How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject: Bogus neocon arguments exposed by oil trade history
I was recently reading a book titled "Its the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig. She has done some real homework here. Her work points out a couple of realizations about the conduct of Britain, the U.S. and, to a lesser degree, France over the years with their means of exploiting oil reserves around the world.
#1 - The old "trickle down" theory does not make any sense. If trickle down made sense, you'd see the bottom rung of society in those nations blessed by nature with oil doing very well from the capitalist workings of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". But, you do not. In every case, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and so on, left to their own, the oil firms and the upper crust of the society conspire together to keep the wealth in the family. Not much different than in feudal times in Europe. Middle class Americans and Canadians should realize that they are next on the hit list for the top economic echelon now that they've cleaned out the bottom rung of society.
#2 - The Western world has done zip to promote democracy in oil rich countries. In seemingly every case, United States, Britain and France have propped up monarchies and dictators as these have been most malleable to oil deals. Take Iran for instance, It went through a brief period in 1951-2 in which a democratic based government took over. It was put down by the British, and the rule returned to the Shah. Why? Because the Shah was happy to sell out his nation's oil inheritance at the price of 60 cents a barrel. This happened under Prime Minister Winston Churchill's second period. Churchill though highly of democracy, but apparently only for people like him. Now we have George Bush claiming to be interested in democracy for the people of Iraq. Its not believable in the least. His party and his hometown "industry" have just loved dealing with dicatators.
In reading this, it leaves me with the realization that oil has made all our Western World nationis a lot of two faced plunderers. We're not really any better than the Spanish conquistadors and British pirates of the 16th century, we just lie about our intentions a lot more, whether active as oil explorers or passive as consumers looking for the cheapest deal. When they call oil "black gold" the simile is true in more ways than just the wealth part. Its almost like oil has become a catalyst for evil. I wonder how many people died over oil acquisition in the 20th century.
Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 413 Location: Massachusetts
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
I'm glad you posted this, you are so right. And Linda McQuaig was right on target. I can totally believe the government would target the middle class next. I think its part of their agenda to widen the gap between rich and poor as much as possible.
It is tragic that more people aren't aware of whats going on. But I think society has practically been constructed to keep the people in it, in a state of ignorance, confusion and division. Its hard to believe that our futures are in large part, being decided by nihilistic, estranged, power hungry, selfish beings that gave up associating themselves with the rest of humanity a long time ago. _________________ Vision without action is a dream, action without vision is a nightmare.
I personally supported President Bush because he is a righteous man who upholds the value of human life. I supported him for the good of the country and the world. I expected nothing in return. The big money people need be no different to us little people, doing the right because it's right. President Bush's victory is enough of a reward.
This is from a Rabbi, Schmuley Boteach, in an article. I really have a hard time seeing how one can say that about a man, this President Bush, who is cold hearted toward the innocents or Iraq, and ven his own soldiers. I know there are mnay who are pro-life for the unborn, and I respect their political right, but I just have a hard time believing the sincerity of this man who talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.
See, we seem to define politicians if they say some of what we want to hear and we seem to ignore th real iompact of what they have done. I can't believe the rabbie is an ignoramus, not are most of the Republican voters, but we seem to vote based on fuzzy dreams, not on hard realities.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
