Marietta College Student Lecture - Peter Zeihan March 2024

[@joshuapreston8902]

Thanks for hosting Peter, good talk

[@drachenmarke]

Since most of Peter’s predictions are incorrect, it’s a wonder he’s still in demand….He said we would starve to death last year from a potash shortage.

[@hydroac9387]

@@drachenmarke "Accidental Superpower: 10 Years On" was originally published in 2014 was updated in Dec 2023 lists all of his major errors. There are many things that he got right. For instance, he predicted that Russia would invade Ukraine in 2022 (!!!) due to demographic concerns - they are simply running out of men to throw in the meat grinder. There were some misses, too. He owns his mistakes. I respect that. I encourage you to read before making sweeping generalizations.

[@huntingkc1]

Thank you all so much for sharing

[@gordondeans2549]

Great information perspective. I picked up a number of obscure but important background details which never appear in Peter's public performances.

[@JPOGers]

36:09 WOW. The Replicator Initiative sounds insane, like awesomely insane.

[@michaelbaileys3843]

I'm originally from the Mid-Ohio Valley. I'd have loved to have watched this in person. Read his books. Change your mind.

[@luminyam6145]

That was excellent thank you.

[@warpeace8891]

Thanks for sharing... any chance you could dramatically improve the audio quality enough for EVERY word to be heard and decipherable?

[@SleepyBoBos]

Yep, we're working on it. We just want to put some different accents on the people asking questions using AI to make it seem more inclusive. We will be giving Peter a pixie style haircut as well. Any other suggestions? More storm troopers in the background maybe?

[@caseyh1934]

6:50 Wait, did Ziehan just drop a middle earth reference?

[@ziggyc3004]

34:45 We will just have to display our devastating technical abilities. Drone swarms incoming.

[@everythingisfine9988]

Serious black mirror vibes

[@ActFast]

I love Peter and have read all of his books. That said, he is very loose with his facts.

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

I see him as a prompt. He will bring up a subject that I had never considered, and I will then research the subject myself and learn new things. He is not an authoritative source of information, but he is like a friend that has a wide base of knowledge about a thousand different things, piquing your curiosity

[@gabemccall3523]

Is this really a year old? That’s just now getting posted?

[@Casnazer]

That comment about Tucker was pretty wild… I’m dying to look more into that.

[@sharpshooter488]

Where the hell did Peter pull the “tucker taking money from Russia for 8 years “ thing. I looked it up and cant find anything about that, even on leftist news websites

[@concretejungle9608]

Unlike you, Peter Zeihan doesn’t exclusively get his information ‘ from the internets“

[@concretejungle9608]

If you watch Russian state TV propaganda, you’ll see Tucker there all day every day repeating every and each Moscow’s propaganda talking point

[@sharpshooter488]

@@concretejungle9608well then where does he get it? I like him and watch him all the time, but for this information to be of any value it needs to be verified. Plus if Tucker was really taking money from russia, left wing media would be all over that, would they not?

[@infinitafenix3153]

When you tell people what they like to hear, you don't need to give any evidence.

[@VancouverInvestor]

He used to work at Stratfor so he's got contacts at the CIA. Im sure they share all sorts of info with him directly.

[@LinguisticTeamInternational]

The title has the wrong year. The correct year is displayed at the start of the video. Given all of the old snippets out there from people trying to make a buck off of Peter's work, you might want to fix that sooner than later. ;)

[@jarrettbobbett5230]

"Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan will present Mid-Ohio Valley at the End of the World at Marietta College's Alma McDonough Auditorium on Wednesday, March 27" 2024 !!

[@michaelgardner5832]

too bad the A/V was so poor on this. If you're going to spend $$$ on PZ, you should do a good job that.

[@ThatGuyPotatoes]

Yeah I had to turn on the cc. It worked pretty well

[@mvic81818]

I’ve always said my favorite international media outlets were France 24, Al Jazeera (you just have to be able to weed out the anti-Israel/Islamist propaganda but outside that they are excellent) and one he didn’t mention is DW which is a German English language outlet similar to France 24 as far as I can see.

[@CaliSpecial]

The reactors may be able in theory to produce that much power but the ships hull and the prop shafts cannot take the resistance of the water. The hull would collapse and the shafts would snap.

[@Jpandes]

An aircraft carrier sailing at 90 knots...I'd like to see that.

[@adriansaw8329]

sound quality is bad.

[@031767sc]

90 knots???? right

[@lawrencefrost9063]

37:30 Well that is just an outright urban myth. The max speed of a carrier is no 90 knots. Here; One of the prevailing myths of the modern fleet is that the US Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are capable of extraordinary maximum speeds. As is quite common with Urban Myths, these keep growing with each retelling of the basic story. It started with speeds of "over 40 knots" being alleged. This has risen by stages to 45 knots then to its current level of 50 knots. The story invariably ends with an officer turning off the speed readout for "security reasons." Sadly the truth is much more prosaic. The official listing of the carrier speeds is "in excess of 30 knots". The actual speed of the CVNs is classified; much as the maximum speed of the SSNs in the 1960s through 1980s was restricted information. However, the design speed of the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and JFK class carriers is public domain. The JFK was designed for 33.5 knots, the Kitty Hawks 33.6, the Forrestal 32.0 and the other CVs of that class were designed for 33.0. All had powertrain installations designed to provide 280,000 shp except Forrestal which had 260,000 shp. In all cases, the power was delivered via four shafts. So, the question is, how does the performance of the CVNs compare with that of the CVs? To determine this we have to look at the power train itself. The nuclear powerplant does not drive the ship directly; it generates steam which powers turbines which drive the screws. The power rating of the ship is the output of her turbines, not the steam generating capacity of the reactor. The turbines installed on the CVNs are identical to those on the CVs; they generate 280,000 shp over four shafts. Even if the nuclear reactor component did generate huge amounts of additional steam, there would be nowhere to put it. On these grounds alone, it seems extremely unlikely that a CVN would be any faster than a CV. Unofficial figures for the Enterprise confirm this; they suggest the ship was designed for 33.0 knots and it has been unofficially suggested that she reached 33.6 knots while running machinery trials after her latest refit. It has been suggested that this figure was "leaked" in order to counter suggestions that she was worn out. In passing, although Enterprise has an eight-reactor power train, only six of the reactors are on line at any one time (the reactors being rotated so that all are used regularly). The reason is quite simple; after recoring, only six reactors are needed to provide all the steam the turbines can handle. [Editor's note: This is not correct. All eight reactors are continually on-line. The Navy originally published a note saying that only six were on line at any one time, but later corrected it.] The Nimitz class carriers were originally designed to have 260,000 shp, the reduction being due to a steam deficiency caused by a shift to the use of a pair of large reactors. In fact, they have now all been recored and are rated at the same 280,000 shp as the other carriers. It might be expected that they would, therefore, have speeds in the same 33 knot range as the other carriers. In fact, this is not correct. The dimensions of the Nimitz class were set by building dock and other industrial and infrastructure considerations. Their hull is the largest practical design without massive investment in base and construction infrastructure. This placed grave pressure on internal volume and forced the adoption of some unusual designs solutions and the use of a significantly fuller hull form. This translated directly into loss of speed. Although the official figures are classified, it is unofficially reported that the design speed of the Nimitz was 31.5 knots on 260,000 shp. This would fit the reduced power and less advantageous hull form. Quite independently, the US Navy has suggested that the "Nimitz Class" have achieved trials speeds of 31.5 knots - this seems to be intended as an average for all the ships in this class rather than specific to any representative ship of that class. Later ships of the Nimitz class are substantially larger than the earlier members but do have the uprated, 280,000 shp plants. Its unlikely that the extra power fully compensates for the extra size and it has been rumored that the latest ship, CVN-75 USS Harry S Truman, was hard put to reach 31.0 knots on trials. There is a caveat here. The CVNs effectively have no concerns about running out of fuel. They can be optimized for running at high speed continuously (that is, their hull form can be selected for maximum efficiency at maximum speed). In contrast, a conventionally-powered carrier has to be optimized for optimum performance at cruising speed - 20 knots. Their hulls become progressively less efficient as the ship speed increases. This means that the sustained speed of a CVN over long duration is close to the ships maximum speed (say 30 knots) while the sustained speed of a CV over long duration is the ship's cruising speed (20 knots). So, while there is no significant difference in maximum speed of the two ships, the CVN will have a much higher transit speed. It is quite possible that it is that difference in transit speed that gets misapplied to maximum speed and is the core of the "40 Knot Myth."

[@oats6452]

Instantly triggered my BS detector. Can you imagine a Super going 90 knots (100 mph)? wtf... Forget UFOs, that'd be some for real alien tech. How does no one call him on this? I like Peter but wtf is he talking about??

[@AR-tl5cd]

Peter, I understand your logical take on the need for the US to distance itself from the Levant but I think you’re overlooking the cultural/religious ties (both between American and Israeli Jews but, more importantly, the evangelical vote). That distancing won’t happen. So, what is the way forward for Washington? Can DC coax Israeli politics in another direction?

[@cugelchannel4733]

The Princes of Numenor are behind the Ukraine War? I have never heard that one! I've heard that some Tolkien fans are mad at the Rings of Power show-runners, but blaming the Ukraine War on them is a bit extreme! 😆

[@Rob337_aka_CancelProof]

47:15 that would be Matt Gaetz Florida congressman and international forehead model (but not really great hair)

[@chrise-ih4ix]

So, where Europe gets its oil from is its own problem?

[@FoundWorthy]

The left owns the media. We literally have a Democrat candidate who is not debating or taking questions from anybody, but we all think that she is the first black female and the most intelligent choice Peter your bias really does come out when you talk about politics. I expect that from Tucker, but I see you as someone that’s supposed to be neutral.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

Not a very good recording but excellent content

[@cmleibenguth]

That is a strong statement of fact about Tucker Carlson @ around 6:10 Disagreements are fine, but assigning motive and making allegations of being in league with a foreign powers require a bit more evidence

[@JackHawkinswrites]

LOL. This is not a Court, it’s a “talk”. Toughen up snowflake

[@BigDaw707]

Been listening to Zeihan for years, this last year has had me questioning his motives because of statements like the one he made there.

[@DeftPol]

Tucker is an out and out liar and shill for the Russians. It’s not controversial to claim that.

[@anthonybradford2065]

The biggest critique of zeihan has always been that he is a shill of the military industrial complex-and he is in fact in there pocket, so

[@concretejungle9608]

Wow you guys have really swallowed the russian propaganda that you even question that Tucker Carson , who’s been on Russian TV daily with their talking heads referring to him as their asset in the western info space

[@codebluecrazy888]

Smart guy

[@GeoScorpion]

BRICS wasn't Merryl Lynch. From Wikipedia: "The term BRIC was originally developed in the context of foreign investment strategies. It was introduced in the 2001 publication, Building Better Global Economic BRICs by then-chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Jim O'Neill." Everything else he said about BRICS, I agree with. It's essentially a "We Hate America" club and I'm surprised that it doesn't include MAGA and Progressive support in our own country. Nothing ties BRICS to each other and they are pretty much each in bilateral relations with China.

[@letmethinkaboutitk]

90 knots on a carrier?!?! No way. I would bet 40, 50 max. No way a carrier is going over 100mph 😂😂😂

[@Kingramze]

2024

[@davidlee8551]

Why does an independently wealthy Tucker Carlson care about keeping “job”, OR taking money from Russia?

[@concretejungle9608]

Good question. Maybe Tucker doesn’t think he’s got enough money of Russians told him he’ll be murdered if he stops working for them. May be both .

[@JoshuaFinancialPL]

i think he explains the ideas driving obama/obiden state dept and the interests of the wealthy elite very well. i don't think it describes reality. in fact, if russia and china are in as dire a situation as he says, then playing it out until they lose isn't going to be their strategy. and if it will happen as rapidly as he says, then that will be traumatic/dramatic and will almost certainly lead to traumatic/dramatic measures to change the board.

[@MountVernonPolitics]

Really disappointed on the Tucker comment. He doesn't make things up mate.

[@inoculateinoculate9486]

There are entire segments devoted to debunking Tucker's bs misinfo over the past few years. He is a notorious liar and Russian propagandist. This isn't a conservative thing, it's a Tucker thing.

[@concretejungle9608]

I pity you mate - it must be so lame to live without a brain

[@eg4933]

big mistake letting the structures fall people, big mistake.

[@concretejungle9608]

Like having a Third Riech of the biggest and the most horrible prison camp for nations - Soviet Union - fall was bad?

[@YP3579]

US fertility rate is 1.67. where is he getting his numbers from?

[@estebanlondono8384]

Really bad audio. Therefore I can’t comment on the content! What a shame.

[@alexwolf7164]

Peter is very entertaining to listen to. And does spit out some facts. But, commenting on military issues like he is descibing a cartoon for children?? If the Russians ever wanted to sink a carrier and it's whole battle group they wouldn't use Shahed drones, what rubbish is this??? Somebody should seriously educate this lune about at least the basics. Look up Circon 9 mach rockets that were build for percisely this. And an impact of a single of these rockets onto the surfice of the sea. There is nothing that can stop a rocket like this destroying a carrier or ship. Or a group of ships by detonating it on the surface of water causing a tsunami wave. And also I doubt that they would fire just one at a single carrier. And if that's not enough for you try the avanguard system. That is 27 times the speed of sound. Shahed drones go the same speed as the carriers?? What century is he in the 18th? 🤣🤣🤣 Jesus Christ

[@solaireastora5394]

US has systems to shoot them down, the Thaad system ( may be called thuud) has shot down ballistic missiles in terminal velocity phase. These boats have systems that incorporate stuff like that in the Aegis suite they have onboard. Even the patriot system can take on kinzhal missiles. Hypersonic missiles aren't this unsolved problem

[@alexwolf7164]

@@solaireastora5394 A patriot system did not take down a Kindzal missile. Cause it would have been taking down all the Kindzhal missiles in Ukraine in the last year if that was true, which is not. There was never any real confirmation on that at all, just propaganda and fantasy. That is probably due to the fact that at the last phase a Kindzal reaches mach 9-12. The best an upgraded patriot 3 system rocket can reach is mach 5. The maximum speed for a Thaad system is mach 8 so it could at least technically take down a Circon. Moreover, you have eluded to mention the Avanguard system like I haven't even mention it and its speed is mach 21. There is nothing in the US arsenal that can shoot it down. You've also neglected to comment on the tsunami effect by a hypersonic rocket being detonated much before any operational range of a battle group, which could affect all the vesels in the waves path and literaly obliterate them. Imagine using an avanguard for this, It would sink anything you put in its path. And that is why the whole obsolete naval, carrier battle group warfare is over in this new age.

[@oats6452]

@@solaireastora5394 But 90 knots bro? A Super... moving at 100 mph... wtf is he talking about??

[@alexwolf7164]

@@solaireastora5394 The Patriot sys did not shoot down a kindzal. That was never confirmed, just heresay on tv and propaganda. Also Patriot rockets even after the third modernisation go mach 5. A Kindzal flies mach 9-12 in the final stage. A top speed for a thaad is 8 mach. Funny you didn't even mention the Avanguard with its 21 mach speed. There is nothing that can stop it.

[@concretejungle9608]

@@alexwolf7164I was staying in in central Kyiv and could hear that Patriot system shooting down Kindzhal missiles above up. A lot of civilian people and buildings have survived because of that

[@ParamjitSingh-de9mr]

Peter has a girlfriends in northwest jungles of Thailand. thai hairstyle.

[@georgeriszko]

Tucker should sue for defamation. I follow Zeihan religiously, but he does have fixed views

[@Viking-rp7oc]

Good point🤔 So what Peter said must be true then or Tucker Carlson would sue. You do know that every media person and nut job pushing Russian propaganda is paid by Russia right. Ritter,McDuglas and many more that talk shit about USA are paid by Russia.

[@ThatGuyPotatoes]

In this case it's not defamation. Tucker actually admitted as much in a court case around 5 years ago. His lawyers said that he was "loose, figurative or hyperbolic" and that any reasonable person would approach his show and anything he says with scrutiny "given his reputation". That argument saved him from his own libel lawsuit.

[@Shakdnugz2024]

@@ThatGuyPotatoes so wait are you confirming that he admitted to receiving funding from Russia to shill an agenda, or are you saying Peter can say "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic" statements also?

[@ThatGuyPotatoes]

@@Shakdnugz2024 The latter. Tucker would look like a hypocrit.

[@DeftPol]

What Tucker should do is move to Russia and stop polluting the US with his presence. He was trying so hard to lick Putin’s boot in that interview that even Putin was a little disgusted by him… how such a limp, weak and morally bankrupt individual can generate a following among even a sliver of the conservative movement is just astonishing.

[@waynemasters8673]

Won't listen to bad audio. Try harder on YouthTube.

[@texasoilfields]

No one cares that you are not watching.

[@waynemasters8673]

@@texasoilfields I'm a co inventor of the Internet early 80s, for my own personal reasons, not yours.

[@texasoilfields]

@waynemasters8673 if that's true, thank you for your contributions sir. If it's false, I hope your life improves from where you are now.