The South African government is inviting public comment on the proposed Minimum Information Requirements (MIR) for the Exploration and Production of Onshore Petroleum Using Fracturing Technology, 2025, more commonly known as fracking. This consultation, open until 7 December 2025, has already revealed overwhelming public opposition.

Current submissions show that 7,068 citizens have stated they do not support fracking, while 320 support it, and 107 remain undecided. These figures reflect the growing concern over fracking’s potential to permanently harm the environment and local communities.

Fracking involves injecting high-pressure fluids deep into the earth to extract oil and gas. International studies and environmental experts warn of serious risks, particularly in fragile ecosystems like the Karoo:

• Water Contamination: Toxic chemicals used in fracking can seep into underground aquifers, threatening drinking water and agricultural use. Methane leakage into water supplies has been documented in other fracking regions, with long-term contamination potential.

• Excessive Water Use: Each fracking well can consume millions of liters of water—an unsustainable demand in the Karoo’s semi-arid environment, jeopardizing local communities and agriculture.

• Seismic Activity: Injection of fluids can trigger earthquakes, potentially damaging infrastructure and creating unforeseen safety risks.

• Air Pollution: Flaring and venting during fracking releases methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), contributing to climate change and deteriorating air quality.

• Biodiversity Loss: The Karoo’s unique flora and fauna face habitat disruption from drilling sites and infrastructure expansion.

• Economic and Social Impacts: While proponents promise jobs, the majority of profits often go to multinational corporations, leaving local communities to shoulder environmental and health burdens.

The MIRs are intended to guide environmental and safety compliance, but public concern is growing that even strict regulation may not mitigate long-term damage to the region.

As the consultation deadline approaches, citizens have a critical opportunity to voice opposition. Submitting a comment is the most direct way to influence government decision-making on this high-stakes issue.

Submit Your Comment on Fracking Here

The post Karoo Fracking Faces Massive Public Backlash Over Environmental Threats appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

BRICS is aggressively advancing a multipolar carbon market system, framing it as a climate action initiative. However, critics warn this could centralise power, undermine sovereignty, and risk treating carbon — the fundamental building block of all life — as a commodity to be controlled or eliminated.

Johannesburg, 14 November 2025 — BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and partners) are accelerating the creation of multipolar carbon markets, claiming the move will enhance global climate accountability. According to Off‑Guardian, the bloc aims to integrate carbon trading, credit systems, and cross‑border frameworks to manage emissions and meet Sustainable Development Goals. (off-guardian.org)

China has reportedly transacted nearly 700 million tonnes of carbon, valuing 48 billion yuan, while Brazil proposes a coalition to harmonize carbon markets at COP30. India and South Africa are rolling out systems under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and Russia is showcasing its carbon credentials at G20 preparatory meetings.

The Hidden Danger
Off‑Guardian warns that BRICS plans extend beyond trading; they aim to eventually “account for, and exterminate, all carbon on Earth.” Carbon is essential to all life — plants, animals, and humans. Attempts to treat it as a pollutant that must be fully eliminated are scientifically impossible and morally catastrophic.

Critics argue this represents centralized control under BRICS, using the guise of climate policy to dominate economic and geopolitical landscapes. Multipolar carbon markets risk becoming tools of financialization, political leverage, and societal manipulation, rather than genuine environmental action.

Call to Awareness
South Africans and the global community must question: Who truly benefits from BRICS carbon markets? Could these initiatives threaten civil liberties and economic autonomy under the pretext of sustainability? The rhetoric of carbon extermination raises ethical, biological, and geopolitical alarms — suggesting a dangerous overreach in global governance.

The post News Report: BRICS Push for “Multipolar Carbon Markets” — Devil’s Work in Plain Sight appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

In what many are calling an unprecedented shift toward climate authoritarianism, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment—under the direction of DA Minister Dion George—has quietly published draft regulations that could see South Africans jailed or heavily fined for failing to comply with carbon emissions quotas.

This radical legal framework, tied to the Climate Change Act of 2024, has not even been officially enacted. Yet, draft regulations released in July 2025 already threaten up to five years’ imprisonment or R5 million in fines for non-compliance, doubling for repeat “offenders.” The accused? Not just industries—but potentially individuals and private business owners who fail to report or limit emissions according to government-dictated carbon budgets.

Welcome to the era of carbon criminalisation.

The video released by Willem Petzer exposes the looming threat: regulations masquerading as environmental stewardship, with all the hallmarks of techno-tyranny. Under the guise of “climate mitigation,” the state seeks to control emissions, energy use, and economic output—by force.

Although the Climate Change Act has not yet been proclaimed into law, these draft regulations—currently open for public comment—signal the state’s intent. If the Act is enacted and these regulations stand, they will create one of the most punitive climate regimes in the world, complete with surveillance, forced disclosures, and prison terms for non-compliance.

Ironically, the Democratic Alliance (DA)—a party once seen as a liberal alternative—has spearheaded these draconian measures. The carbon penalties are not just environmental. They are economic shackles, primed to hit heavy industries, agriculture, mining, and eventually, ordinary South Africans with escalating carbon tax thresholds.

What’s more concerning is who gets punished. Large emitters, yes—but also company executives, business owners, and even small-scale farmers or entrepreneurs who breach their assigned emissions cap or fail to submit proper mitigation plans.

Is this the climate justice South Africans signed up for—or just a new method of control wrapped in green packaging?

Five months from now, the climate noose could tighten.

For now, the draft regulations are undergoing public consultation. But history shows: once regulations like these pass, clawing back liberty becomes near impossible. The call for accountability is clear: Why are laws being drafted to criminalise carbon in a country still crippled by Eskom and economic decay?

The post South Africans Face Jail Time Under DA’s New Carbon Emissions Law appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Recent developments paint a complex picture of political manoeuvring and economic strain. The signing of the Expropriation Act, which enables the government to acquire land for public purposes, was met with swift international backlash. The U.S. government responded by pulling USAID funding, a critical financial pipeline that supported sectors such as HIV research and prevention. This decision has exacerbated South Africa’s already dire financial situation, with the government scrambling to fill a budget deficit.

The proposal of a 2% VAT hike to offset this shortfall sparked public outrage, forcing the government to postpone the budget speech to March 2025. In a nation where economic hardship is already prevalent, this delay only heightened anxiety. It was against this backdrop that Stage 6 load shedding intensified, conveniently after public backlash over the VAT proposal. Coincidence? Some think not.

A Political Power Play?

Public sentiment suggests that load shedding is being used as a political weapon. Political commentator Joe Emilio noted, “The ANC is effectively saying, ‘Give us more money, or South Africans will suffer.’” This perspective aligns with claims that the power utility Eskom has been burning through diesel at an unsustainable rate, contradicting earlier assurances of grid stability.

Further compounding scepticism is the fact that South Africa’s private rooftop solar capacity has surged from 983 MW in March 2022 to 4412 MW by mid-2023—double the output of Koeberg, the country’s only nuclear power station. If citizens are producing more power privately, why are state-driven power cuts worsening? The narrative of “multiple breakdowns” becomes even less convincing in light of these statistics.

Public Outrage and Distrust

The timing of the power outages has led to public accusations of political manipulation. Social media is ablaze with comments likening the government’s attitude to that of Marie Antoinette’s infamous “Let them eat cake” statement, reflecting a growing sentiment of alienation and anger. One commentator observed, “They are a curse to our nation. If we don’t get rid of them, we are doomed.”

The crisis has also exposed a deeper political rift within the ruling coalition. The budget speech delay was attributed to a lack of consensus on the proposed VAT increase, indicating internal discord. Political analysts argue that the ANC could be using loadshedding to coerce coalition partners into supporting the unpopular VAT hike.

South Africa stands at a pivotal moment, facing political, economic, and social upheaval. The strategic timing of load shedding amidst budgetary turmoil and international funding cuts raises questions that cannot be ignored. Is this merely poor governance and mismanagement, or a calculated political strategy?

With public trust eroding rapidly, the government’s next moves will be critical in shaping the nation’s future. Transparency, honest communication, and a commitment to serving public interests are essential to restoring faith in leadership. Until then, South Africans are left to weather the darkness—both figurative and literal.

The post Is Load Shedding a Political Tool? Unpacking South Africa’s Power Crisis appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

By definition, unlock means open, release or liberate. By advocating acceptance of funding for so-called renewable energy, the debt implications of that direction amount to greater debt captivity. This is obvious when the advocates stipulate that investment in ‘renewable capacity’ needs to triple in the next five years – more than R1 trillion – in order to stave off the “devastating warming” consequences of fossil fuel usage (The Mercury, November 25).

As it is, South Africa’s rapidly increasing and unsustainable debt burden – now 75% of GNP (R5,2 trillion) – has prompted the IMF to advise the adoption of a debt ceiling. To “accelerate renewable energy” means, therefore, accelerating debt. It also means accelerating costs for electricity consumers. Investments in wind energy in the US and Europe have dried up. Shell has just abandoned the New Jersey Atlantic Shores project in which it had invested nearly $1 billion. The  40% increase in megawatt costs for consumers deters the viability of such projects.

The word ‘renewable’ is also misleading. Wind turbines are not only very expensive and high maintenance but in themselves are not renewable. Besides, they are unreliable as key components of a secure energy infrastructure. Germany’s social and industrial experience this winter of costly, intermittent supply provides a sobering lesson as to what happens when reliable, standard energy generation sources are sidelined.

Despite the glaring shortcomings of “renewable energy,” the claim that human efforts at decarbonisation can influence climate change qualifies such believers as modern day Canutes and henceforth should be called ‘Climate Canutes.’

Like King Canute of England who believed his power could deter the rising tide from wetting his feet as he sat on a beach, the Climate Canutes refuse to appreciate that climate change is regulated by the sun’s modes, the variable tilt of the earth and the eccentricity of the elliptical paths of the earth around the sun, all of which is validated by science and history. There is nothing humans can do about that natural phenomenon.

Fortunately, we are going to be spared the studied ignorance of the Climate Canutes because where the US goes, the world follows. President Trump’s bold rejection of the unscientific and exorbitantly costly Paris Climate Accord is restoring common sense and sanity. History will reckon with the Climate Canutes.

The post History Will Reckon With The Climate Canutes appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Although current weather extremes are being demonised as the fault of fossil fuels, there have been weather extremes in every century long before widespread consumption of fossil fuels. Fluctuations in the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun cause marked irradiance differences in temperature variations. As history shows, the result is cooling and warming periods. The three-and-a-half-degree variation in the tilt of the earth is another climate change factor.

Citing scientific “consensus” as being “overwhelming” in blaming fossil fuels for climate change is the core of the globalists’ narrative.  It stems from a study made in 2013 based on the analysis of 11,944 climate abstracts published between 1991 and 2011.  Two-thirds of those papers were non-committal on the role of fossil fuels. Of the remaining third – 3,781 papers – 97% conceded the possibility of limited human involvement in climate change.

A subsequent analysis of the 11,944 papers by climatologist Dr David Legates of the University of Delaware found that only 41 of the papers explicitly cited humans as responsible for global warming since 1950 – a total of 0,3%. As Christopher Monckton, author of more than 100 papers on climate science and chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute in the UK, has warned, the narrative blaming fossil fuels for climate change is “manufactured.” (See: John Kane-Berman, Daily Friend, April 12, 2021).

How does Dr Baker account for a NASA graph which shows temperatures declining between 1940 and 1970 while carbon dioxide levels increased from 308 to 325 parts per million? Since 1970 none of the alarmism about rising seas has been justified.

Regarding the Los Angeles inferno, solid evidence now exists showing how fires were systematically started within a confined period of time in areas calculated to maximise their lethal effect.

Besides the Santa Ana wind promoting the fury of the blaze, neglect of forest maintenance, the empty state of the 117 million gallon Santa Inez reservoir and the fact that 100 fire trucks were in for repairs – all contributed to the tragedy and the disaster.

We are living in an era where, along with eco-psychology, science has been politicised to suit the agenda of the Orwellian globalists. Although carbon dioxide constitutes less than one percent of the atmosphere, it is a vital source of life for plant and vegetation growth. The deception of the policy of decarbonisation cannot be overstated.

The post Deception Of Decarbonisation Policy Cannot Be Overstated appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Predictably adherents of the climate change narrative are citing it as the cause of the fires. But as usual, they are dead wrong. Police have arrested arsonists and gang members who are responsible for the devastation. One arsonist, an illegal alien, was in possession of five cell phones and a UN pre-paid debit card. His flame-throwing efforts are believed to be responsible for wiping out 800 acres of the West Hills area of LA.

Gangs are setting fire to neighbourhoods and looting homes once the owners have evacuated them. But apart from that criminal aspect of the situation, is there a sinister agenda?

• Why was local firefighting equipment donated to Ukraine?
• Why was pressure in fire hydrants weak although reservoirs are full?
• Why did cell phone and internet services shut down?
• To what extent was the Fire Department’s morale and efficiency undermined by DEI policy and its leading advocate, Fire Chief Kristin Crowley?
• Given the vulnerability of California to fires, what does the Operations Valley Bureau Memo tabled earlier this month calling for the closure of 15 fire stations indicate about official regard for fire safety?
• Why was there a delay in calling out the National Guard? Governor De Santis never hesitated to summon the National Guard when hurricanes struck Florida.

The Biden regime’s prompt promise to supply Federal funding covering 100% of the costs of building temporary shelters and paying out first responder claims have unsettling implications. Property owners will be stymied in trying to claim from their insurers because of the availability of Federal funds. Then, given the California Coastal Commission’s stringent regulations in re-building, it could be years before rebuilding plans are approved and Federal funding obtained.

Is there a sinister motive for this? Is there where China or Black Rock swoop in and purchase land for pennies in the dollar?  Is that not what has resulted in following the unexplained fires in Hawaii? How come Biden did not make similar Federal funding pledges to the flood-ruined folk of North Carolina?

The Los Angeles inferno, the unexplained drones, cover-ups of two assassination attempts on Trump, out of the blue cyber-attacks and grid failures are not just exceptions to life in the US. They are manufactured by globalist forces within the inner sanctums of government and the industrial-military complex known as the Deep State.

Through violence, fear, confusion and censorship they aim to retain their influence over the US, regardless of the expression of the American people on November 5. That is the reason 2025 is a watershed in the history and future of the US.

The post Implications Of Los Angeles Inferno appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Through a combination of DEI policies, mismanagement of resources, and deliberate neglect, the fires might not just be accidents but a deliberate strategy to accelerate Agenda 2030, a set of goals that seek to upend traditional systems of ownership and power. As we look deeper, we begin to see how these catastrophic events are not just about the environment—they are about shifting control over resources, land, and people.

DEI and Fire Management: A Perfect Storm for Disasters

In recent years, California’s fire management systems have been increasingly shaped by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. While these policies were designed to promote fairness and inclusivity, their implementation in critical areas like firefighting has often led to unintended consequences. Fire departments in California have seen a shift toward hiring practices that prioritize social equity over experience and technical skill. While DEI initiatives have undoubtedly broadened representation, the prioritization of inclusivity in fire management positions has resulted in key roles being filled by individuals who may not have the expertise needed for effective wildfire prevention and land management.

A lack of seasoned leadership, combined with resource mismanagement, has resulted in poor land clearing practices, leaving areas at risk of becoming wildfire hotspots. The neglect of basic fire prevention measures—such as clearing brush and creating defensible spaces around communities—has been attributed to bureaucratic inefficiencies and poorly trained staff. DEI quotas may have inadvertently contributed to this issue, leading to decision-making that lacks technical competence. In these circumstances, wildfires have become an almost inevitable outcome.

While firefighting professionals are undoubtedly doing their best, the growing focus on social justice issues has potentially detracted from the urgency of managing fire-prone landscapes. This shift could have left communities more vulnerable, contributing to the rapid spread of the wildfires that have devastated California.

The post The Hidden Agenda Behind California Wildfires: DEI, Poor Land Management, and the Great Reset appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

The Fog Phenomenon
Recent incidents have been reported in:

• London Airports: Dense fog disrupted flights at Stansted, Heathrow, and Luton airports (Daily Record).
• Canada’s Lower Mainland: December saw a spike in car crashes attributed to thick fog (City News Vancouver).
• Windsor-Essex: School buses were cancelled due to heavy fog conditions (CBC).

These reports, combined with anecdotal claims of a burning chemical smell and flu-like symptoms, have fueled conspiracy theories, ranging from government experiments to bioweapons deployment.

Expert Reassurances and Public Skepticism
Meteorologists claim that the fog is a natural phenomenon caused by temperature inversions and pollutants trapped in the air. But is it that simple? The overuse of the term “expert” has eroded public trust, particularly after controversial statements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argue that “experts” are often funded by governments or corporations, raising concerns about bias and conflicts of interest.

What’s That Smell?
The reported chemical odour, described as “burning” or “sulfuric,” is another red flag. If the fog is merely natural, why does it emit such a distinct smell? Similar odours were noted in historical incidents like “Operation Sea-Spray” (1950), where bacteria were released over San Francisco for covert testing.

Conspiracy Theories

Bioweapons Concerns

Many speculate that the fog could be a bioweapon. This theory draws parallels to past gain-of-function experiments conducted in Wuhan and Ukraine labs. Additionally, reports of a flu-like virus circulating in China, combined with videos suggesting life there is “business as usual,” have led to questions about media propaganda and the nature of these health concerns.

Geoengineering Links

Could the fog be tied to climate engineering? Bill Gates’ involvement in sun-dimming projects like SCoPEx and companies like Deep Sky—focused on atmospheric interventions—has fueled fears of unintended consequences. Are these experiments tampering with nature in ways we don’t fully understand?

Increased Sightings and Social Media

The rise of smartphones and social media makes it nearly impossible to hide such events. From viral videos to community posts, people are documenting these phenomena in real-time. The transparency of citizen reporting challenges traditional narratives, forcing authorities to address public concerns directly.

Investigative Questions

• If it’s just fog, why the chemical smell?
• Are the so-called “experts” truly independent, or are they funded by entities with vested interests?
• Could this be an experiment gone wrong, similar to documented government activities in the past?

The mysterious fog raises more questions than answers. While experts dismiss public fears as baseless, historical precedents and the strange characteristics of this phenomenon demand further scrutiny. Until authorities provide transparent and satisfactory explanations, scepticism will persist. After all, as the saying goes, where there’s smoke—or in this case, fog—there’s fire.

The post Chemical Fog Across the Globe: Hidden Agendas or Harmless Phenomenon? appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

The proposed DAC facility will test technologies designed to extract carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Advocates claim this could help mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, this approach overlooks a fundamental truth: carbon is not the enemy; it is a cornerstone of life. Plants depend on carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, the process that fuels ecosystems and sustains biodiversity.

Investments like this perpetuate a dangerous narrative—that humanity can “fix” nature by interfering with its cycles. Historically, such interventions have led to unintended consequences, from ecological imbalances to resource depletion. Instead of embracing carbon as part of Earth’s life-giving cycles, these projects seek to strip it from the atmosphere, threatening to disrupt the delicate balance that sustains life.

Moreover, the financial and environmental cost of DAC technology is astronomical. Critics point out that this expensive venture diverts resources from more practical, proven solutions such as reforestation, soil regeneration, and reducing industrial pollution. By focusing on carbon capture, we risk neglecting the root cause of ecological degradation: unchecked human interference.

Carbon is not the problem—human arrogance is. The Earth has thrived for thousands of years, adapting and balancing itself through natural processes. Projects like Deep Sky’s DAC facility represent a hubristic gamble to “correct” the planet’s systems, a gamble that could prove disastrous. Instead of funding misguided experiments, we must focus on sustainable practices that respect Earth’s inherent wisdom. The real challenge isn’t carbon; it’s our refusal to let nature work as intended.

Source: Global News

The post Deep Sky’s Carbon Capture Grant: A $40 Million Gamble on Climate Interference appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.