Friday, December 16, 2005

Is George Monbiot a corporate oil shill? An article which is a study of displacement and misattribution

Image hosted by
Here's how you make oil: abiotically.

Is George Monbiot an oil shill? First, there is the irony of Monbiot slamming all types of biodiesel (while only discussing corporate biodiesel moves recently, and while ignoring the whole consumer driven ecological modernization novelty of biodiesel as a social-political movement, instead of a business self-regulation movement.) Second, Monbiot is still popularizing the already exposed lie of the 'biotic peak oil' story. These two disinformative assumptions upon which his whole piece rests I am sure would of course be smiled upon within the boardrooms of Chevron and Shell.

I kept waiting for him to talk about the origins of the consumer pressures of ecological modernization based and waste-based biodiesel, though he totally neglects the reality that there is a huge differnce between wastes becoming used as as surrogate oil for transport fuels and corporations selling biodiesel. If read without a critical thinking cap, his whole article has the mistaken effect of dismissing the whole biodiesel movement, because of his unfair assumption that all biodiesel regardless of origins is the same. He artifically conflates two different issues: the grassroots biodiesel people converting their cars away from the control of the oil oligarchy and toward sustainability, and the oil oligarchy itself seeking to recapture those fleeing consumers and hitching them to novel unsustainable relations by co-opting the method of their escape. His article, I think very fairly, rails against corporate plantation biodiesel from palm oil, though he fails to make the distinction between different sources of biodiesel and instead, with a slippery slope sort of argument, artifically lumps together all biodiesel as evil, regardless of origins. This is very slick. It reads like corporate PR for the oil industry.

Certainly, Monbiot, sustainable consumers will be avoiding that corporate biodisel if they care about the environment, surely. However, he totally drops the ball on this one, and merges waste-based biodisel with corporate palm oil plantation biodisel, totally ignoring the ecological moderization aspects that differentiate the two sources of biodisel here. I suppose his fear is that corporations are attempting to take over the more grass roots markets of waste-based biodiesel and hitch them to unsustainable palm oil plantation biodiesel. The former is a sustainable ecological modernization strategy, driven by consumers altering their corporate-only friendly cars, toward more consumer friendly technology in their cars. The latter--corporate biodiesel--effectively lets consumers do this, though wants to take over the biodiesel sources to recapture and reclientelize them. This would break the ecological modernization inherent in consumer driven strategies of altering their cars for waste-based biodiesel, if consumers could be convinced to accept corporate palm oil biodiesel, which is is connected with deforestation. Monbiot comes out mistakenly equating the two. Why?

The lesson below, I suppose, is threefold: first, that desperation can unfortunately lead to the popularization of some alternatives that can be even worse, though only if you keep supporting corporate forms. That lesson is about biodiesel--though only corporate sold biodiesel. I kept waiting for Monbiot's article to talk about the interesting consumer driven ecological modernization premises of biodisel, though he makes the unsaid assumption that all biodiesel is the same and that all consumers will do is start buying biodisel at the pumps. And since this corporate biodiesel is linked to deforestation palm oil plantations, he suddenly twists it around and comes out against the 'whole thing'--which ignores that most biodisel is a grassroots phenomenon. However, the lesson is interesting in how corporate infrastuctures are starting their moves to take over the whole biodiesel market and make it just as polluting as before (from the corporate choices of source of the bio-oil, from palm plantations.).

I have nothing except support for those who want to bring about more consumer choice in energy supplies or consumer jurisdictional control over their modes of transporation--so I would get grouped with those who would promote cars being converted to something besides abiotic oil. However, definitely a corporate biodiesel fails to be an environmentally friendly solution, and can even be worse ecological politics than supporting monopolistic abotic oil politics. Though I think most political consumers will avoid that, there is a danger in 'getting lazy' about the ecological modernization premises of using wastes for transport fuel, when Shell starts selling biodiesel from deforestation based palm oil plantations just around the corner...

In Toward A Bioregional State of course, each particular watershed would have jurisdiction over what would be an optimal organization and method of fuel instead of at present under the thumb of a giant global oligarchy (or oily-garchy [Def: noun. Rule by a handful of interlocked oil corporations]). Oil is the largest financial sector of the global economy, followed with a close second of illicit drugs. [The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics]. This global oily-garchy is set up for destroying all consumer choices, creating a politically generated monopoly, and subsidizing itself via corruption acorss multiple states for executing its crony political extraction deals. For instance, the French justice department found out about Halliburton several years ago, when, under CEO Richard Cheney (1995-2000), Halliburton maintained special "bribery accounts" in Swiss banks for paying off Nigerian officials for corrupt oil contracts and preferences. With oil just as monopolistic as the drug money laundering economy, it perhaps is unsurprising that the huge oil infrastructure conglomerates like Halliburton have been fingered as intimately involved in global narcotraffic deals as well.

However, there is a second and more subtle lesson in this article than the first one mentioned above. This lesson can be applied in many places in your life instead of just in this article below. It is a lesson about avoiding haste in falling for the epistemological assumptions of your politial and economic enemies when you argue with them. In this case, the lies of the oily-garchy are adopted wholesale by Monbiot, one which he takes for his own without even verifying it--his assumptions about the "physical reality" of petroleum.

If he ever did this slight legwork (or via the internet, slight "mousework"), he would be aghast how much his worldview would change about this subject. If his first premise about the "equality" (sic, his assumption) or equivalency of waste-based biodiesel and palm oil biodiesel is wrong, his second premise about the biotic origins of petroleum that he uses for a comparison, is wrong as well.

There will be a future post about all I know about the politics, INSTEAD OF ECONOMICS, that have created a world based on oil clientelism from the 1860s onward. This would inevitably get into how oil is an abiotic creation, instead of a biotic creation. It will get into how oil, however was "sold as biotic" to the consumer in discourses though it is abiotic in nature and origin. There's plently of information from peer reviewed journals on this subject internationally now, though in a world run by spin (Monbiot's own versions included), such annoying facts about the reality of abiotic oil are dropped down the Orwellian memory oil-derrick hole.

The popularized and mostly unwitting ideological and material clientelism to the oily-garchy (even amongst its critics like Monbiot when he accepts baldly the oily-garchy's own propoganda and mental conditioning about 'physical reality' that has yet to accumulate any physical reality evidence to justify it), is a trenchant and sobering example of the mental/material power that international oil corporations have had over the political discourses about energy supplies since the late 1800s to the present. Even critics like Monbiot are only only regurgitating the corporate line of lies...

And if you have read the bioregional state book, this type of popularized mental/ideological and physical clientelism on such scales is the recipe for environmental degradation because it consolidates political and economic power as well as increasingly subsidizes and protects itself despite ongoing externalities that mount daily worldwide in pollution, whether corporate oil, corporate gas, corporate natural gas, or corporate coal politically protected energy hegemonies or monopolies. It's sad really that Monbiot seems to me now just as a mental captive of the oil corporations he is critiquing.
I have critiques throughout his article, below.

Worse Than Fossil Fuel [even though hydrocarbons are not organic in origin, or fossil in origin--see below]
Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon-intensive fuel on earth
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th December 2005

Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. [You think you're uncomfortable now, just read these links about abiotic oil below.] Like most environmentalists [who still fall for the 'biotic peak oil line' and have yet to make the leap out of a cloistered oil industry disinformation campaign], I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic. [You still do if you believe in 'biotic oil' because no one, even Houdini, ever pulled off the creation of a 'biotic oil' that you presume flows in your car, moped, or fatuously fat SUV.]

Frankly I disagree with Monbiot that these constraints are physical. Nothing personal though. These 'constraints' are entirely social and political and technological--instead of physical.

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that [if] the [non-]fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter [which they aren't] "containing 44×10^18 [44 with 18 zeros after it] grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English [disinformation], this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. [No! Wrong. Monbiot is making the oily-garchy's disinformative statement into reality: that oil is biotic in origin. Oil is not biotic in origin. It is simply our socio-political dependence upon the oil lobby--and many people's seeming mental dependence upon 'the doctrine of biotic oil' that is the issue here, instead of upon more solid ground of some presumed neutral physical reality--that keeps alternatives in technology from being developed. And if you don't believe in such things, well, pat yourself on the head for being a well trained mental slave. However, I offer the following hacksaws through the bars of your mental cell, below. Please use them and share them with your fellow inmates. See you outside the walls.

I will extend this list into a separate article of links. However, first, for now, I suggest a quick look at Bryon Wine's website, which is very well documented on [1] how much more efficient engines that run on gasoline could be and have been for 50 years--though the corporations that make engines that have interlocking directorates with the oil companies have little interest in making transportation a method of transport--only a method of selling a ton of it as inefficiently as possible to a captive oil market. Thus, one can see the politics of intentionally keeping inefficient technology in abiotic oil as the issue. The oily-garchy's regime of technology is simply a method of selling oil without alternatives, and politically squashing alternative infrastructures and alternative choices for the consumer in energy supplies. This is the perfect example of how a corrupt state state-driven and corrupt state-protected monopoly is handed to several powerful private corporations of the oily-garchy; Byron Wine laborously discusses as well [2] how energy efficiency attempts amidst the overlords of the oily-garchy regime has histoically been cause for police state action, as some inventors have been visited by the Department of Justice or even the U.S. military declaring that the inventor's more efficient machinery was now top secret in the interests of "national security." Certainly of course more energy efficient machinery would indeed be in the interests of real national security though from the point of view of a corrupt state, we can understand their motivations, though hardly forgive them, for their myopic reading of "corporate wealth administration without competition" as a form of "national security" instead of what it is--a recipe for national and international jeoporady and corruption under the oily-garchy.]

The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy [there's no evidence, Monbiot, of assumptions of "fossil fuel." Nada. Empirical proof has yet to ever be given for a fossil fuel. This is even recognized by scientific peer reviewed papers from Russia to the United States. Though the consumer serf/laity are instructed to avoid reading these (scientific) bibles out there that show that the mysterious 'Doctrine of Biotic Transmutation of the Holy Oil' has zero evidence accumulated for it. Such facts however ruin any empty-minded acceptance of worshipping contentedly at the high price regime of what is in reality an artificially created scarcity, with only a "scarce resource" discourse legitimation--since oil is abiotic in nature.

The history of human thoughts about oil, from the original Enlightenment-era assumptions of its potential organic origin, have failed to coup ANY evidence for supporting that biotic thesis. The data built up the other way: that oil is abiotic. However, the biotic thesis is pulled out on the oily-garchy's holy days and paraded in front of the populace because it is useful for them as they sell their (abiotic) oil: a biotic oil story is useful to them to justify their greed at selling abiotic, slowly replenishing oil at a high price because the salesmen proclaim its "rarity" and "innate scarcity" (sic), effectively displacing a social relation of scarity onto a false empirical physical referent as the blame, and then importing that lie back into social relations to justify themselves.

There is much documented on this double scam concerning abiotic oil:

[1] "Hundreds of years of oil available: abiotic author vs. banker biotic debate on Canadian TV,"

[2] "Natural Petroleum: NO Connection With Biological Matter; abiotic oil noted by oil industry,: published by peer reviewed Energia, in 2001. Seems oil industry publications up to four years ago got around to exposing the intermixed depopulation/artificial high-price structure of the oil market, as an energy scam on their own! Good for them. However, of coruse in a society run by spin, that's about the time when people began to trumpet the unscientific peak oil concept... Published in Energia, 2001, 22/3, 26-34. "The claims which have traditionally been put forward to argue a connection between natural petroleum and biological matter have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and have been established to be baseless." or commentary here.

[3] In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group of academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers routinely cite): "We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane was formed [ABIOTICALLY] from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study demonstrates THE EXISTENCE OF ABIOGENIC PATHWAYS for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed." here

[4] An experiment creating oil compounds from such abiotic pathways has recently been successful, further verifying this: "NOBEL PRIZE WINNER publishes data on Abiotic Pressured Rocks into Methane Hydrocarbons," published in Harvard Magazine, data from professor of the Chemistry department,..."[R]esearch coauthored by Dudley Herschbach, Baird Research Professor of Science and recipient of the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry, questions thinking/disinformation on 'biotic oil' theory. Published last fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study describes how investigators combined three abiotic (non-living) materials -- water (H2O), limestone (CaCO3), and iron oxide (FeO) -- and crushed the mixture together with the same intense pressure found deep below the earth's surface. This process created methane (CH4), the major component of natural gas. ...[A]ssertions about methane and oil really caught Herschbach's attention. "He said there wasn't much chance that you could do a laboratory experiment to test this," Herschbach reports. "And I thought, 'Holy smoke! We could do this with the diamond anvil cell.'" And they did. Poof. Methane.

[5] And the precious articles of author and commentator Dave McGowan, summarized here and here and here: "Stalin & Abiotic Oil versus international corporate oil's PLANNED GLOBAL HOLOCAUST," 'PEAK OIL' THEORY BITES THE DUST: By 1951, what has been called the Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins was born. A healthy amount of scientific debate followed for the next couple of decades, during which time the theory, initially formulated by geologists, based on observational data, was validated through the rigorous quantitative work of chemists, physicists and thermodynamicists. For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Back to Monbiot:

- and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. [Untrue. He is the victim of the double displacement I described above.] But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces.

The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. [Oh the ironies, that Exxon executives I am sure if they read this Monbiot piece, are smiling quietly that he accepts their double displacement about abiotic oil.] I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.

Before I go any further, I should make it clear that [the ecological modernization principles of] turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins.

When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel.

In promoting biodiesel - as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth.

Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant(4). His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees.

"The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ... This fresh demand ... would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop. [In other words, the whole ecological modernization political premises of grassroots organizations are being subverted and turned into a novel corporate clientelistic market commodity.]

In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia.

Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field.

Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria.

The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10)

[However, Monbiot ignores that Brazilians, because they have different kinds of 'flex' engines available that allow the consumer to switch between oil and cane fuel without problems. ]

It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria ... would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway. [Monbiot sounds like an oil industry salesman right now, doesn't he? Fear of another displacement of bio crop. However, his article trails on without addressing that consumers can of course avoid buying such corporate palm oil biodisel. Surely that is one solution. However, a solution that is still

At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay £3.6 billion - more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves.

All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. [That phrase "wherever the fuel may come from" shows his cluelessness to the different ecological modernization premises of consumer driven moves for integrating waste-based biodiesel.] The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke.


1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of
Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44.

2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO, no date. Memorandum to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. link to

3. link to

4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel plant. The Edge Daily.
link to

5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant.; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine-month profit hits RM841mil.; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands.; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe.; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine-month profit hits RM841mil.; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands.; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe. link to

6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia.

7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. link to

8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal: how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report.

9. ibid.

10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report.
link to

11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final Report.

12. Department for Transport, ibid.

13. ibid.

AS MY ADDENDUM, I place these caveats to clarify the position here. This is what I learned from assembling the same arguments over and over in answering attackers, and a clarification of my position:

(1) there is only scientific evidence that oil is abiotically created, period--there is no evidence physically for oil being of a fossil-fuel origin--see first links; that has always been a total scam to justify the high prices of oil, it came from theories of 250 years ago--that never ever gathered any evidence for their justification. The total scam of the "fossil fuel theory" were just carried over from the 1700s ideas because they alone among ideas about oil were the only convenient ways to frame (abiotic) oil falsely as a "scarce and unreplenishable resource."

(2) the "tragedy" they keep softening people up for is entirely their own design. The dislocations are not going to be an accidental oversight or are going to be the effect of some physical reality of the issue of "supply and demand" etc.--all information about oil of course is entirely private anyway, why trust anything they say as for their motivations particularly when the whole framing is designed to make something social like production seem entirely neutral? moreover, they want you to believe that your life dislocation will be "damned bad, though not our fault!". However, the dislocation will be their fault. This is because they are (2a) intentionally and socially shutting down oil production currently--even from profitable California refineries to make it look like "oil is peaking naturally." Even other oil companies that want to buy these refineries are being denied them! And the corrupt U.S.A. is looking the other way. Links above. (2b) the other part of the intentionality is that they are keeping other technological frameworks of energy offline to facilitate the dislocation they want POLITICALLY. (2c) What backs up (2b) is that oil companies in the past 10 years have been buying up the "alternative energy" market patents. However, you don't hear about them seriously using these patents. What you do hear about is the repressive attempt to confiscate all of this alternative technology, like that Ford electric car/truck that was in the news recently. There are markets for these alternative technologies out there. However, they are intentionally not being filled for a political purpose of dislocation. (2d) This dislocation will suit them politically to usher in and justify a police state crackdown after they created the "oil shock" context for themselves. (2e) The 21st century "oil shock" will be just like their practice run "oil shock" in the 1970s. (2f) There were Congressional investigations of their artificial 1970s "oil shock" mass social manipulation tests then (in the 1970s). There are none now. Oil men are in the White House. And they are the same regrouping from the late 1970s. Thus, what these people were working on in the 1970s--all those plans--are being dusted off.

(3) Environmentalism is one large movement. However, there is a corporate-fascist wing within environmentalism. (3a) This is the totally unpunished Rockefeller-oilcorp-media-eugenics wing--the same connections since the early 20th century! Their discredited and very openly discussed 20th century eugenic and depopulationist goals are still there: they have only been now "green-coated". These people (not all people) are using the cloak of environmentalism to justify fascist consolidation and eugenics in the Third World--and soon the First World. Military biological warfare techniques will be utilized as well on civilian populations. See above discussion and links to that book. There are of course other books on this topic. It hardly takes a genius to note that if you are a fascist and you have the stranglehold on the world's oil based energy, and you are in the biological warfare research as well, you would utilize your corporate and military institutional advantage to promote your political eugenic goals--even against your own economic interest--if what you really were after was political power. (3b) The depopulationist Club of Rome for instance was filled with the same people (and oil company people) who were helping the Nazis in WWII.

(4) It is important to understand the physical reality of what is going on (abiotic oil) COMBINED with the political issues of these die-hard fascist-eugenicists in the oil companies. Not one or the other. Both. Without thinking about both, you are unable to seriously make plans for what to do or know what is really going on. Instead, remember to always ask the question: "Is what I am being coached to want, really someone else's interest?"

(5) My advice is get yourself set with non-oil based technologies of energy, perhaps a group-friend investment in something good. Oil is being POLITICALLY NOT ECONOMICALLY shut down, because it is on their political schedule. Your mass dislocation reactions are going to be managed, similar to the 1970s. Don't let that happen and you will be less manipulated and held hostage to them. (5a) My additional advice is to protect yourself the best you know how (healthy foods, vitamins, don't trust mass "inoculation" campaigns) from their coming (it's already here) military biowarfare on the world's population.

(6) If getting more information out about these high level criminal behaviors helps to slow or stop it--or even get the real actors in jail--you can bet I or others are going to do our best.

(7) I never even suggested that abiotic oil would be GOOD. I have always thought that abiotic oil that puts up tons of atmospheric carbon is a foolish energy choice. I'm not supporting abiotic oil's continuity.


Post a Comment

<< Home