, Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, joined Ezra to discuss two newly floated pipeline proposals — one from Alberta to the Port of Vancouver championed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, and another to Ontario backed by Premiers Doug Ford and Danielle Smith. 

Both projects are expected to require significant government subsidies, in sharp contrast to a decade ago, when private companies competed to build pipelines without a dime of public money, including proposals that were later killed by federal decisions, such as Northern Gateway and Energy East.

“The government is very much in the way right now,” Noah said, pointing to the Impact Assessment Act, passed by the Trudeau government in 2019, and the industrial carbon tax as key barriers driving up the cost of producing Alberta oil.

Noah cited a recent Fraser Institute report suggesting the industrial carbon tax, if it climbs to $140 per tonne, could add roughly 20 percent to the cost of producing a barrel of Alberta oil. Canada, he noted, is the only country that levies such a tax on its oil and gas producers. He urged Smith and Ford to pressure Ottawa to repeal the Impact Assessment Act and roll back the carbon tax, rather than turning to subsidies. 

Ezra questioned why neither proposal has any backing from producers, calling the Vancouver route’s estimated $30-billion price tag “insane,” and describing the Ontario pipeline as “at best, PR gimmicks, and at worst, government white elephants.”

“You don’t have to spend all this money,” Ezra said. “Just get rid of those blockages and blockades and regulations.”

Keep reading

Flock Safety CEO Says If You Don’t Like His Pervasive Surveillance Cameras, You’re A Terrorist

Garrett Langley is the founder and CEO of Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based public safety technology company specializing in automated license plate readers and drone surveillance. 

In the video below, Langley refers to the organization ‘DeFlock’ that works to stop the expansion of his products, as terrorists.

Langely also freely admits his company tracks people. In the video he admits his company uses AI to integrate massive amounts of data to track anything that moves in the view of his devices.

The Flock System has also been disclosed to contain microphones and other capabilities, to track audio, bluetooth, etc.

This is not freedom, this is Big Brother.

Keep reading

Seeds of Surveillance: The Track and Trace Playbook

QR codes are usually associated with convenience. In the Seed Act 2026, they become something else entirely: extending traceability to what is grown before it enters the supply chain, changing who has control over our food.

The Seed Act 2026 is presented by the Union Government of India as a necessary modernisation measure to curb the circulation of fake or substandard seeds.

The stated aim is the rollout of a new nationwide traceability system that mandates QR codes on all seed packets, compulsory registration for all commercial seed entities and significantly heightened penalties—up to ₹30 lakh (€27,000+ euros) and three years’ imprisonment—for seed fraud.

The government has consistently maintained that the Seed Act 2026 is designed to regulate only the commercial seed trade and will not interfere with the long-standing rights of farmers to save, sow, exchange or share seeds within their communities.

Officials emphasise that these traditional, non-branded and community-based practices remain a vital part of India’s agricultural heritage and are explicitly exempt from the registration and digital traceability requirements imposed on commercial entities.

While the government maintains that the Act will rebuild farmer trust, streamline quality control and strictly protect the traditional rights of farmers to save, share and exchange seeds, critics like the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (an umbrella coalition of 400+ farmers’ unions) view these reforms as a well-worn corporate strategy of enclosure that eradicates seed and food sovereignty.

Critics argue that these government assurances are insufficient and potentially misleading. They contend that by failing to explicitly define and protect community seed systems as a distinct sector, the Act leaves them vulnerable to administrative overreach.

Farmer organisations worry that without clear, ironclad legal safeguards, the pressure to comply with registration and branding requirements—especially for small-scale seed producers who may use simple packaging—will effectively force them to adopt the same burdensome and costly standards as large corporations, gradually pushing decentralised, village-level systems towards extinction.

Even with an informal exemption, the pressure to meet the ‘certified’ market standard could make traditional seed sharing increasingly risky. Critics argue that the rigid requirements for ‘certified, stable and uniform’ seeds will effectively criminalise or marginalise indigenous, locally adapted varieties, creating a dependency loop that forces farmers to rely on high-cost, proprietary inputs from large agribusinesses.

This would, in effect, mirror the pattern of corporate capture and loss of food sovereignty observed in other countries across the world.

Keep reading

Big Corporations Get Rich From Their Secret Seed Patents — Taxpayers and Farmers Pay the Price

The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that allows companies to hold patents on plant varieties.

As a result, a small number of corporations can — and do — suppress competition in the seed industry, stifle innovation and turn taxpayer subsidies intended for farmers into corporate profits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has found that two companies control more than 70% of U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, and the top four cottonseed companies control nearly 94% of that market.

In a May court filing in a legal dispute between two U.S. seed companies, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said patents on seeds are obstructing competition and research in the agriculture industry.

As researchers who work on plant breeding and seed policy, we have seen how that plays out.

When huge companies assert their patents, smaller businesses and public plant breeders, who often lack the legal resources to fight back, are frequently dissuaded from conducting research and development that might actually not be illegal at all.

And a lack of competition allows dominant companies — not always based in the U.S. — to collect large sums of taxpayer money that Congress allocated in hopes it would help farmers, not shareholders’ and executives’ bottom lines.

Keep reading

Man Who Sued Pepsi Over Fighter Jet Finally Gets His Reward 30 Years Later

Three decades after suing Pepsi for refusing to give him a fighter jet, John Leonard finally got a reward that may be even better, according to a post at Supercarblondie. 

Leonard became the center of one of advertising’s most famous legal battles after taking a 1996 Pepsi commercial at face value. The ad, promoting the company’s Pepsi Points loyalty program, jokingly claimed customers could redeem seven million Pepsi Points for a military Harrier jet.

Rather than laugh it off, the Seattle college student raised enough money to buy the required points and submitted a claim for the aircraft. Pepsi rejected it, insisting the jet was never a real prize.

The article says that the case went to court, where a judge ruled that no reasonable person would believe Pepsi was seriously offering a fighter jet in a soft drink promotion.

Although Leonard lost the lawsuit, the bizarre dispute became legendary and was later chronicled in the Netflix documentary Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?.

Now, nearly 30 years later, Frontier Airlines gave the story a happy ending. As part of a Super Bowl campaign called “The Big Redemption,” the airline converted Leonard’s original seven million Pepsi Points into seven million Frontier Miles, effectively giving him free flights for life.

The airline even featured Leonard in a tongue-in-cheek commercial, handing him the keys to an Airbus A320neo as a nod to the decades-old saga.

Now in his 50s with a wife and children, Leonard joked that unlimited airline miles are far more practical than owning and maintaining a military fighter jet. After waiting three decades, he never got the Harrier, but he may have received an even better prize.

Keep reading

Sony Playstation Deletes 551 Movies People Already Paid For

Sony delivered a brutal reminder this week that if you don’t own the physical disc, you don’t own the movie.

Even if you paid the full price to purchase the movie, you don’t really own the movie.

Sony has “confirmed a substantial wipeout that will result in over 550 titles being permanently deleted from personal libraries.”

“The list of movies and series that will be pulled from digital spaces is extensive and spans a wide range of prominent blockbusters, indie hits, and critically acclaimed titles that people have previously purchased to watch at home or on the move — but not for much longer,” adds the report.

This includes popular movies such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Total Recall, and Rambo: First Blood, along with outright classics such as Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. Even some TV shows, like American Gods and Versailles, will be yanked.

Here’s Sony’s announcement to all the suckers who purchased these 551 movies and TV series:

As of 1 September, 2026, due to our content licensing arrangements, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased StudioCanal content and the content will be removed from your video library.

That’s just another way of saying what came out of the fascist World Economic Forum ten years ago: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

Listen, I’m not trying to come off as superior here. About ten years ago, I naively decided to go full-digital with my obnoxiously huge movie collection. After converting, I sold my discs. Hundreds of them. Then came the realization that “owning” a digital copy meant nothing of the sort. It also meant that the Woke Gestapo was going into private digitized collections and vandalizing movies, even classics like The French Connection.

I have since rebuilt my physical media collection, but too many of the movies I once owned on Blu-ray are no longer available.

Oh, and it’s not just movies and TV shows anymore. You once owned a copy of computer programs by purchasing a CD. Remember that? Well, today you are forced to rent that program by the month or by the year.

Sony PlayStation also just announced that it will no longer sell physical copies of its games starting in 2028. You will only be allowed to buy a digital copy, which means Sony can censor it, alter it, or remove it any time it wishes.

If a movie or TV show, song, or novel means a lot to you, buy the physical copy or risk not only having your copy censored or removed, but also risk it disappearing forever — like Song of the South or The Path to 9/11 — for political reasons.

Keep reading

Ford Hires Back Former Engineers to Fix Errors Caused by AI

Ford is acknowledging the challenges it faced with AI production and design systems after the automaker recently claimed the top spot in JD Power’s initial quality ranking for mainstream brands for the first time in 16 years. According to Ford, attempting to replace highly-skilled employees with AI-powered systems was a mistake.

The Verge reports that Ford has revealed that its reliance on artificial intelligence and automated systems in vehicle production and design created significant quality problems, forcing the company to bring back experienced engineers and technicians to correct mistakes made by its robots.

Charles Poon, Ford’s vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, explained during a briefing with reporters this week that the automaker believed simply introducing AI and adjusting existing design requirements would automatically yield high-quality vehicles. “Mistakenly, we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and adjusting the design requirements that we had, that that would produce a high-quality product,” Poon said.

The problem was compounded when some of Ford’s most experienced personnel departed before their accumulated institutional knowledge could be fully captured by the company’s automated systems. This loss of expertise proved particularly damaging because the effectiveness of AI depends entirely on the quality of data used to train the models. Ford had underestimated the value of veteran engineers who had worked through multiple vehicle-development cycles and possessed deep understanding of potential problems that could emerge during production.

To address this gap, Ford hired, promoted, or brought back more than 350 experienced engineers to rebuild its technical expertise base. These seasoned professionals were tasked with retraining the automated systems and mentoring younger engineers who were struggling to maintain vehicle quality standards. “That’s where some of our most experienced engineers have had experience solving and identifying those problems before they creep into the system,” Poon said.

Ford’s quality challenges have been well documented in recent years. The automaker currently leads the industry in number of recalls, with quality ratings declining over several years. Difficulties intensified during launches of the Explorer and Aviator models, supply-chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a growing number of vehicle recalls that damaged consumer confidence.

Keep reading