Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

[The Toecutter]

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0115-24.htm

Is Energo-Fascism in Your Future?
The Global Energy Race and Its Consequences (Part 1)
Published on Monday, January 15, 2007 by TomDispatch.com
by Michael T. Klare

It has once again become fashionable for the dwindling supporters of President Bush's futile war in Iraq to stress the danger of "Islamo-fascism" and the supposed drive by followers of Osama bin Laden to establish a monolithic, Taliban-like regime -- a "Caliphate" -- stretching from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The President himself has employed this term on occasion over the years, using it to describe efforts by Muslim extremists to create "a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." While there may indeed be hundreds, even thousands, of disturbed and suicidal individuals who share this delusional vision, the world actually faces a far more substantial and universal threat, which might be dubbed: Energo-fascism, or the militarization of the global struggle over ever-diminishing supplies of energy.

Unlike Islamo-fascism, Energo-fascism will, in time, affect nearly every person on the planet. Either we will be compelled to participate in or finance foreign wars to secure vital supplies of energy, such as the current conflict in Iraq; or we will be at the mercy of those who control the energy spigot, like the customers of the Russian energy juggernaut Gazprom in Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; or sooner or later we may find ourselves under constant state surveillance, lest we consume more than our allotted share of fuel or engage in illicit energy transactions. This is not simply some future dystopian nightmare, but a potentially all-encompassing reality whose basic features, largely unnoticed, are developing today.

These include:

* The transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service whose primary mission is to defend America's overseas sources of oil and natural gas, while patrolling the world's major pipelines and supply routes.

* The transformation of Russia into an energy superpower with control over Eurasia's largest supplies of oil and natural gas and the resolve to convert these assets into ever increasing political influence over neighboring states.

* A ruthless scramble among the great powers for the remaining oil, natural gas, and uranium reserves of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, accompanied by recurring military interventions, the constant installation and replacement of client regimes, systemic corruption and repression, and the continued impoverishment of the great majority of those who have the misfortune to inhabit such energy-rich regions.

* Increased state intrusion into, and surveillance of, public and private life as reliance on nuclear power grows, bringing with it an increased threat of sabotage, accident, and the diversion of fissionable materials into the hands of illicit nuclear proliferators.

Together, these and related phenomena constitute the basic characteristics of an emerging global Energo-fascism. Disparate as they may seem, they all share a common feature: increasing state involvement in the procurement, transportation, and allocation of energy supplies, accompanied by a greater inclination to employ force against those who resist the state's priorities in these areas. As in classical twentieth century fascism, the state will assume ever greater control over all aspects of public and private life in pursuit of what is said to be an essential national interest: the acquisition of sufficient energy to keep the economy functioning and public services (including the military) running.

The Demand/Supply Conundrum

Powerful, potentially planet-altering trends like this do not occur in a vacuum. The rise of Energo-fascism can be traced to two overarching phenomena: an imminent collision between energy demand and energy supplies, and the historic migration of the center of gravity of planetary energy output from the global north to the global south.

For the past 60 years, the international energy industry has largely succeeded in satisfying the world's ever-growing thirst for energy in all its forms. When it comes to oil alone, global demand jumped from 15 to 82 million barrels per day between 1955 and 2005, an increase of 450%. Global output rose by a like amount in those years. Worldwide demand is expected to keep growing at this rate, if not faster, for years to come -- propelled in large part by rising affluence in China, India, and other developing nations. There is, however, no expectation that global output can continue to keep pace.

Quite the opposite: A growing number of energy experts believe that the global output of "conventional" (liquid) crude oil will soon reach a peak -- perhaps as early as 2010 or 2015 -- and then begin an irreversible decline. If this proves to be the case, no amount of inputs from Canadian tar sands, shale oil, or other "unconventional" sources will prevent a catastrophic liquid-fuel shortage in a decade or so, producing widespread economic trauma. The global supply of other primary fuels, including natural gas, coal, and uranium is not expected to contract as rapidly, but all of these materials are finite, and will eventually become scarce.

Coal is the most plentiful of the three; if consumed at current rates, it can be expected to last for perhaps another century and a half. If, however, it is used to replace oil (in various coal-to-liquid schemes), it will disappear much more rapidly. This does not, of course, address coal's disproportionate contribution to global warming; if there is no change in the way it is burned in power plants, the planet will become inhospitable long before the last coal mine is exhausted.

Natural gas and uranium will outlast petroleum by a decade or two, but they too will eventually reach peak output and begin to decline. Natural gas will simply disappear, just like oil; any future scarcity of uranium can to some degree be overcome through the greater utilization of "breeder reactors," which produce plutonium as a byproduct; this substance can, in turn, be used as a reactor fuel in its own right. But any increased use of plutonium will also vastly increase the risk of nuclear-weapons proliferation, producing a far more dangerous world and a corresponding requirement for greater government oversight of all aspects of nuclear power and commerce.

Such future possibilities are generating great anxiety among officials of the major energy-consuming nations, especially the United States, China, Japan, and the European powers. All of these countries have undertaken major reviews of energy policy in recent years, and all have come to the same conclusion: Market forces alone can no longer be relied upon to satisfy essential national energy requirements, and so the state must assume ever-increasing responsibility for performing this role. This was, for example, the fundamental conclusion of the National Energy Policy adopted by the Bush administration on May 17, 2001 and followed slavishly ever since, just as it is the official stance of China's Communist regime. When resistance to such efforts is encountered, moreover, government officials only wield the power of the state more regularly and with a heavier hand to achieve their objectives, whether through trade sanctions, embargoes, arrests and seizures, or the outright use of force. This is part of the explanation for Energo-fascism's emergence.

Its rise is also being driven by the changing geography of energy production. At one time, most of the world's major oil and natural gas wells were located in North America, Europe, and the European sectors of the Russian Empire. This was no accident. The major energy companies much preferred to operate in hospitable countries that were close at hand, relatively stable, and disinclined to nationalize private energy deposits. But these deposits have now largely been depleted and the only areas still capable of satisfying rising world demand are located in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

The countries in these regions were nearly all subject to colonial rule and still harbor deep distrust of foreign involvement; many also house ethnic separatist groups, insurgencies, or extremist movements that make them especially inhospitable to foreign oil companies. Oil production in Nigeria, for example, has been sharply curtailed in recent months by an insurgency in the impoverished Niger Delta. Members of poor tribal groups that have suffered terribly from the environmental devastation wrought by oil-company operations in their midst, while receiving few tangible benefits from the resulting oil revenues, have led it; most of the profits that remain in-country are pilfered by ruling elites in Abuja, the capital. Combine this sort of local resentment with lack of security and often shaky ruling groups, and it's hardly surprising that the leaders of the major consuming nations have increasingly been taking matters into their own hands -- arranging preemptive oil deals with compliant local officials and providing military protection, where needed, to ensure the safe delivery of oil and natural gas.

In many cases, this has resulted in the establishment of oil-driven, patron-client relations between major consuming nations and their leading suppliers, similar to the long-established U.S. protectorate over Saudi Arabia and the more recent U.S. embrace of Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan. Already we have the beginnings of the energy equivalent of a classic arms race, combined with many of the elements of the "Great Game" as once played by colonial powers in some of the same parts of the world. By militarizing the energy policies of consuming nations and enhancing the repressive capacities of client regimes, the foundations are being laid for an Energo-fascist world.

The Pentagon: A Global Oil-Protection Service

The most significant expression of this trend has been the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil-protection service whose primary function is the guarding of overseas energy supplies as well as their global delivery systems (pipelines, tanker ships, and supply routes). This overarching mission was first articulated by President Jimmy Carter in January 1980, when he described the oil flow from the Persian Gulf as a "vital interest" of the United States, and affirmed that this country would employ "any means necessary, including military force" to overcome an attempt by a hostile power to block that flow.

When President Carter issued this edict, quickly dubbed the Carter Doctrine, the United States did not actually possess any forces capable of performing this role in the Gulf. To fill this gap, Carter created a new entity, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), an ad hoc assortment of U.S-based forces designated for possible employment in the Middle East. In 1983, President Reagan transformed the RDJTF into the Central Command (Centcom), the name it bears today. Centcom exercises command authority over all U.S. combat forces deployed in the greater Persian Gulf area including Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. At present, Centcom is largely preoccupied with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has never given up its original role of guarding the oil flow from the Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine.

The greatest danger to the Persian Gulf oil flow is now said to emanate from Iran, which has threatened to choke off all oil shipments through the vital Strait of Hormuz (the narrow passageway at the mouth of the Gulf) in the event of an American air assault on its nuclear facilities. In possible anticipation of such a move, the Pentagon recently ordered additional air and naval forces into the Gulf and replaced General John Abizaid, the Centcom Commander, who favored diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria, with Admiral William Fallon, the Commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom) and an expert in combined air and naval operations. Fallon arrived at Centcom just as President Bush, in a nationally televised speech on January 10, announced the deployment of an additional carrier battle group to the Gulf and warned of harsh military action against Iran if it failed to halt its support for insurgents in Iraq and its pursuit of uranium-enrichment technology.

When first promulgated in 1980, the Carter Doctrine was aimed principally at the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. In recent years, however, American policymakers have concluded that the United States must extend this kind of protection to every major oil-producing region in the developing world. The logic for a Carter Doctrine on a global scale was first spelled out in a bipartisan task force report, "The Geopolitics of Energy," published by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in November 2000. Because the United States and its allies are becoming increasingly dependent on energy supplies from unstable overseas suppliers, the report concluded, "[T]he geopolitical risks attendant to energy availability are not likely to abate." Under these circumstances, "the United States, as the world's only superpower, must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to worldwide energy supply."

This sort of thinking -- embraced by senior Democrats and Republicans alike -- appears to have governed American strategic thinking since the late 1990s. It was President Clinton who first put this policy into effect, by extending the Carter Doctrine to the Caspian Sea basin. It was Clinton who originally declared that the flow of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to the West was an American security priority, and who, on this basis, established military ties with the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. President Bush has substantially upgraded these ties -- thereby laying the groundwork for a permanent U.S. military presence in the region -- but it is important to view this as a bipartisan effort in accordance with a shared belief that protection of the global oil flow is increasingly not just a vital function, but the vital function of the American military.

More recently, President Bush has extended the reach of the Carter Doctrine to West Africa, now one of America's major sources of oil. Particular emphasis is being placed on Nigeria, where unrest in the Delta (which holds most of the country's onshore petroleum fields) has produced a substantial decline in oil output. "Nigeria is the fifth largest source of U.S. oil imports," the State Department's Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations declares, "and disruption of supply from Nigeria would represent a major blow to U.S. oil security strategy." To prevent such a disruption, the Department of Defense is providing Nigerian military and internal security forces with substantial arms and equipment intended to quell unrest in the Delta region; the Pentagon is also collaborating with Nigerian forces in a number of regional patrol and surveillance efforts aimed at improving security in the Gulf of Guinea, where most of West Africa's offshore oil and gas fields are located.

Of course, senior officials and foreign policy elites are generally loathe to acknowledge such crass motivations for the utilization of military force -- they much prefer to talk about spreading democracy and fighting terrorism. Every once in a while, however, a hint of this deep energy-based conviction rises to the surface. Especially revealing is a November 2006 task force report from the Council on Foreign Relations on "National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency." Co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger and former CIA Director John Deutsch, and endorsed by a slew of elite policy wonks from both parties, the report trumpeted the usual to-be-ignored calls for energy efficiency and conservation at home, but then struck just the militaristic note first voiced in the 2000 CSIS report (which Schlesinger also co-chaired): "Several standard operations of U.S. regionally deployed forces [presumably Centcom and Pacom] have made important contributions to improving energy security, and the continuation of such efforts will be necessary in the future. U.S. naval protection of the sea-lanes that transport oil is of paramount importance." The report also called for stepped up U.S. naval engagement in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Nigeria.

When expressing such views, U.S. policymakers often adopt an altruistic stance, claiming that the United States is performing a "social good" by protecting the global oil flow on behalf of the world community. But this haughty, altruistic posture ignores crucial aspects of the situation:

* First, the United States is the world's leading gas guzzler, accounting for one out of every four barrels of oil consumed daily around the world.

* Second, the pipelines and sea lanes being protected by American soldiers and sailors at risk of life and limb are largely those oriented toward the United States and close allies like Japan and the NATO countries.

* Third, it is often specifically American-based corporations whose overseas operations are being protected by U.S. forces in turbulent areas abroad, again at significant risk to the military personnel involved.

* Fourth, the Pentagon is itself one of the world's great oil guzzlers, consuming 134 million barrels of oil in 2005, as much as the entire nation of Sweden.

So while it is true that other countries may obtain some benefits from the activities of the American military, the primary beneficiaries are the American economy and giant U.S. corporations; the primary losers are the American soldiers who risk their lives every day to protect the pipelines and refineries, the poor of these countries who see little or no benefit from the extraction of their natural resources, and the global environment as a whole.

The cost of this immense undertaking, in both blood and treasure, is enormous and it's still on the rise. There is, first of all, the war in Iraq, which may have been sparked by a variety of motives, but cannot in the end be separated from the historic mission first laid out by President Carter of eliminating any potential threat to the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. An assault on Iran would also have a number of motives, but it, too, would be tied to this mission in the final analysis -- even if it had the perverse effect of closing off oil supplies, driving up energy prices, and throwing the global economy into a tailspin. And there are sure to be more wars over oil after these, with more American casualties and more victims of American missiles and bullets.

The cost in dollars will also be great. Even if the war in Iraq is excluded from the tally, the United States spends about one-fourth of its defense budget, or some $100 billion per year, on Persian Gulf-related expenses -- the approximate annual price-tag for enforcement of the Carter Doctrine. One can argue about what percentage of the approximately $1 trillion cost of the war in Iraq should be added to this tally, but surely we are minimally talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight. Protection of pipelines and tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, the Gulf of Guinea, Colombia, and the Caspian Sea region adds additional billions to this figure.

These costs will snowball in the future as the United States becomes predictably more dependent on energy from the global south, as resistance to Western exploitation of its oil fields grows, as an energy race with newly ascendant China and India revs up, and as American foreign-policy elites come to rely increasingly on the U.S. military to overcome this resistance. Eventually, the escalation of these costs will require higher domestic taxes or diminished social benefits, or both; at some point, the growing need for manpower to guard all these overseas oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker routes could entail resumption of the military draft. This will generate widespread resistance to these policies at home -- and this, in turn, may trigger the sorts of repressive government crackdowns that would throw an ever darkening shadow of Energo-fascism over our world.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).

[Ryner]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

But I heard they were just friends...

[John Mora]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

But I heard they were just friends...

Nope, oil dumped capitalism last week in third period.

[Wavelength]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Big props for posting on such an important matter, and in theory, the best thing we could do is to be investing HEAVILY in alternative energy (which this article might be indirectly suggesting), but I've got some serious doubt about the article itself.

Most importantly, the article mostly ignores the effect of developing countries on the world's economy (on both production and consumption) as well as the effect of hybrid cars (if they really catch on, they will drop our oil dependence enormously), negawatts (energy conservation), and the like.

Quite the opposite: A growing number of energy experts believe that the global output of "conventional" (liquid) crude oil will soon reach a peak -- perhaps as early as 2010 or 2015 -- and then begin an irreversible decline.

It seems really unlikely, considering that the United States has just 2-3% of the world's oil reserves, but about 8% of its production. Investments in better technology around the world (which will happen if a shortage seems imminent) will allow oil production to keep increasing, at the obvious cost of burning it out faster. The article's source even admits that The peak oil theory has detractors, who note technology can help extend the life of the world's oil reserves.

If this proves to be the case, no amount of inputs from Canadian tar sands, shale oil, or other "unconventional" sources will prevent a catastrophic liquid-fuel shortage in a decade or so, producing widespread economic trauma.

That's speculation, and it's most likely wrong. Tar sands *may* be the answer to our problem. Ethanol (switchgrass, not corn) *may* be the answer to our problem. And if you count "clean energy" into the catch-all 'unconventional sources,' there's another eight or so sources that may save us.

Natural gas and uranium will outlast petroleum by a decade or two, but they too will eventually reach peak output and begin to decline. Natural gas will simply disappear, just like oil; any future scarcity of uranium can to some degree be overcome through the greater utilization of "breeder reactors," which produce plutonium as a byproduct; this substance can, in turn, be used as a reactor fuel in its own right. But any increased use of plutonium will also vastly increase the risk of nuclear-weapons proliferation, producing a far more dangerous world and a corresponding requirement for greater government oversight of all aspects of nuclear power and commerce.

I'm no expert on nuclear power, but saying that we'll run out of Uranium sounds highly suspect. Since it takes huge amounts of refined plutonium to create nuclear weapons, nuclear power is not the risk that many make it out to be.



One of the articles that this article links to makes this interesting point:

The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day, according to the CBO. That is about the same as the gross domestic product of Nigeria.

While deceptive (how much of Nigeria's economic activity is accurately represented in its GDP? How much of this budget would have to be spent on our military anyway if we weren't at "war"?), the fact illustrates how much (hopefully positive) impact we could be having on Africa or South Asia right now if we had devoted our minds, money, and people there instead. You know, to places where people would rather buy a motor scooter than a car bomb, where they'd rather set up algorithms than "checkpoints."

We could be making a difference in the world and really moving standards of living forward. Theoretically, t would help the mindset spill over into the Middle East too, as long as we didn't ignore it completely. It's really a shame that we're spending all our financial, human, and intellectual resources are instead working towards maintaining a pupper government that's lost control of half of its strings, in a place that shouldn't have been a priority in the last ten years.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Most importantly, the article mostly ignores the effect of developing countries on the world's economy (on both production and consumption) as well as the effect of hybrid cars (if they really catch on, they will drop our oil dependence enormously), negawatts (energy conservation), and the like.

Indeed. However, hybrid cars only get about 25% more fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts, if horsepower, aerodynamics, weight, and other factors are kept constant. The impact they can make is huge, but the U.S. is importing 65% of its oil, and its domestic production is declining at about 5% per year. The more optimistic oil geologists suspect that peak oil will leave a 2-3% decline rate. This means that assuming the oil peak was in 2006(very likely), that the world will have about 12% less oil by 2011 than it did in 2006. Automobile fuel accounts for roughly 45% of oil consumption. It takes 17 years for the car fleet to turn over, so even if we replaced half of our cars to hybrids by then, that impact would more than be negated by reduced oil supplies.

We don't need hybrid cars. We need something more. The battery electric car, if mass produced, would be affordable. With NiMH and LiIon batteries, long range has been doable. One study found a mass produced electric midsize car with 300 miles range, 0-60 in 8 seconds, and $20,000 cost is doable. This study was done in 2003, titled "Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or Shell Game", by Stephen S. Eaves, U.C. Davis. Earlier studies in the 1990s also found an electric of similar performance/size/price with 150-200 miles range were doable. The auto industry refuses to make them; no oil changes, tune ups, or other maintenance is needed. Electric motors last over 500,000 miles. However, the U.S. federal government, the oil industry, and the auto industry made sure that they were never an option for Americans. Why did they suppress it? G8 nations make more revenue on oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit. Auto fuel is 40% of America's oil consumption, oil industry's largest source of revenue. When the car companies were still profitable, aftermarket services/repairs were half of profit margins. Electric cars replacing gas cars would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.


In the 1990s, the U.S. government gave the Big 3 over $220 million to develop an 80 mpg midsize car. They never had to sell a product, however. GM, Ford, and Dodge developed a few working prototypes, never sold a single car, then pocketed the rest of the money.

Industrial hemp is also excellent for making biodiesel, yielding over 300 gallons of oil per hectare, having an EROEI(energy return of energy investment) ratio > 2 but usually around 4-6, needing no pesticides and very few fertilizers, and can be grown in almost any climate, from the jungles of latin America, to the deserts of the southwest U.S., to the tundra in Canada. However, in the 1920s, when DuPont had patented nylon and hemp became more economical to produce paper than timber, and had been found to be suitable for plastics, car bodies, medicine, and other uses, William Randolph Heast and his wood paper industry, DuPont, standard oil, the cotton industry, and other companies lobbied to get the war on drugs started. They were successful, and have since barred this alternative from becoming mainstream. U.S. and same lobbyists got their way in other nations. Industrial hemp use over oil would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

America used to have the best mass transit system in the world. Trolleys everywhere, so much so they were as convenient as cars and much cheaper. Only 1/3 of driving age Americans owned cars in the 1920s because they didn't need them! The government wanted to grow the economy out of the depression, and thus allowed the car companies and oil companies to buy off and destroy the extensive mass transit system in the 40s, to make the car a necessity instead of an option. This in turn increased spending, more of your money went to them. There were riots in Cincinnati, LA, and elsewhere when the trolleys were torn down, as people didn't want to need cars. Roads, inspection centers all require lots of tax dollars to run. Reducing car use would heavily reduce that and much of the subsidies to the auto companies. Why does our mass transit suck today? Its use over the car would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

High speed rail is almost as fast as air travel, more comfortable, safer, and cheaper. But every time such a system is proposed anywhere in the U.S., the airline industry gets to lobbying to prevent it, and gets their way. The airline industry can't even hold itself up and cries to big nanny government for welfare handouts and violates the **** out of the civil liberties of all who pay for their services, then lambasts electric rail proposals that would require even less funding. Air travel accounts for ~12% of America's oil consumption. But using high speed electric rail over airplanes would reduce spending, taxes, profit, and economic growth.

Meanwhile, our government supports unviable alternatives like corn ethanol as that's what Monsanto, BP, DuPont and others tell it to support. The EROEI of corn ethanol is low. Most studies have it breaking even; you put as much energy in as usable energy you get out. Some are more pessimistic. Ethanol from sugar cane works, EROEI > 2, but agribusiness is dead set against it. Many subsidies to go around; Joe Taxpayer pays the tab at gunpoint. More viable sugarcane ethanol is shunned in areas of the US where it's suitable. There are insane amounts of taxes on imported sugar and derivative products.

Our government supports hydrogen fuel cells(FREEDOM CAR, ect.), which are a joke. If mass produced today, price would be over $300 per peak horsepower. This doesn't include storage tanks, motor, inverter, or the chassis. To get 150 miles range in a fuel cell car, pressure in the hundreds of atmospheres is needed. Compressing H2 gas into a tank takes longer than charging an electric car. Toyota hopes to get a mass produced fuel cell car down to $50K by 2020. If mass produced today, fuel cell cars would be in the five figure range. Yet, fuel cells are touted by our government as the alternative to oil, even though the DOE wants to derive hydrogen from crude oil in the future.



While the article is never specific on this issue, I think it is working under the assumption that alternatives WON'T be replacing oil in any meaningful number. Given the past trends I outlined above, it seems very reasonable.

It's not that alternatives aren't viable, because they absolutely are and have been for some time. It's that the industrys and their bought politicians that run our economy don't want these alternatives to take hold. Oil is very profitable, and as it becomes more scarce, the financial incentive to stall alternatives is even greater as the scarcity will make the price of oil rise even more. Fascism is all part of the game. If alternatives take hold, the world's governemnts and industrys will lose a lot of control over our lives and a lot of potential money will not be made. If war is needed for them to secure more oil and keep profits flowing to the right people, then that is the route that will be taken.

We could also conserve, but consumers have been only given one option for conservation: sacrifice. We wouldn't need to sacrifice if the viable alternatives mentioned above were allowed to enter the mainstream market. People would really flock to them in a true free market setting due to the financial incentives and other benefits.

It seems really unlikely, considering that the United States has just 2-3% of the world's oil reserves, but about 8% of its production. Investments in better technology around the world (which will happen if a shortage seems imminent) will allow oil production to keep increasing, at the obvious cost of burning it out faster. The article's source even admits that The peak oil theory has detractors, who note technology can help extend the life of the world's oil reserves.

According to Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, former senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company, oil peaked in early 2006. According to Princeton Geologist Kennith Deffeyes, oil peaked in late 2005.

The numbers are certainly around if you look for them. Production for 2005 was down from 2004, and we're still awaiting the EIA to release the 2006 figures. It is very likely that world oil production has already peaked, or at the very least, plateued.

The detractors of peak oil are often wildly optimistic, thinking we can extend the oil peak out to 2030 or later. The reality is that tar sands and shale and other alternatives sources of oil cannot be extracted fast enough to keep up with the rise in demand and the decline in production. Maybe in the future, but certainly not today. The oil crisis is already today, however.

I'm no expert on nuclear power, but saying that we'll run out of Uranium sounds highly suspect.

All one needs to do is look at the US geological survey for the numbers on that. The picture isn't very encouraging.

We could be making a difference in the world and really moving standards of living forward. Theoretically, t would help the mindset spill over into the Middle East too, as long as we didn't ignore it completely. It's really a shame that we're spending all our financial, human, and intellectual resources are instead working towards maintaining a pupper government that's lost control of half of its strings, in a place that shouldn't have been a priority in the last ten years.

It's quite simple. The solutions to peak oil are all around us and work. These solutions have been cost competitive, scalable, and viable for decades. We aren't using them because they have been suppressed. These advancements would make industry and government less money than conventional sources. Meanwhile, unworkable ideas like corn ethanol and expensive/impractical hydrogen fuel cells(which the DOE wants the hydrogen to be gotten from crude oil!) are pushed to keep us using oil longer.

Consumers haven't even been given any choice except to choose oil or go without. Peak oil is a crisis by design. Worse the crisis is, the higher the oil prices will go, the more the profits will be made. Oil wars? Industry doesn't give a ****, they want to keep maximizing profits and war makes money. Don't have oil for agriculture and food prices skyrocket causing hardship? Industry doesn't give a ****. If there is a post peak dieoff? Industry doesn't give a ****. It's about money.

Our government and the industries that bought them are hell bent on maximizing the flow of money from the people to them. We see this every day in the increasing taxes we pay and price hikes on all goods, without wages rising in compensation. Government and Business are both way too big, and they BOTH need to be shrunk down to a size small enough to be drowned in a bathtub for any meaningful progress on this issue to be made.

But that isn't the trend we are seeing. We are seeing a trend to more oil wars to gain control of a substance vital for industrial society, as the alternatives to it are held back.

That's where this article comes in, relating oil use and fascism.

[Alzar]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Indeed. However, hybrid cars only get about 25% more fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts, if horsepower, aerodynamics, weight, and other factors are kept constant. The impact they can make is huge, but the U.S. is importing 65% of its oil, and its domestic production is declining at about 5% per year. The more optimistic oil geologists suspect that peak oil will leave a 2-3% decline rate. This means that assuming the oil peak was in 2006(very likely), that the world will have about 12% less oil by 2011 than it did in 2006. Automobile fuel accounts for roughly 45% of oil consumption. It takes 17 years for the car fleet to turn over, so even if we replaced half of our cars to hybrids by then, that impact would more than be negated by reduced oil supplies.

Industrial hemp is also excellent for making biodiesel, yielding over 300 gallons of oil per hectare, having an EROEI(energy return of energy investment) ratio > 2 but usually around 4-6, needing no pesticides and very few fertilizers, and can be grown in almost any climate, from the jungles of latin America, to the deserts of the southwest U.S., to the tundra in Canada. However, in the 1920s, when DuPont had patented nylon and hemp became more economical to produce paper than timber, and had been found to be suitable for plastics, car bodies, medicine, and other uses, William Randolph Heast and his wood paper industry, DuPont, standard oil, the cotton industry, and other companies lobbied to get the war on drugs started. They were successful, and have since barred this alternative from becoming mainstream. U.S. and same lobbyists got their way in other nations. Industrial hemp use over oil would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

In the 1990s, the U.S. government gave the Big 3 over $220 million to develop an 80 mpg midsize car. They never had to sell a product, however. GM, Ford, and Dodge developed a few working prototypes, never sold a single car, then pocketed the rest of the money.

We don't need hybrid cars. We need something more. The battery electric car, if mass produced, would be affordable. With NiMH and LiIon batteries, long range has been doable. One study found a mass produced electric midsize car with 300 miles range, 0-60 in 8 seconds, and $20,000 cost is doable. This study was done in 2003, titled "Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or Shell Game", by Stephen S. Eaves, U.C. Davis. Earlier studies in the 1990s also found an electric of similar performance/size/price with 150-200 miles range were doable. The auto industry refuses to make them; no oil changes, tune ups, or other maintenance is needed. Electric motors last over 500,000 miles. However, the U.S. federal government, the oil industry, and the auto industry made sure that they were never an option for Americans. Why did they suppress it? G8 nations make more revenue on oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit. Auto fuel is 40% of America's oil consumption, oil industry's largest source of revenue. When the car companies were still profitable, aftermarket services/repairs were half of profit margins. Electric cars replacing gas cars would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

America used to have the best mass transit system in the world. Trolleys everywhere, so much so they were as convenient as cars and much cheaper. Only 1/3 of driving age Americans owned cars in the 1920s because they didn't need them! The government wanted to grow the economy out of the depression, and thus allowed the car companies and oil companies to buy off and destroy the extensive mass transit system in the 40s, to make the car a necessity instead of an option. This in turn increased spending, more of your money went to them. There were riots in Cincinnati, LA, and elsewhere when the trolleys were torn down, as people didn't want to need cars. Roads, inspection centers all require lots of tax dollars to run. Reducing car use would heavily reduce that and much of the subsidies to the auto companies. Why does our mass transit suck today? Its use over the car would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

High speed rail is almost as fast as air travel, more comfortable, safer, and cheaper. But every time such a system is proposed anywhere in the U.S., the airline industry gets to lobbying to prevent it, and gets their way. The airline industry can't even hold itself up and cries to big nanny government for welfare handouts and violates the **** out of the civil liberties of all who pay for their services, then lambasts electric rail proposals that would require even less funding. Air travel accounts for ~12% of America's oil consumption. But using high speed electric rail over airplanes would reduce spending, taxes, profit, and economic growth.

Meanwhile, our government supports unviable alternatives like corn ethanol as that's what Monsanto, BP, DuPont and others tell it to support. The EROEI of corn ethanol is low. Most studies have it breaking even; you put as much energy in as usable energy you get out. Some are more pessimistic. Ethanol from sugar cane works, EROEI > 2, but agribusiness is dead set against it. Many subsidies to go around; Joe Taxpayer pays the tab at gunpoint. More viable sugarcane ethanol is shunned in areas of the US where it's suitable. There are insane amounts of taxes on imported sugar and derivative products.

While the article is never specific on this issue, I think it is working under the assumption that alternatives WON'T be replacing oil in any meaningful number. Given the past trends I outlined above, it seems very reasonable.

It's not that alternatives aren't viable, because they absolutely are and have been for some time. It's that the industrys and their bought politicians that run our economy don't want these alternatives to take hold. Oil is very profitable, and as it becomes more scarce, the financial incentive to stall alternatives is even greater as the scarcity will make the price of oil rise even more. Fascism is all part of the game. If alternatives take hold, the world's governemnts and industrys will lose a lot of control over our lives and a lot of potential money will not be made. If war is needed for them to secure more oil and keep profits flowing to the right people, then that is the route that will be taken.

We could also conserve, but consumers have been only given one option for conservation: sacrifice. We wouldn't need to sacrifice if the viable alternatives mentioned above were allowed to enter the mainstream market. People would really flock to them in a true free market setting due to the financial incentives and other benefits.

According to Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, former senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company, oil peaked in early 2006. According to Princeton Geologist Kennith Deffeyes, oil peaked in late 2005.

The numbers are certainly around if you look for them. Production for 2005 was down from 2004, and we're still awaiting the EIA to release the 2006 figures. It is very likely that world oil production has already peaked, or at the very least, plateued.

The detractors of peak oil are often wildly optimistic, thinking we can extend the oil peak out to 2030 or later. The reality is that tar sands and shale and other alternatives sources of oil cannot be extracted fast enough to keep up with the rise in demand and the decline in production. Maybe in the future, but certainly not today. The oil crisis is already today, however.

[Czechs Mex]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

We don't need hybrid cars. We need something more. The battery electric car, if mass produced, would be affordable. With NiMH and LiIon batteries, long range has been doable. One study found a mass produced electric midsize car with 300 miles range, 0-60 in 8 seconds, and $20,000 cost is doable. This study was done in 2003, titled "Fuel Cell Vehicles: Solution or Shell Game", by Stephen S. Eaves, U.C. Davis. Earlier studies in the 1990s also found an electric of similar performance/size/price with 150-200 miles range were doable. The auto industry refuses to make them; no oil changes, tune ups, or other maintenance is needed. Electric motors last over 500,000 miles. However, the U.S. federal government, the oil industry, and the auto industry made sure that they were never an option for Americans. Why did they suppress it? G8 nations make more revenue on oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit. Auto fuel is 40% of America's oil consumption, oil industry's largest source of revenue. When the car companies were still profitable, aftermarket services/repairs were half of profit margins. Electric cars replacing gas cars would reduce spending, profits, taxes, and economic growth.

Alzar, while I can see what you're saying I must disagree. The fact is you are not only incorrect, but what you said is just plain wrong. They are not all the same they are different. For example, hybrid cars and battery electric cars are not the same, they are completely different. Just because they have the same "opening music" does not make them the same. Take any two things on that list and you will see that they are different. As an example pick one thing on that list and then another thing, and will they be the same? No, they will be different. I am not sure that you've done your homework in fact I'm pretty sure you haven't. Please reread your original post you will see what I mean. Do not quote Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari unless you know what your talking about because he agrees with me they are different.

[Ωbright]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

GOD I wish I had access to all of the copyrights and patents for energy-saving devices, or alternate-energy production that the US govt. has bought out or outright confiscated over the years...all of the answers to our problems lie there, it's 1001 ways out of slavery...not to mention a way out of death from disease. I've heard so many stories that it just makes me angry. Some of these stories are from people I know personally...it's just sickening how little the govt (whoever that really is) wants people to know. I'm SICK of intellectual serfdom.

Is the world headed for totalitarian fascism? It's already halfway there, and most people don't even notice it. Oil is just the slick on the surface.

Afghanistan was about oil...period. It was about 'liberating' a very strategic oil pipeline. Likewise, the war in Iraq was a means to gain US control of mid-eastern oil reserves, and together thay have more than doubled the US national debt. All of that money has to be paid back...which means that future taxpayers will have to pay dearly, and GET NOTHING.

We need another Boston Tea Party...do you feel represented? How much of our tax dollars go to projects like H.A.A.R.P., or the chemtrail initiative, or stupid wars for potentially obsolete (yet lucrative) fuels?

Sorry...didn't mean to drift off-topic...

[Wavelength]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Terr, with all that knowledge, I wish you would have posted your thoughts directly in your first post rather than just quoting an article! Very impressive. I'll give a more thorough response soon (it's 6:30am and I'm not feeling too well), and in substance I agree with you (except for the malice involved), but I'd watch some of your facts. A couple quick things to think about...

*AFAIK, the alternatives are being paid to not produce, not forcibly suppressed. That's not fascism. Perhaps what the alternatives need are some powerful marketing efforts! (Obviously, a channel to actually provide the power is both expensive and necessary, as well.)

*Light rail has had its fair share of safety issues. Look it up on wiki. They also take up land area, cost ENORMOUS amounts to build, and more importantly, can't service nearly as many routes as gas-guzzling airplanes. I don't know much about their construction, but I'll hazard the guess it'd be hard to build one from Los Angeles to Tokyo.

*Gas Mileage varies considerably in hybrids between highway and street usage, with the latter actually better to my knowledge. Your 25% stat controls for many attributes--do these actually need to be controlled for, or are cars with diff. power sources structured differently? Also, what would happen if you needed to make a 400mi. trip on a 300mi. electric car?

*I'd be interested in a good (NPOV, reliable) source to read about the origins of the hemp ban. Know any? Also, to your knowledge, do any major countries produce it in mass?


Obi--you really think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about the oil? I dunno. Could be. My optimist in me says that it was a plan to impose our systems on the rest of the world by setting up a stable free-trade democracy--and that's really not all that bad of an idea. The skeptic in me says that it was Dubya's war to say "don't mess with daddy" and he and his republican cronies simply forgot about the tens of thousands of lives that would be sacrificed as a result. The oil theory is actually starting to look better with some of the recent findings, but if that's the reason we went over there, it's time for D.C. to get some better economists.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

*AFAIK, the alternatives are being paid to not produce, not forcibly suppressed.

In the case of the electric car, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate, former Chief of Staff and former General Motorist Lobbyist Andrew Card acting as plaintiff against the State of California, oil industry making blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology, oil industry setting up and funding organizations with the declared intent of "stalling or preventing the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere", oil industry conspiring to prevent utility companies from setting up EV charging infrastructure, Chevron buying out the NiMH battery tech and setting a restriction on the size of the modules produced and charging well above the battery's retail price by the original developer for use in hybrids, auto industry spreading around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs, auto industry attempting to prevent Ovshinski from revealing information on battery technology, auto industry making misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs, auto industry outright refusing to lease and/or sell the vehicles to willing customers with cash on hand willing to pay the advertised price, auto industry lobbyists spending millions of dollars printing ads in opposition to EVs that their companies developed, auto industry artificially inflating the production costs of their vehicles using wholly unconventional accounting methods, and the auto industry funding false studies all reek of suppression of that technology.

Just one example.

That's not fascism. Perhaps what the alternatives need are some powerful marketing efforts! (Obviously, a channel to actually provide the power is both expensive and necessary, as well.)

The companies willing to market such technology don't have the cash to do it. The companies with the cash to do it clearly don't want this technology removing sales of more profitable items.

*Light rail has had its fair share of safety issues. Look it up on wiki.

I am aware of this. Street trolleys do have these issues, but cars are far more dangerous overall.

They also take up land area, cost ENORMOUS amounts to build, and more importantly,

So do highways, roads, and airports, In fact, our cities in the U.S. devote over 20% of their real-estate to roads for automobile traffic.

can't service nearly as many routes as gas-guzzling airplanes.

Yes and no. It depends on terrain. You can't simply place an airport anywhere you like, just like a rail station. But a rail station doesn't need miles of undeveloped area surrounding it, or a constant delivery of fuel and other items.

I don't know much about their construction, but I'll hazard the guess it'd be hard to build one from Los Angeles to Tokyo.

This is actually a very valid point. But for intra-continential travel, rail's advantages are far too many over air to be ignored.

*Gas Mileage varies considerably in hybrids between highway and street usage, with the latter actually better to my knowledge. Your 25% stat controls for many attributes--do these actually need to be controlled for, or are cars with diff. power sources structured differently?

Cars with different power structures aren't structured too differently from each other. When you calculate fuel consumption of a car, the weight, tire rolling resistance coefficient, air density, drag coefficient, frontal area, BMEP versis RPM versus engine efficiency(at least in the case for combustion or diesel engines, for electric motors an efficiency map of the electric motor and controller would be in its place), transmission efficiency, accessory loads, brake drag, and other details need to be accounted for. Just because a car's drive system is different doesn't mean the laws of physics are.

Hybrids like the Prius are geting almost double that of a comparable gasoline car not just because of the hybrid drive, but because its drag coefficient and weight are reduced a fair bit over comparable gasoline cars. The hybrid drive is perhaps one of the least significant factors in that car's fuel economy improvement. Air drag is arguably the most significant; without any engine modifications, different tires, weight reduction, the current crop of V6 gasoline powered 26 mpg midsize cars could get about 35-40 mpg by lowering the drag coefficient from ~.32 to ~.16, and no other modifications.

Read the following article for the impact of air drag on fuel economy:



Add in a weight reduction, LRR tires, CVT, remapped engine computers, higher compression ratio, and we could have 35-40 mpg combined V8 musclecars or 50-60 mpg combined V6 family sedans, without the consumer having to make any sacrifices. Haven't even touched hybrid drives or diesels yet, which would help even more, but add to cost far more than any of the other mods listed earlier in this paragraph.

Also, what would happen if you needed to make a 400mi. trip on a 300mi. electric car?

Depends on what infrastructure is developed for it. Thanks to the oil industry, we have virtually none for fast charging. Southern California Edison and other utilities wanted to develop a system of fast chargers in California and along Route 66, but the oil lobbyists were successful in preventing the funding from being raised and the charge stations from being built in the 90s. Aerovironment has developed quick chargers that could charge NiMH and PbA battery packs in under 20 minutes. Mitsubishi in the late 1990s demonstrated a prototype FTO sports car converted to electric with lithium ion batteries. Using various fast chargers, it covered over 1,200 miles in 24 hours, including time spent stopping to charge(basically, about a 15 minute charge time). Drag racers have used spare battery banks with stored energy to dump charge their electric sports cars in under 10 minutes(google search "White Zombie" and "John Wayland" in the same character string).

So charge time isn't an issue, with the proper infrastructure.

Without that infrastrucure, you'll probably have to wait overnight at a hotel or someplace to charge from a standard 120/240V 60 Hz outlet. This would be workable for some, but not everyone.

Even still, a 300 mile range is a garunteed 2nd car for over 99% of families with more than 1 car. Take the gasser on long trips if the infrastructure isn't developed.

Would that initial infrastructure proposed by southern California Edison have been allowed to be developed in the U.S., a long distance trip in even an 80-100 mile short range lead acid battery car would have been practical for anyone in or near California or along route 66. Obviously, that infrastructure would have greatly expanded had electric cars been given the chance to take off.

*I'd be interested in a good (NPOV, reliable) source to read about the origins of the hemp ban. Know any?

Depends on what you consider neutral-POV. Many will claim that anyone actually covering this subject inherently has a bias, mostly because the facts of the matter sort of speak for themselves about certain views...

"Hemp Today" by Ed Rosenthal is excellent. If you can filter out the book's hatred for the drug war itself, "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer provides a great historical account.

But this is a political issue. Neutrality by the definitions of most people is virtually impossible to find for either this issue, the mass transit issue, or the electric car issue because the undeniable facts of the matter condemn certain points of view as either irrational or malicious. If you just look at the raw facts and get rid of any POV BS, then it is still quite obvious what happened. If there are two opposing views on an issue, the truth doesn't always rest in between, it can really indeed rest at an extreme.

Also, to your knowledge, do any major countries produce it in mass?

*cackle*

Today?

Afghanistan and certain other 3rd-world ****holes, those where there isn't much of a bureacracy to stifle it. Doesn't stop the invading U.S. from doing its part though...

Historically, as in post WWII to Reagan era, Ukraine, Kursk, China, Hungary, N. Korea, Poland... There have been instances where the U.S. has actually used force to stamp out some operations though. Can't have that competing with more expensive raw materials from wealthier nations...

Not too many 1st world countries embrace it. They want maximized economic growth and consumer spending, and hemp impedes this goal due to being much cheaper and durable than sources we see as 'conventional' today. However, Canada, France, Germany, and Italy, are starting to get more open to it today, much to the chagrin of many entrenched industries. They have a lot of catching up to do with 3rd world countries though, and it's a very slow process. The voters want it to take hold, but the politicians and certain corporations do not.

Obi--you really think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about the oil? I dunno. Could be.

My optimist in me says that it was a plan to impose our systems on the rest of the world by setting up a stable free-trade democracy--and that's really not all that bad of an idea.

The irony is that a free-trade system and a democracy forced on a population at gun point is neither free nor democratic. Hell, America's system arguably is severely lacking in terms of both market freedom and democracy at this time...

A free market cannot hope to exist when forced on a people by gunpoint. It's only free if the population wants it and for the most part agrees to it. It's fun to examine the similarities to the communist dictatorships that the former USSR forced onto people with the 'free-market' dictatorships America is forcing onto people...

The oil theory is actually starting to look better with some of the recent findings, but if that's the reason we went over there, it's time for D.C. to get some better economists.

Where were you in 2003 when Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were publically documented as having divvied up oil reserves to contract out to various companies? Or when US soldiers were ordered to protect first and formost the oil fields and ministry of oil as Baghdad burned? Or ordered to protect pipelines as nomadic tribes went around killing villagers and as weapons depots were raided?

At best, our government certainly didn't have its priorities straight and placed securing oil above the security of the Iraqi people. At worst, well... those possibilities can get quite disturbing.





What they don't teach you in school is the power struggle that has been going on since U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s. Some alternatives started becoming viable; nations with poor economies who started shifting to these alternatives got interfered with(arguably for other reasons, while this may have been a factor too). Nations with oil got attacked on a repeated basis or had their affairs meddled with if they threatened to cut off some supply from the gluttonous 1st world...

I think this article's major flaw is that it didn't delve into the possibility of Energo-fascism working both ways, not only to control the flow all usable oil, but to also stall alternatives to that oil so that energy independence could not be achieved, therby allowing an energy-centric fascism to take root. Should alternatives take hold, then oil loses its controlling influence. these said alternatives are way too decentralized; eg you could mount a wind turbine on your garage, use it to charge your electric car with an easily-repairable hemp-composite body, fill up your diesel tractor with hemp oil grown on your farm, run your home and electric lawnmower off of an array of solar panels with a biomass stirling engine as backup, sell power to your neighbors... You'd basically be far more independent than today, set your own prices, make your own rules about how to distribute your energy, maintain your own possessions without expensive upkeep... This is not good for an economic system that relies on ever increasing growth and resource consumption for prosperity. But this is also what a true free market would be; removal of economic control from the big corporations and the government into the hands of your ordinary citizen. Accomplish this, and energo-fascism becomes a complete impossibility. Bureaucracies, seeking ever more control over our personal lives and money do not like this prospect in the least. Whole sectors of the economy and tax structure could be eliminated almost overnight.





Of note, Iran has plans to build electric cars now and supposedly wants to run them off of nuclear energy. Many wealthier nations don't like this much. While Iran may not be a model country by any means, it will be able to accomplish this because a) the technology for a viable long range EV has existed since the 90s and b) Iran has a nationalized auto industry that it can force to build and sell such a product even though gasoline cars are much more profitable. Mind you, I don't think this is the reason that the U.S. wants to attack Iran, but it is perhaps a minor factor.

[Pandable]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

This has absolutely nothing to do with historical fascism. Fascism is not just a catch-all word used to refer to anything on the totalitarian right.

Sorry.

[Ωbright]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

I disagree...it's all the same disease, just ask the Bush family...particularly George Herbert Walker Bush (if he were still alive). They'd like us to think there are distinctions b/w the nazi regime and globalism...just like they'd like us to think there were distinctions b/w the Reichstag Fire and 911...but the distinctions are all tertiary at best. The face of fascism changes...the names change...but that's about it.

[Pandable]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Most fascists I know are anti-capitalist and anti-globalist, prefering to return to a traditional (and local-based) corporative system.

Not... what the neo-cons are doing.

That said, I know more fascists than neo-cons, so maybe I'm only getting one side of the story.

[Caciss]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

Facism is dumb.

[Alzar]

Re: Interesting article on the relationship between oil and fascism

no its not