What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

[jaqeboy]

This long-awaited movie is coming to Keene and this is another case where the film-makers will be here to talk with us and answer questions after the movie!

What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, a feature-length documentary, will be screened Monday, August 6th, 6:30 PM at Antioch University New England in Keene. Screening to be followed by a discussion with the filmmakers.

"A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, Population Overshoot and the demise of the American Lifestyle."

Suggested donation is $10.

For more information email Rachel Zegerius at rzegerius@necsp.org

-----------------------------------------

Further details, directions and carpooling information are here.

[CNHT]

This long-awaited movie is coming to Keene and this is another case where the film-makers will be here to talk with us and answer questions after the movie!

What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, a feature-length documentary, will be screened Monday, August 6th, 6:30 PM at Antioch University New England in Keene. Screening to be followed by a discussion with the filmmakers.

"A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, Population Overshoot and the demise of the American Lifestyle."

Suggested donation is $10.

For more information email Rachel Zegerius at rzegerius@necsp.org

-----------------------------------------

Further details, directions and carpooling information are here.

More left-wing global warming nonsense from a parade of pinko commie idiots to scare us into giving up all our money to the UN agenda, so we can be herded into shires, and mass euthanasia of people can be justified, so we can 'save the whales!'. Nice.

[d_goddard]

Peak Oil

Thoroughly debunked.

http://economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GRNPVDG
Apr 20th 2006 | BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA, AND CALGARY, ALBERTA
From The Economist print edition

Why the world is not about to run out of oil
In 1894 Le Petit Journal of Paris organised the world's first endurance race for "vehicles without horses". The race was held on the 78-mile (125km) route from Paris to Rouen, and the purse was a juicy 5,000 francs. The rivals used all manner of fuels, ranging from steam to electricity to compressed air. The winner was a car powered by a strange new fuel that had previously been used chiefly in illumination, as a substitute for whale blubber: petrol derived from oil.

Despite the victory, petrol's future seemed uncertain back then. Internal-combustion vehicles were seen as noisy, smelly and dangerous. By 1900 the market was still split equally among steam, electricity and petrol—and even Henry Ford's Model T ran on both grain-alcohol and petrol. In the decades after that great race petrol came to dominate the world's transportation system. Oil left its rivals in the dust not only because internal-combustion engines proved more robust and powerful than their rivals, but also because oil reserves proved to be abundant.

Now comes what appears to be the most powerful threat to oil's supremacy in a century: growing fears that the black gold is running dry. For years a small group of geologists has been claiming that the world has started to grow short of oil, that alternatives cannot possibly replace it and that an imminent peak in production will lead to economic disaster. In recent months this view has gained wider acceptance on Wall Street and in the media. Recent books on oil have bewailed the threat. Every few weeks, it seems, "Out of Gas", "The Empty Tank" and "The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel", are joined by yet more gloomy titles. Oil companies, which once dismissed the depletion argument out of hand, are now part of the debate. Chevron's splashy advertisements strike an ominous tone: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30." Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, believes "the debate has changed in the last two years from 'Can we afford oil?' to 'Is the oil there?'"

But is the world really starting to run out of oil? And would hitting a global peak of production necessarily spell economic ruin? Both questions are arguable. Despite today's obsession with the idea of "peak oil", what really matters to the world economy is not when conventional oil production peaks, but whether we have enough affordable and convenient fuel from any source to power our current fleet of cars, buses and aeroplanes. With that in mind, the global oil industry is on the verge of a dramatic transformation from a risky exploration business into a technology-intensive manufacturing business. And the product that big oil companies will soon be manufacturing, argues Shell's Mr Van der Veer, is "greener fossil fuels".

The race is on to manufacture such fuels for blending into petrol and diesel today, thus extending the useful life of the world's remaining oil reserves. This shift in emphasis from discovery to manufacturing opens the door to firms outside the oil industry (such as America's General Electric, Britain's Virgin Fuels and South Africa's Sasol) that are keen on alternative energy. It may even result in a breakthrough that replaces oil altogether.

To see how that might happen, consider the first question: is the world really running out of oil? Colin Campbell, an Irish geologist, has been saying since the 1990s that the peak of global oil production is imminent. Kenneth Deffeyes, a respected geologist at Princeton, thought that the peak would arrive late last year.

It did not. In fact, oil production capacity might actually grow sharply over the next few years (see chart 1). Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy consultancy, has scrutinised all of the oil projects now under way around the world. Though noting rising costs, the firm concludes that the world's oil-production capacity could increase by as much as 15m barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010—equivalent to almost 18% of today's output and the biggest surge in history. Since most of these projects are already budgeted and in development, there is no geological reason why this wave of supply will not become available (though politics or civil strife can always disrupt output).

Peak-oil advocates remain unconvinced. A sign of depletion, they argue, is that big Western oil firms are finding it increasingly difficult to replace the oil they produce, let alone build their reserves. Art Smith of Herold, a consultancy, points to rising "finding and development" costs at the big firms, and argues that the world is consuming two to three barrels of oil for every barrel of new oil found. Michael Rodgers of PFC Energy, another consultancy, says that the peak of new discoveries was long ago. "We're living off a lottery we won 30 years ago," he argues.

It is true that the big firms are struggling to replace reserves. But that does not mean the world is running out of oil, just that they do not have access to the vast deposits of cheap and easy oil that are left in Russia and members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). And as the great fields of the North Sea and Alaska mature, non-OPEC oil production will probably peak by 2010 or 2015. That is soon—but it says nothing of what really matters, which is the global picture.

When the United States Geological Survey (USGS) studied the matter closely, it concluded that the world had around 3 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil in the ground. Of that, only one-third has been produced. That, argued the USGS, puts the global peak beyond 2025. And if "unconventional" hydrocarbons such as tar sands and shale oil (which can be converted with greater effort to petrol) are included, the resource base grows dramatically—and the peak recedes much further into the future.
After Ghawar

It is also true that oilmen will probably discover no more "super-giant" fields like Saudi Arabia's Ghawar (which alone produces 5m bpd). But there are even bigger resources available right under their noses. Technological breakthroughs such as multi-lateral drilling helped defy predictions of decline in Britain's North Sea that have been made since the 1980s: the region is only now peaking.

Globally, the oil industry recovers only about one-third of the oil that is known to exist in any given reservoir. New technologies like 4-D seismic analysis and electromagnetic "direct detection" of hydrocarbons are lifting that "recovery rate", and even a rise of a few percentage points would provide more oil to the market than another discovery on the scale of those in the Caspian or North Sea.

Further, just because there are no more Ghawars does not mean an end to discovery altogether. Using ever fancier technologies, the oil business is drilling in deeper waters, more difficult terrain and even in the Arctic (which, as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil). Large parts of Siberia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have not even been explored with modern kit.

The petro-pessimists' most forceful argument is that the Persian Gulf, officially home to most of the world's oil reserves, is overrated. Matthew Simmons, an American energy investment banker, argues in his book, "Twilight in the Desert", that Saudi Arabia's oil fields are in trouble. In recent weeks a scandal has engulfed Kuwait, too. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW), a respected industry newsletter, got hold of government documents suggesting that Kuwait might have only half of the nearly 100 billion barrels in oil reserves that it claims (Saudi Arabia claims 260 billion barrels).

Tom Wallin, publisher of PIW, warns that "the lesson from Kuwait is that the reserves figures of national governments must be viewed with caution." But that still need not mean that a global peak is imminent. So vast are the remaining reserves, and so well distributed are today's producing areas, that a radical revision downwards—even in an OPEC country—does not mean a global peak is here.

For one thing, Kuwait's official numbers always looked dodgy. IHS Energy, an industry research outfit that constructs its reserve estimates from the bottom up rather than relying on official proclamations, had long been using a figure of 50 billion barrels for Kuwait. Ron Mobed, boss of IHS, sees no crisis today: "Even using our smaller number, Kuwait still has 50 years of production left at current rates." As for Saudi Arabia, most independent contractors and oil majors that have first-hand knowledge of its fields are convinced that the Saudis have all the oil they claim—and that more remains to be found.

Pessimists worry that Saudi Arabia's giant fields could decline rapidly before any new supply is brought online. In Jeremy Leggett's thoughtful, but gloomy, book, "The Empty Tank", Mr Simmons laments that "the only alternative right now is to shrink our economies." That poses a second big question: whenever the production peak comes, will it inevitably prompt a global economic crisis?

The baleful thesis arises from concerns both that a cliff lies beyond any peak in production and that alternatives to oil will not be available. If the world oil supply peaked one day and then fell away sharply, prices would indeed rocket, shortages and panic buying would wreak havoc and a global recession would ensue. But there are good reasons to think that a global peak, whenever it comes, need not lead to a collapse in output.

For one thing, the nightmare scenario of Ghawar suddenly peaking is not as grim as it first seems. When it peaks, the whole "super-giant" will not drop from 5m bpd to zero, because it is actually a network of inter-linked fields, some old and some newer. Experts say a decline would probably be gentler and prolonged. That would allow, indeed encourage, the Saudis to develop new fields to replace lost output. Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali Naimi, points to an unexplored area on the Iraqi-Saudi border the size of California, and argues that such untapped resources could add 200 billion barrels to his country's tally. This contains worries of its own—Saudi Arabia's market share will grow dramatically as non-OPEC oil peaks, and with it the potential for mischief. But it helps to debunk claims of a sudden change.

The notion of a sharp global peak in production does not withstand scrutiny, either. CERA's Peter Jackson points out that the price signals that would surely foreshadow any "peak" would encourage efficiency, promote new oil discoveries and speed investments in alternatives to oil. That, he reckons, means the metaphor of a peak is misleading: "The right picture is of an undulating plateau."

What of the notion that oil scarcity will lead to economic disaster? Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, an American think-tank, insist the key is to avoid the price controls and monetary-policy blunders of the sort that turned the 1970s oil shocks into economic disasters. Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and the former chief economist of the IMF, thinks concerns about peak oil are greatly overblown: "The oil market is highly developed, with worldwide trading and long-dated futures going out five to seven years. As oil production slows, prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil, but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."

The other worry of pessimists is that alternatives to oil simply cannot be brought online fast enough to compensate for oil's imminent decline. If the peak were a cliff or if it arrived soon, this would certainly be true, since alternative fuels have only a tiny global market share today (though they are quite big in markets, such as ethanol-mad Brazil, that have favourable policies). But if the peak were to come after 2020 or 2030, as the International Energy Agency and other mainstream forecasters predict, then the rising tide of alternative fuels will help transform it into a plateau and ease the transition to life after oil.

The best reason to think so comes from the radical transformation now taking place among big oil firms. The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from "an exploration business to a manufacturing business". To see what that means, consider the surprising outcome of another great motorcar race. In March, at the Sebring test track in Florida, a sleek Audi prototype R-10 became the first diesel-powered car to win an endurance race, pipping a field of petrol-powered rivals to the post. What makes this tale extraordinary is that the diesel used by the Audi was not made in the normal way, exclusively from petroleum. Instead, Shell blended conventional diesel with a super-clean and super-powerful new form of diesel made from natural gas (with the clunky name of gas-to-liquids, or GTL).

Several big GTL projects are under way in Qatar, where the North gas field is perhaps twice the size of even Ghawar when measured in terms of the energy it contains. Nigeria and others are also pursuing GTL. Since the world has far more natural gas left than oil—much of it outside the Middle East—making fuel in this way would greatly increase the world's remaining supplies of oil.

So, too, would blending petrol or diesel with ethanol and biodiesel made from agricultural crops, or with fuel made from Canada's "tar sands" or America's shale oil. Using technology invented in Nazi Germany and perfected by South Africa's Sasol when those countries were under oil embargoes, companies are now also investing furiously to convert not only natural gas but also coal into a liquid fuel. Daniel Yergin of CERA says "the very definition of oil is changing, since non-conventional oil becomes conventional over time."

Alternative fuels will not become common overnight, as one veteran oilman acknowledges: "Given the capital-intensity of manufacturing alternatives, it's now a race between hydrocarbon depletion and making fuel." But the recent rise in oil prices has given investors confidence. As Peter Robertson, vice-chairman of Chevron, puts it, "Price is our friend here, because it has encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also the alternatives." Unless the world sees another OPEC-engineered price collapse as it did in 1985 and 1998, GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day (see chart 2).

This is not to suggest that the big firms are retreating from their core business. They are pushing ahead with these investments mainly because they cannot get access to new oil in the Middle East: "We need all the molecules we can get our hands on," says one oilman. It cannot have escaped the attention of oilmen that blending alternative fuels into petrol and diesel will conveniently reinforce oil's grip on transport. But their work contains the risk that one of the upstart fuels could yet provide a radical breakthrough that sidelines oil altogether.

If you doubt the power of technology or the potential of unconventional fuels, visit the Kern River oil field near Bakersfield, California. This super-giant field is part of a cluster that has been pumping out oil for more than 100 years. It has already produced 2 billion barrels of oil, but has perhaps as much again left. The trouble is that it contains extremely heavy oil, which is very difficult and costly to extract. After other companies despaired of the field, Chevron brought Kern back from the brink. Applying a sophisticated steam-injection process, the firm has increased its output beyond the anticipated peak. Using a great deal of automation (each engineer looks after 1,000 small wells drilled into the reservoir), the firm has transformed a process of "flying blind" into one where wells "practically monitor themselves and call when they need help".

The good news is that this is not unique. China also has deposits of heavy oil that would benefit from such an advanced approach. America, Canada and Venezuela have deposits of heavy hydrocarbons that surpass even the Saudi oil reserves in size. The Saudis have invited Chevron to apply its steam-injection techniques to recover heavy oil in the neutral zone that the country shares with Kuwait. Mr Naimi, the oil minister, recently estimated that this new technology would lift the share of the reserve that could be recovered as useful oil from a pitiful 6% to above 40%.

All this explains why, in the words of Exxon Mobil, the oil production peak is unlikely "for decades to come". Governments may decide to shift away from petroleum because of its nasty geopolitics or its contribution to global warming. But it is wrong to imagine the world's addiction to oil will end soon, as a result of genuine scarcity. As Western oil companies seek to cope with being locked out of the Middle East, the new era of manufactured fuel will further delay the onset of peak production. The irony would be if manufactured fuel also did something far more dramatic—if it served as a bridge to whatever comes beyond the nexus of petrol and the internal combustion engine that for a century has held the world in its grip.

[Insurgent]

I became intrigued to see this upcoming film after reading a stirring review from Dr. Carolyn Baker, posted here in its entirety:
==============

A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTARY "What A Way To Go: Life At The End Of Empire", by Tim Bennett and Sally Erickson
I didn't say it would be easy; I just said it would be the truth. - Morpheus, from "The Matrix"

If anything is not easy to watch but absolutely the truth down to one's toenails, it is Tim Bennett's and Sally Erickson's doggedly transparent documentary, "What A Way To Go: Life At The End Of Empire." Nothing less than a 123-minute cat scan of the planet and its twenty-first century human and non-human condition, this documentary is indeed, "in your face" but with reverence, poignancy and solemnity yet sending world-class denial artists running to re-watch "Little Miss Sunshine" another one hundred times. While viewing it, I could see in my mind Carl Jung puffing on his pipe and pensively whispering under his breath, "Human beings can only handle so much truth."

Divided into four parts, Waking On The Train, The Train And The Tracks, Locomotive Power, and Walkabout, the film begins with Tim Bennett's personal saga of awakening in the eighties from lifelong slumber. Recounting the realities he has subsequently discovered is a tedious litany of human and planetary horrors that only those ready to awaken with him are likely to endure. To their credit, Bennett and Erickson offer no "happy ending chapter" at the end—no list of quick and painless fixes. Nothing about the world humans have created in the past several thousand years is painless, and nothing they might contemplate doing to remediate it could ever be quick. "What A Way To Go" is nothing less than two physicians presenting a diagnosis of terminal cancer to a patient who currently feels and looks "just fine". Still another metaphor might be the one that Bennett and Erickson present in the documentary's first chapter, namely, that of a suicidal individual standing on a ledge at the top of a very tall building, contemplating jumping to his death. It is an image to which the filmmakers return several times as the film progresses.

The issue of denial is addressed head-on as the documentary's numerous interviewees name it and its consequences. Those individuals include: Thomas Berry, Richard Manning, Stuart Pimm, Ran Prieur, Paul Roberts, William Schlesinger, Richard Heinberg, Chellis Glendinning, Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, and Sally Erickson. Specifically, Derrick Jensen speaks of the energy that it takes to remain in denial, and how humans who stop clinging to it discover that as a result, an enormous amount of energy is freed up to do whatever work the planet's terminal state calls them to do.

"What A Way To Go" names Peak Oil, climate change, mass extinction, and population overshoot, as the four pivotal and daunting challenges that humans must address and resolve if any species are to remain on planet earth. Equally terrifying, in my opinion, are two symptomatic offshoots of these four: nuclear holocaust and global economic meltdown.

So how do humans—that species which unlike all the others, is in the process of rendering earth uninhabitable—reverse the nightmare we have created? While for many of us, it may seem like a no-brainer, Bennett and Erickson emphasize that unless the issues are unveiled and talked about, no hope for solution exists. Given the documentary's unrelenting reminders of the lethal trajectory to which the human race has committed itself, the filmmakers' insistence on breaking one's own denial system is a crucial first step to all others.

As an historian I particularly appreciate Sally Erickson's assertion in the film that in order to begin addressing the issues, we must develop a historical perspective and understand how we arrived at this point in human history. This is exactly what I have attempted to do in my recently-published book U.S. HISTORY UNCENSORED: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You. Americans in particular are loath to investigate causes and prefer to hastily "move on" to solutions; however, without understanding causes, it is impossible to construct viable solutions.

Especially validating for me was the perspective this documentary lends to the issue of Peak Oil in relation to climate chaos. While experts on hydrocarbon energy such as Richard Heinberg leave no doubt in the viewer's mind that Peak Oil is a frightening reality, those same experts, including Heinberg, acknowledge the gargantuan climate change monster that could surpass Peak Oil not only in its consequences but how quickly those consequences manifest the collapse of civilization and make the planet uninhabitable.

As for the tiresome "technofix" argument—you know, the one that says that because humans are the superior specie and have created such highly sophisticated civilizations, we will ultimately invent technology that will adequately reverse the "Big Four" pivotal challenges, Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael and The Tales Of Adam, compares humans living in developed countries to people living in very tall brick buildings who every day go to the bottom of their building and remove 200 bricks and bring them to the top of the building. Obviously, such ludicrous behavior is unsustainable and will inevitably result in the demise of the building's foundation and its collapse.

Ultimately, "What A Way To Go" meanders into the root causes of our planetary nightmare: our disconnection from ourselves, each other, and the earth; the cultural stories that have been forgotten and replaced with newer, self-destructive ones about growth, domination, and hubris; the systems we have created and the addictions that feed those systems, and of course, our denial.

In Part Four, "Walkabout", we are given not hope, but the challenge of creating options, the first being, the decision to grow up, forsake our denial, and become adults. Richard Heinberg reminds us that, "We have been so infantilized by civilization that we can no longer survive without it. As all of this starts to shift and change and disintegrate and collapse there's the opportunity, in fact, to come back to ourselves. To grow up, fundamentally, as people and as a culture."

Both Erickson and Bennett have incorporated their own children into the documentary with brief comments from Erickson's daughter and Bennett's son. Erickson herself states that in terms of future generations, "I think they're going to look back and shake their heads and say, 'What happened to those people? How did they lose sight of such basic things.'?"

Earlier I used the analogy of two physicians announcing to a patient that she/he has terminal cancer, and it is appropriate here to ponder what cancer actually is, namely, the growth of cells out of control, thus the more archaic reference to a cancer as a "growth." Growth has become for Western civilization a cancer that is destroying its inhabitants, the ecosystems, all other forms of life on earth and the planet itself. Or as the author, William Kotke notes, "Civilization is a mental/material world of culturally transmitted illusion." Growth must cease, and it will cease, whether we choose to participate in that process or whether we don't. Civilization will collapse, and that collapse offers opportunity as well as crisis. It may occur suddenly, or it may transpire as the economies and infrastructures of developed nations are hollowed out over time.

Appropriately, Bennett and Erickson have chosen the subtitle, "Life At The End Of Empire." In his recent book Nemesis, historian Chalmers Johnson notes that an empire and a democratic republic are inimical to each other. Where one exists, the other cannot. If a nation chooses empire, its democratic republic will dissolve and ultimately perish. Should it choose to retain democratic republic, it must forsake empire; it cannot have both. The United States has chosen empire, and its citizens are allowing the shredding of its Bill of Rights and the evisceration of its civil liberties. All empires inevitably collapse, and everyone reading these words is living that collapse in this moment.

At this writing, world financial markets are reeling from yesterday's sell-off bloodbath in China and Europe. The day before, a U.S. government auditor warned that U.S. debt to other nations is spiraling out of control. Virtually every project of Western civilization is unsustainable, especially its debt. An equally frightening but enormously important documentary that every thinking American must see is "In Debt We Trust" which illumines another locomotive out of control, imminently headed for a bottomless chasm. While I don't wish to prognosticate that this week's plunge of financial markets is the beginning of that economic train wreck, I know that the centralized financial systems which manage the United States government are behaving like the individuals mentioned above who carry the bricks from the bottom of their building to the top of it, leaving the foundation in peril of collapse. The fundamental difference is that when the American people behave in such a manner, they remain in the building and will be victimized by the collapse, whereas members of centralized financial systems have helicopters waiting at the top of their buildings which allow them to abscond with the bricks, turn them into gold, and deposit them offshore.

While no one wishes to jump off the ledge like the one on which the man at the beginning of "What A Way To Go" has perched himself, there is a sense in which all of us must either jump or have something far more momentous than our physical existence annihilated. The documentary quotes Andre Gide:

    One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.

In the final moments of the documentary, Bennett offers an invitation to the viewer: "Let's jump off the train and build a boat...a lifeboat, an ark, a galleon of adventure and imagination destined for unknown lands. Build it now. The ice is melting. The waters are rising. We're going to have to let go of the shore."

Bennett concludes the documentary by stating that he doesn't know if he will survive the collapse but that he is committed to showing up in the world and telling his truth. It's almost as if his physical survival is much less urgent than that commitment—in which case, I must concur with his and Erickson's message: What a way to go!

-###-

March 1, 2007 Carolyn Baker, Ph.D. is author of a forthcoming book, COMING OUT FROM CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM: Affirming Life, Love and The Sacred. Her recent book U.S. HISTORY UNCENSORED: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You is available at her website: www.carolynbaker.org.

[CNHT]

Such bullshit ... amazing.

They are really desperate to force this agenda upon us, but I suppose emboldened by the NAU and other continental unions going on now.

So what's the final solution? Who gets to live and who gets to die?

Shall we have a one-child policy enforced by government? Weed out the old, infirmed, crazy, UNPRODUCTIVE, etc?

How shall we confiscate the property and herd them into the shires?

We'd have plenty of oil if we would just drill in Alaska.

Which Rockefeller/Soros-funded elitist group made it possible for this movie to be made?

And finally how could anyone purporting to be for 'freedom' post such bullshit to a forum called "NH FREE"?

[CNHT]

Peak Oil

Thoroughly debunked.

http://economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GRNPVDG
Apr 20th 2006 | BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA, AND CALGARY, ALBERTA
From The Economist print edition

Why the world is not about to run out of oil

+1 for you Denis.

I guess Al Gore's movie to scare people into a Real ID card didn't work...so now we have these nutcases...

[CNHT]

YOU UNKNOWINGLY FUND UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL
http://www.fdrs.org/un_plan_for_population_control.html

Learn About the UN Plan for Population Control, Who's Behind it, How Your Money is Funneled Into it, and What to do About it.
The UN plan for population control isn't anything new.

It's been going on for decades now.

Population control is the brainchild of the "elite" behind the New World Order push toward a One World Government.

It's easier to understand why population control is one of the objectives of the United Nations when you realize that the UN was founded by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The CFR was, in turn, founded by the elite criminal banking and industrial cabal.

"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

We wonder of good 'ole Jacques will volunteer to be victim #1 on Day #1 of the UN plan for population control he speaks of. Probably not, huh? [Note: JC passed away a while ago]

UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL: ONE CHILD POLICY
In the UN plan for population control, one of the most known items is the "One-Child" Policy in China.

"In China, I witnessed forced abortions and forced sterilizations performed on women who were told that the children they were carrying were "illegal." I went with them when they were arrested and remained with them as they were subjected to mind-bending psychological torture.

"And I accompanied them as they went in tears to the local clinic to have their pregnancies aborted. As you might expect, the experience gave me a solid perspective about population control and also a new perspective on the People's Republic of China." - Steven W. Mosher, in Population Control Eyewitness

Additionally, UN divisions such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reign terror down on women in Tibet as part of their population control. A Tibetan woman NINE MONTHS PREGNANT can be forced to take an injection to force an abortion if she hasn't followed the strict pregnancy rules. They even kill the fetuses surviving the abortion!

UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL: INFANTICIDE
The UN plan for population control includes infanticide.

"... infanticide was actually carried out in the following fashion: If a woman in labor came into a hospital or clinic and could not prove she was carrying a legal child by producing a government certificate allowing her to have the child, the doctors would assume that she was carrying illegally.

"They would then wait until her cervix was totally dilated and the baby began to descend the birth canal. When the baby's head emerged, they would inject a hypodermic needle full of formaldehyde, alcohol or iodine into the baby's brain which caused instantaneous death...This is similar to partial-birth abortion being employed in our country..." - Steven W. Mosher

UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL: GIRLS MURDERED
The UN plan for population control includes horrific consequences for little girls.

"The one-child policy has created a situation where there are very few females in the entire nation. A girl conceived in China has to run an eerie kind of gauntlet if she is to survive... many parents will use the ultrasound technique... and, if it reveals... a girl, they'll abort her. If it reveals the baby is a boy, they'll celebrate...

"The second part of the gauntlet comes at birth. Many couples... decide beforehand that if their newborn baby is a girl, she is not going to...live. So at birth, they either suffocate her, plunge her into a bucket of water and drown her, or abandon her by the side of the road to die of exposure. Some of the little girls... end up in state-run orphanages that are really killing fields. Babies in this circumstance die within a few days or a few weeks.

"Basically, China's state-run orphanages are part of the enforcement mechanism of the one-child policy.

"The next part of the gauntlet is that even older little girls are sacrificed if their mother becomes pregnant with a son. A family will give up a little two-year-old or three-year-old girl because if they didn't, they would have to abort a newly conceived child that might be, or is known to be, a boy. And they want a son who will support them in their old age."- Steven W. Mosher

As you can see, the UN plan for population control is quite severe in China.

UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL: FUNDING
The UN plan for population control in China "has been generously underwritten by the UN Population Fund and the UN's World Bank, along with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and tax-exempt foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

"In 1983, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities gave an award to Communist China's Qian Xinzhong for having 'implemented population policies on a massive scale'. The Chicago Tribune reported that as a result of government policy: 'Thirty-eight percent of Chinese women of child-bearing age have been sterilized'." - The United Nations Wants to Decide if Your Baby Lives!

UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL: RENDERING WOMEN STERILE
The UN plan for population control isn't confined only to China, however.

"During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

"In October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite' Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country's anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite' obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists.

"Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.

"... when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies.

"The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy." - Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?

DAMNING QUOTES ABOUT THE UN PLAN FOR POPULATION CONTROL
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96

"Most of [Ted Turner's first donation to the United Nations Foundation of] $22 million went to programs that seek to stall population growth...." -The Baltimore Sun, July 7, 1998

"People who abhor the China one-child poicy are dumb-dumbs...." - Ted Turner

"One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death." - Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard - member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166

The UN plan for population control is obviously endorsed by the so-called "elites" of our time. The criminal cabal we mentioned earlier has set their goal of New World Order and teaches its ideals to our government officials, media, and creates clubs, foundations, and organizations full of people willing to sell their soul for their own "elite" status.

###

And people wonder why we don't want to pay taxes or fund PP.

[jaqeboy]

I'll keep you posted on car-pooling plans, CNHT. It seems this movie is right up your alley!

[CNHT]

I'll keep you posted on car-pooling plans, CNHT. It seems this movie is right up your alley!

I doubt it... you don't have to see this kind of junk in its entirety to know what the agenda is.
Just watch the trailer on the left..it's amazing how cliché they can be...

The scary thing is this is what they are teaching the teachers who work with the kids in public school -- "If you were in a lifeboat and there was only so much food for the passengers, and you needed to get rid of one of them, who would you kill first?".

I suppose they have to find out who you dislike the most and this is a good way so you can be punished.
I refused to take part in the exercise. I found it despicable to assume you'd want to kill anyone.

[jaqeboy]

I'll keep you posted on car-pooling plans, CNHT. It seems this movie is right up your alley!

I doubt it... you don't have to see this kind of junk in its entirety to know what the agenda is.
Just watch the trailer on the left..it's amazing how cliché they can be...

I realize that some can discern the contents of a work without even viewing it - a prescience I'm not blessed with, alas. I'll instead view the film and absorb what I can with my limited capacity and make my judgement then, not before viewing it. You're still welcome to carpool over if you'd like to test that ESP of yours.

[CNHT]

That is what summaries are for.

There are no solutions provided, the purpose of the movie isn't that, but I think just to scare people into thinking they must 'do' something about the 'problem'.

If it's the end of the world, why not just party hearty?

[error]

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."

A good and fairly well balanced study on peak oil actually came out of the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, earlier this year.

About the only thing that they could determine for sure is that peak oil is probably going to happen. When it happens, what the rate of decline in production will be, and whether alternative energy sources will be developed by then, are all "uncertain" and depend on a wide variety of factors which are difficult or impossible to predict.

One study which they reviewed suggested that peak oil could happen as late as 2120. Others suggested that it is imminent. But most say that it's likely to happen between now and 2040.

One thing's for sure, though. Alternative energy sources won't be developed into marketable products until oil prices rise even further. So, for the goal of reducing dependence on oil, peak oil might just be a good thing.

[Friday]

And finally how could anyone purporting to be for 'freedom' post such bullshit to a forum called "NH FREE"?

It's bullshit that there's going to be a movie screening in Keene?   Or maybe it was the "dubious" offer of carpooling? 

[jaqeboy]

Just a little refresher on the libertarian coalitioning strategy and a couple of questions:

Many are opposed to the same rapacious global elite that you and I are, but differ on other issues, or on the solution path. They are therefore allies on some issues already, and to get them on-board with us on the other issues is our challenge. Primary among our tools is the advanced knowledge of economics and history that most libs possess from their intellectual study. To help another person cross over the bridge from beliefs they hold in error to our more "enlightened" view, we will be more effective if we develop understanding of how that person comes to their views and then will need to develop and exercise effective communications skills. What has failed in the past for lo, these many decades, is finding the differences, emphasizing them and usually "beating them up" over the differences. That this tactic fails time and time again should be no surprise!

What we find works, then, is first to go out of our circle to meet with people with some similar views, but that differ on other views. Then our challenge begins. The benefits are great, as we make new friends in the process, too.

If your mission is to grow the freedom movement, and I assume it is, do you find the following communications to be effective (if so, perhaps I should follow your lead and grow a set of horns):

More left-wing global warming nonsense from a parade of pinko commie idiots...

Is name-calling an effective intellectual technique for you?; is it effective for conveying the message you feel passionate about to readers of this forum?

Such bullshit ... amazing...

Is profanity and sarcasm working for you? I could give you the answer to that, but I think you have to answer it for yourself.

And finally how could anyone purporting to be for 'freedom' post such bullshit to a forum called "NH FREE"?

Is confrontational language and impugning other peoples' motives in profane terms working for you? Again, that would have to be answered by yourself. Do you seek the restriction of others' freedom to post information on the "forum for freedom?" Is the "freedom" you seek one that gives you license to shout others down that differ with you? Perhaps you should evaluate if what you are for is freedom, or, rather, uniformity of views (that agree with yours).

Most here would prefer a situation where they could hear others' views, without being shouted down, n'est pas?

As for me, the shouting down and abusive language is tiresome and not in keeping with a free-wheeling discussion of ideas - it will lead me to a progressive set of distancing techniques, probably firstly ignoring an abuser's posts, then progressing to clicking the ignore button, if not reporting the abuser to the forum administrator, requesting some moderating action.

Regarding strategies for freedom, then, of course, if one only meets with rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, soulless conservatives, one will only continue the orgy of self-congratulatory back-patting, because "we're so smart about economics", while you cheer on the rapacious imperial wars that are ravaging innocent lives abroad and destroying our domestic economy. I think there's more to be gained from the coalitioning strategy, than the "slash and burn" strategy you seem to be acting out from. Please consider this & I'm sure we could discuss this further and that I could be very effective at convincing you, but I would require a simple apology from you first for your abusive treatment. I understand that you could have just been having a bad day.

[Tom Sawyer]

Well said Jack.