[JLK]

[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865714827/qid=1078087743//ref=pd_ka_1/104-8972507-1219948?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
by Richard Heinberg [/url]

I learned about this book during the reading that I have been doing about the Peak Oil phenomenon.

The book is very well written. It is full of facts that are worth knowing about the history of fossil fuel utilization, the writings of M. King Hubbert and his theories of oil depletion, the contemporary movement of scholars and retired oil industry experts who are warning of the approach of the world's Peak petroleum extraction capability and interesting details and energy profitability analysis for all of the potential alternative energy sources, such as coal, nuclear, renewable sources such as wind and solar power, tidal power and so forth.

While the authorclearly has a pro environmentalist viewpoint, he diligently explains and addresses the positions of the leading critics of energy depletion. The only parts of the book that I found to be unrealistically slanted were his critiques of the ultimate energy profitability of nuclear energy and his dismissal of increased usage of coal as a hedge against the inevitable coming decline of petroleum production.

I would say that this book is definitely worth reading. It touches upon many of the subjects that we have discussed here in the forum.

[EnviroEngr]

Richard and I have corresponded on and off as his schedule permits. I very much recommend "The Party's Over" as well as his new book, not quite yet released "Powerdown". I also recommend subscribing to his monthly MuseLetter.

For those who might be tracking free energy, in a reply to me he wrote:
"J, I don't know, we'll see {regarding Steven Greer}. I've been looking at free-energy info for 25 years and so far none of it has panned out. As an ecologist, I would say that if humankind does discover a source of free energy then there is absolutely no hope: we will use up the whole world and there will be no survivors.
Cheers,
Richard"

I can't say that I'd disagree. It's tough not to ride the fence with the human race. We're so... ambiguous.

As a sample of MuseLetter and per Richard's request: "Greetings,
Attached (at last) is Museletter for March. This is one that I'd be happy to
have broadcast widely. Please feel free to distribute it via e-mail lists or
otherwise.
Best wishes,
Richard"

I offer "MuseLetter #144":

MuseLetter 144 / March, 2004

Götterdämmerung BY RICHARD HEINBERG
With the publication of recent books by former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke (Against All Enemies) and former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips (American Dynasty), and with revelations from former Treasure Secretary Paul O?Neill (in The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind), the current administration appears to be uncomfortably on the defensive. Attacks from the left are to be expected and can be shrugged off relatively lightly; but the defection of insiders capable of lifting the shroud of secrecy surrounding White House deals and decisions poses a real problem. Add to this the boggling revelations in Craig Unger?s House of Bush, House of Saud, and the potential for a meltdown of the still-formidable Bush political machine starts to look possible ? perhaps even inevitable.
Of course, incompetence and corruption are hardly the monopoly of the Republican Party. Moreover, I hold out little hope that either the Democrats or the Greens could actually do much at this point to avert the impending collapse of the American Empire. To my mind, however, the crowd currently in charge of US policy is guilty of more than the usual levels of incompetence and corruption. I believe that the neoconservatives now in power are extraordinarily dangerous people by any historical measure. In four short years, Bush, Cheney, and company have managed to do the following:
1. Steal an election. The means by which Bush and Cheney gained office were profoundly subversive of the democratic process. Florida, under the direction of governor Jeb Bush, had illegally purged its voter rolls of thousands of eligible voters, most of them Democrats. At the time the vote count was halted by a highly politicized decision of the US Supreme Court, Bush was ahead by a mere 300 votes. Had the election been conducted legally, there is no doubt that Al Gore, who led by half a million votes nationwide, would have become president.1
2. Place criminals and human rights violators in prominent policy-making positions. As a result of former President Reagan?s Contra war against Nicaragua, the United States became the first country in history to be convicted of international terrorism in a world court tribunal and to be condemned by the United Nations. Several key Reagan administration officials were indicted or tried in connection with the massive human rights violations that occurred in Central America during the Contra war. In the early months of the G. W. Bush presidency, several of these officials were given prominent new jobs: Elliott Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal, was appointed National Security Council (NSC) Special Advisor on Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. John Poindexter, the mastermind behind the Iran-Contra scam (guns for hostages), had been found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence; he was made Director of the Information Awareness Office (IAO), a new agency ?to counter attacks on the US.? John Negroponte, whom rights groups charge with covering up political killings and purging information from embassy human rights reports that implicated the military and CIA in disappearances of civilians, became US ambassador to the UN. Other criminals and purported human-rights violators appointed to high posts included Roger Noriega, John Maistro, and Otto Reich.2
3. Facilitate a terrorist attack on the US in order to consolidate political power. After spending countless hours sifting the evidence, I find the conclusion inescapable: persons within the US government had clear foreknowledge of the attacks, and efforts to prevent those attacks were systematically thwarted on orders from higher levels. Moreover, the collapse of the three buildings in New York has been inadequately explained. Many warning had been received by the US government that a terrorist attack would occur in the week of September 9 ? some specifying that commercial airliners would be hijacked and that the World Trade Center and Pentagon would be targeted. Then, after the hijackings occurred, no fighter jets were dispatched to intercept the airliners, despite the fact that there was plenty of time for this to have occurred, and that it is standard procedure. There are many other serious holes in the official version of the events, too numerous to discuss here. Finally, the administration has engaged in public ? and largely successful ? efforts to prevent or limit any serious inquiry into the 9/11 attacks (the recent public hearings of the 9/11 Commission went to great pains to avoid nearly all of the serious questions that independent researchers have been asking for many months, and members of the commission have numerous and obvious conflicts of interest). In short, lines of evidence point to foreknowledge, complicity, and cover-up at the top levels of government. These are extraordinary assertions, and they require extraordinary evidence to support them. The detailed presentation and discussion of that evidence is beyond the scope of this article; however, I have appended print and online resources. See especially David Ray Griffin?s excellent book, The New Pearl Harbor (Interlink), which has just been released.3
4. Lie to the American people and the world in order to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Again and again, the administration cited Iraq?s continued possession of weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the invasion. Iraq permitted UN weapons inspectors back into the country in the waning months of 2002, but this step was deemed insufficient, so great and immediate was the threat from that country?s alleged nuclear weapons and remote-controlled delivery systems. As of this writing, it is abundantly clear that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that administration officials knew this but deliberately concocted ?evidence? with which to sell the invasion to the gullible American public.4
5. Undermine the system of international law by proclaiming the validity of a policy of pre-emptive attack. We have yet to see the ultimate fallout from this brazen action. The neoconservatives in charge of American foreign policy have essentially put forward the view that the US is above international law. The Bush administration has refused to join the World Court and has undermined existing conventions on nuclear missiles. The unprovoked invasion of one sovereign nation by another (of Iraq by the US and Britain) is a direct violation of the UN Charter; indeed, it is exactly the sort of behavior the UN was established to prevent. In addition, the United States? actions with regard to prisoners held at Camp Delta at the Guantanamo Bay naval station have directly violated the Geneva Conventions: the prisoners are being held as ?unlawful combatants,? a term with no meaning in international law. By asserting unique rights, immunities, and privileges, the US has alienated the rest of the international community. Eventually, such behavior will cause other nations to form political and military alliances to oppose US hegemony. While the US has the military capability of defeating nearly any individual foe, it cannot subdue the rest of the world working in concert. And economically America is in a far weaker position than it is militarily: if only a few key nations were to cease supporting US trade deficits and government borrowing, the results would be catastrophic. Unilateralism sets the stage for a battle that America cannot win; indeed, it is one that the entire world is certain to lose.
6. Use weapons that kill indiscriminately ? i.e., ?weapons of mass destruction? ? in the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. While time has shown that Saddam Hussein did not possess banned weapons, the Americans and British did possess indiscriminately lethal and possibly illegal weapons, and proceeded to use them ? as they had done in the 1991 Gulf War and (with other NATO forces) in the former Yugoslavia. The UN has sought to ban depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs (the US has objected), and a recent UN report stated that these weapons breach several international conventions.5 Some allege that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis, and tens of thousands of American soldiers, have been sickened or killed by DU weapons, which disperse radioactive particles throughout the battlefield landscape. Each M1 tank round consists of 10 pounds of uranium 238, which vaporizes into a highly toxic aerosol upon impact. Much of Iraq is now covered with tons of the stuff. Major Doug Rokke of the US Army, who was assigned by the Army in 1990 to assess the health effects of DU ammunition, told a Palo Alto audience in April 2003 that ?When I did their research, [I found out] that you can?t use [DU munitions] because you can?t clean up and you can?t do the medical.? According to Rokke, the effects of DU on American soldiers themselves have been horrific (so much for supporting our troops); but for the land and people of the nations we are ?liberating,? DU carries far longer-term consequences: soil and water are poisoned virtually forever. In May, 2003 a Christian Science Monitor correspondent took a Geiger counter to areas of Baghdad that had been subjected to heavy shelling by US troops and found radiation levels 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal. To be fair, it should be emphasized that DU munitions had been deployed prior to the advent of the Bush administration; however, these weapons? continued and expanded use (between 1,100 and 2,200 tons used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq versus 300 tons in the 1991 Gulf War and 10 tons during the bombing of Serbia in 1999) in a war fought ostensibly to prevent another nation from using banned weapons is a bitter irony.6
7. Subvert the US Constitution. Since 9/11/2001 the Bush administration, the US Justice Department, and the Congress have enacted a series of Executive Orders, regulations, and laws that have seriously undermined civil liberties and the checks and balances that are essential to the structure of democratic government. The framers of the US Constitution sought to prevent any one branch of government from accumulating excessive power. By using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as standard tools to combat terrorism, the Executive branch has chosen methods largely outside the purview of both the legislature and the judiciary. Many of these Executive Orders and agency regulations violate the US Constitution and the laws of the United States, as well as international and humanitarian law. In addition, these actions have been shrouded in a cloak of secrecy that is incompatible with democratic government. Hundreds of non-citizens have been rounded up and detained, many for months, in violation of constitutional protections, judicial authority, and INS policy. The government has repeatedly resisted requests for information regarding the detainees from loved ones, lawyers, and the press; it has denied detainees access to legal representation; and has conducted its hearings in secret, in some cases denying the very existence of such hearings. In a democracy, the actions of the government must be transparent, or our ability to vote on policies and the people who create those policies becomes meaningless. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government?s actions has been its attack on the Bill of Rights, the very cornerstone of American democracy. The War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA Patriot Act?s over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI?s new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined. At the time of this writing, three states and 246 cities, towns, and counties (including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) have passed resolutions, ordinances, or ballot initiatives condemning, or refusing local cooperation with enforcement of, the Patriot Act.7
8. Undermine the US economy through unwise tax cuts and vastly increased government borrowing. The administration?s evident goal is to bankrupt the US government so that social programs (including Social Security) can be entirely privatized or eliminated. However unwise (to put it charitably) that strategy may be on its own terms, the timing for its implementation could not possibly be worse. Since World War II the world has relied on the US dollar as the basis for monetary stability. Increasingly, the US has taken advantage of this situation by running up ever-larger trade deficits and more foreign-financed government debt. The current level of American debt ? internal and external ? is unprecedented and unsustainable, and Treasury officials made efforts in 2003 and early 2004 to gently lower the value of the dollar in relation to other currencies. However, if the dollar is devalued too much, other nations (including China) may decide to cease investing their savings in American stocks and Treasury securities; this in turn could trigger a dollar collapse. In short, the global monetary system that has maintained relative stability for the past several decades appears to be fraying. Just when the nations of the world need to invest heavily in renewable energy systems, efficiency measures, and sustainable agricultural production in order to deal with problems previously mentioned, investment capital may disappear altogether in a global financial crisis. The Bush administration?s response ? sweeping tax cuts and immense borrowing to fund an elective war in Iraq ?greatly exacerbates the situation. The damage is by now likely irreparable. At the end of 1993, According to Al Martin, ?The total national debt of the United States on a fully realized basis, inclusive of federal, state, county and local debt stood at a record $20.613 trillion (83.73% of said debt having been created from 1981?92 and from 2001 to present.) The total public and private indebtedness of the United States ended the year 2003 at $39.384 trillion. The total public and private assets of the United States ended the year 2003 at $26.134 trillion. Thus, the United States by the end of 2003 has a negative net worth of approximately $13 trillion. The total debt service of the United States ended the year 2003 at 309.4% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). These are numbers never before seen. This is a higher debt to gross domestic product ratio than [that of] any other country on earth, which still services its debt. For instance this is a higher fraction of debt service to GDP than [that of] the government of Nigeria. The United States federal government, as of the end of 2003, was servicing 41.3% of total debt ? the only first-world nation on the planet that services less than 100% of its debt.?8
This is an extraordinary performance by any measure. In the current Bush administration we see a combination of gross incompetence, high criminality, ideological monomania, and almost limitless power ? and this in the context of a time that requires the deftest and most visionary of leadership if we are to avert or at least minimize ecological and human catastrophe. It is difficult to overstate the peril inherent in such a combination. These people will not easily be unseated: if they stole one election, why not another? And if various legal battles threaten to overtake them, why would they not resort to facilitating another ?terrorist? incident as justification for declaring martial law? In an interview in November, 2003 former US General Tommy Franks, who led America?s campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, stated that if a WMD attack were to hit the US, the Constitution probably would not survive: ?the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we?ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.?9 Was Franks giving us a heads-up on what is in store?

THE NEOCONS AND MACHIAVELLI

The current US leaders? actions are so clearly sabotaging the very system that sustains them that an explanation is in order. What motivates these people? Is it mere thirst for wealth and power? Perhaps we can gain some insight by examining the philosophies they espouse.
Neoconservatism, the political movement to which most of the current administration belongs, is widely attributed to be the intellectual offspring of Leo Strauss (1899?1973), a Jewish scholar who fled Hitler?s Germany and taught political science at the University of Chicago. According to Shadia Drury in Leo Strauss and the American Right (Griffin, 1999), Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to governance; he believed that

? a leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled;
? those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior;
? religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do);
? secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent;
? a political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured.

Drury writes that, ?In Strauss?s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.?
Among Strauss?s students was Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading hawks in the Defense Department who urged the invasion of Iraq; more distant followers include Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, Irving Kristol, William Bennett, John Ashcroft, and Michael Ledeen.
Ledeen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli?s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago (Griffin, 1999), is a policy advisor (via Karl Rove) to the Bush administration. His fascination with Machiavelli seems to be deep and abiding, and to be shared by his fellow neocons. ?In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments,? writes Ledeen, ?the leader may have to ?enter into evil.? This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still. . . .?
Machiavelli?s books, The Prince and The Discourses, constituted manuals on amassing political power; they have inspired kings and tyrants including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The leader, according to Machiavelli, must pretend to do good even as he is actually doing the opposite. ?Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them. . . . Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances. . . .? It is to Machiavelli that we owe the dictum that ?the end justifies the means.?
But what are the ends to which neoconservatives strive? Briefly: in foreign policy, American supremacy; in domestic policy, reactionary ?values.? We can get a sense of what makes them tick by reviewing a little recent history.
The neoconservative movement began to coalesce in the 1970s amid the Supreme Count mandated legalization of abortion, court-ordered busing, rising crime rates, and the disruption of urban cores by major highway projects. Otherwise liberal wite urbanites began fleeing to the suburbs.
Meanwhile in foreign affairs, the US was in a state of paralysis as a result of the Vietnam debacle. American elites were losing confidence in their own Cold War rhetoric. However, Israel, in contrast, had just trounced its enemies during a six-day war that had devastated the armies of the Arab world.
Catholic and Jewish Democrats, many of them followers of Democratic Senator Henry ?Scoop? Jackson (who mounted three unsuccessful bids for the presidency), began entering the GOP establishment. Disagreeing with their party?s positions on social issues (busing, welfare, secularism, and campus revolts) these voters were also looking for a way to regain lost US prestige. For them, Israel served as a positive example: the solution to America?s foreign policy directionlessness was a turn to the right. An early intellectual leader of the movement was the Jewish former Trotskeyite New Yorker Irving Kristol, whose book Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea describes the events or the era from the neocons? perspective and gives considerable insight into their motives.
Kristol founded Public Interest, one of the primary organs of the movement. Another Jewish former radical, Norman Podhoretz, founded the equally influential magazine Commentary. Podhoretz later defined neoconservatives as ?liberals who had been mugged by reality.?
Two other neoconservative former Democrats, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had been members of ?Scoop?s Troops? (Jackson?s cadre of young activists) during the 1970s, but jumped the Democratic ship during the Carter years. Both came to advocate a values-driven, hard-line approach to American intervention. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the UN under Reagan, was yet another former Democrat turned neocon hawk.
On the domestic front, the neocons learned first to speak the language of southern Democrats ? a language of carefully veiled racial fears and resentments ? and thus gained the entire South for the Republican Party. In some respects, this was part of a larger strategy to emphasize values as a way of motivating support among the lower and middle classes. The somewhat independent neoconservative Ben Wattenberg explained this strategy in his book, Values Matter Most: How Republicans or Democrats or a Third Party Can Win and Renew the American Way of Life (Free Press, 1995). Right-wing think tanks, funded by wealthy right-wing foundations, spent years systematically and scientifically identifying the ?values? issues that would connect with the masses. In the process, they cemented important alliances with a cultural group that was itself becoming increasingly organized, activist, and powerful.

ENTER THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Strauss?s belief that religion is a tool that leaders can use to manipulate the masses naturally leads one to wonder about the history and nature of the collaboration between neoconservatives and the Christian evangelical movement. Clearly, the neocon agenda is not what most people would traditionally have thought of as exemplifying the teachings of Jesus; how, then, has the philosophy of Strauss, Kristol, Podhoretz, and Wolfowitz come to achieve virtual sanctification in the eyes of tens of millions of devout American Christians? To answer this question, we must first examine developments within the more conservative US Christian churches in the past few decades.
In her essay ?The Despoiling of America? investigative reporter Katherine Yurica explains the origins of the now-dominant faction of the Christian Right, which she calls ?dominionism,? and how it has found common cause with the neoconservative movement. 10 Dominionism, closely related to another Christian movement called ?reconstructionism,? was founded by the late R. J. Rushdoony, who also co-founded the Council for National Policy ? which has been called the politburo of the American conservative movement, since it is composed of top political and business leaders who set the national agenda for the vast network of right-wing foundations, publishers, media, and universities that have schooled a whole generation in the ideology of neoconservatism, much the way the extremist Wahabbi religious schools funded by Saudi billionaires have seeded the Middle East with Islamic fundamentalism.
Dominionism began to flourish in the 1970s as a politicized religious reaction to communism and secular humanism. One of its foremost spokesmen, Pat Robertson (religious broadcaster, former presidential candidate, and founder of the Christian Coalition), has for decades patiently and relentlessly put forward the dominionist view to his millions of daily TV viewers that God intends His followers to rule the world on His behalf. Yurica describes dominionism as a Machiavellian perversion of Christianity.
The original and defining text of Dominionism and Reconstructionism is Ruchdoony?s 800-page Institutes of Biblical Law, (1973) a turgid exegesis of the Ten Commandments that sets forth the Biblical ?case law? that derives from them. ?The only true order,? Rushdoony wrote, ?is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.? Further, ?Every law-order is a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare.?
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible must be the governing text for all areas of life ? including government, education, law, and the arts. Reconstructionists examine contemporary issues and events in the light of a ?Biblical world view? and ?Biblical principles.? Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton summarizes this view as follows: ?The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God?s law.? Reconstructionists espouse the goal of world conquest or ?dominion,? assured that the Bible has prophesied their ?inevitable victory.?
Reconstructionists would replace democracy with a theocratic elite who would govern according to ?Biblical Law.? They would also eliminate labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would leave the work force and return to the home. Capital punishment would be applicable to crimes such as blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.
While not all viewers of Robertson?s popular daily 700 Club television program would agree with the most extreme dominionist and reconstructionist dogmas, most have been conditioned to believe that the US is a ?Christian nation? that is under attack from within by secular humanists, homosexuals, and socialists; and that George W. Bush has a mandate from God to govern America (on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ) during these troubling times.
The rise of the religious right has so shifted the American political landscape in recent years that a law, the ?Constitution Restoration Act of 2004,? which would have been unimaginable only a decade or two ago, is now making its way through Congress. Introduced in February, the new law would, if enacted, ?acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government? in the United States. Thus, in effect, the arbitrary dictates of a ?higher power? ? as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat, or president ? could override existing legal precedent. Any judge who presumed to overrule ?God?s sovereign authority? as so interpreted could be removed from office.
All of this provides tinder for the spark of Mel Gibson?s recent film The Passion of the Christ, which Roger Ebert has called ?the most violent single movie I have ever seen.? In my view, the film?s danger is not merely its anti-Semitism (Bible scholars have pointed out that the New Testament was written several decades after the events it describes, and after the sacking of Jerusalem by Rome; evidently, in that context the Gospel authors hesitated to saddle Romans with the primary responsibility for Jesus?s death, and thus settled on the Jewish aristocracy as the best available scapegoats). Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, perhaps comes closer to capturing the inherent danger of this movie phenomenon when he calls The Passion ?fascistic? because of its glorification of violence. Others have made light of the film?s goriness; Maureen Dowd notes that The Passion ?has the cartoonish violence of a Sergio Leone Western; you might even call it a spaghetti crucifixion, ?A Fistful of Nails??; the online magazine Slate described it as ?a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie ? ?The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre??; while Steve Martin suggests it should have been called ?Lethal Passion.?
For the devout, however, the blood and flying flesh are sacred reminders of what our Lord endured for us. They are a measure of the wickedness of the secularists, the Muslims, the unbelievers. ?See what they did to our Lord!,? the well-schooled dominionist must think when leaving the theater. ?When the time comes that we have them supine before us, we must show them no mercy!?
And so, for the next few months, until the election, we will, all of us ?like it or not ? be marinating in a dangerous mixture of religious fanaticism, political intrigue, economic upheaval, and unraveling scandal. The people in power (and their supporters) are not open to logic or compromise. Nevertheless, challenges to their power are arising in ever-greater number and intensity. An irresistible force is about to encounter an immovable object.

[Portions of this essay are excerpted from the forthcoming book, "Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World" (New Society, June 2004), by Richard Heinberg.
Richard Heinberg is the author of "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies" (New Society, 2003); he is a journalist, educator, editor, lecturer, and a Core Faculty member of New College of California, where he teaches courses on ?Energy and Society? and ?Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Community.? His essays and articles have appeared in many journals including The Futurist, Earth Island Journal, Wild Matters, Alternative Press Review, and The Sun.]


NOTES

1. See Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporteer Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters. Pluto Press, 2002.
2. George Freimoth, ?The Return of Cold War ?Terrorists,?? Marin Interfaith Task Force on Central America newsletter, Spring 2002 <www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Cold_War_Terrorists.html>.
3. See also Eric Hofschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. Endpoint Software, 2002; <www.fromthewilderness.com>; <www.cooperativeresearch.org>; <www.globalresearch.ca>; <www.whatreallyhappened.com>.
4. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ?Report says Iraq didn?t have WMD,? released January 8, 2004 <www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html>.
5. In January 2001, the European Parliament approved a resolution imposing a ban on the use of DU munitions while investigations were carried out into the links between DU and cancer. In August 2002, the UN published a report citing a series of international laws and conventions breached by the use of DU weapons, including: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the UN Charter; the UN Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which all forbid the deployment of ?poison or poisoned weapons? and ?arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.?
6. See: <www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm> See also ?Iraq: Experts Warn of Radioactive Battlefields,? by Katherine Stapp, Interpress News Service, September 12, 2003 <www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20113> ; Scott Peterson, ?Remains of Toxic Bullets Litter Iraq,? Christian Science Monitor, May 15, 2003 <www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.htm>.
7. This paragraph is adapted from ?The State of Civil Liberties: One Year Later, Erosion of Civil Liberties in the Post 9/11 Era,? by the Center for Constitutional Rights, <www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=nQdbIRkDgG&Content=153>.
8. ?Scoreboard 2003,? by Al Martin, <www.almartinraw.com> accessed January 12, 2004.
9. December 5, 2003 edition, Cigar Afficionado. Reported, for example, in John O. Edwards, ?Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack,? November 1, 2003 <www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml>.
10. (<www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm>)

[JLK]

Interesting narrative, and I suspect Heinberg is right about many of these as well. In a way, though, it detracts from his credibility as an energy expert.

[EnviroEngr]

Out of curiosity, I think I know what you're referring to, do you have specific passages in mind when you say:

In a way, though, it detracts from his credibility as an energy expert.

[JLK]

Sure.

1. Steal an election.

These people will not easily be unseated: if they stole one election, why not another? And if various legal battles threaten to overtake them, why would they not resort to facilitating another “terrorist” incident as justification for declaring martial law?

Whatever the merits of Greg Palast's investigation in Florida, these have the tenor of a rant. An expert in an essentially apolitical field like the science of energy resources needs to be more measured and deliberate, especially when he is in the public eye advancing theories that some would consider controversial like Peak Oil. I really think Heinberg does himself a disservice here.

Don't misunderstand- I don't begrudge him his political views. It's just a case of wanting the attention to be focused on the message and not the messenger.

[Carrie]

I have to agree with JLK here. Most people are not far to the left or right - they're middle-of-the-road moderates (like I am). When I read a diatribe like this, I stop listening & tune out. I just started reading his book before I read this, and now I have this nagging thought, does he have an agenda? Can I trust this guy?

Just one moderate's opinion.

-- Carrie

[rowante]

I have just finished 'The Party's Over...' I have to say it is easily the best delivery of the issue I have read so far. In particular, I am impressed and thankful for the section on the peak oil nay sayers, Bjorn Lomborg (sp?) and Michael Lynch.

As for the politics angle, of course the man has an agenda! For cripes sakes he is trying to educate people that they have to change their ways or be doomed. He clearly states in the book that both sides of politics have failed us very badly and that a new way is required if we are to survive the coming calamity.

It's time to wake up people! Tune out all you want but without some sort of major overhaul of the economic and politic system there is not going to a future for children being born now. It is time Americans get more of a focus on their responsibilities to the greater world community. The people you vote into power make policies that impact EVERY SINGLE LIVING PERSON ON THIS PLANET NOT JUST US CITIZENS, I can't make that claim for my minor country. US citizens, more than anyone, need to pull their collective fingers out and bring about radical political change.

[Edited for spelling]

[dmtu]

As for the politics angle, of course the man has an agenda! For cripes sakes he is trying to educated people that they have to change their ways or be doomed. He clearly states in the book that both sides of politics have failed us very badly and that a new way is required if we are to survive the coming calamity.

Agreed I didn't find Partys Over to be horribly biased and I say that from a Libertarian ( try this for fun http://www.lp.org/quiz/ ) point of veiw.

No I don't expect the Libs to change the world or even gain traction I just can't stand to vote for the regular garbage anymore.

[EnviroEngr]

Rowante,

I have ever so much more predilection to view any system of human consciousness that organizes intention into bureaucracies and institutions as a death knell to future generations than my peers, that most often, there is very little common ground. It becomes, in the end, an issue of how we sift, winnow and sort perceptions into the grand mosaic we tacitly call Reality.

{Need to reduce this gnomic paragraph into more sensible language; if you're not getting it, it's because of me, not you. Will go after this shortly; EE}

Living right amongst it day after day, I can see with an open, clear and courageous mind that preposterous levels of denial and avoidance exist in every corner and at every level of this society. It is remarkably "Stepford Wife"-like. In your plea for alertness and equanimity, I hear the same tone of urgency that I hear from within.

A cursory psychological overview of the lay of the land reveals childhoods and parenting wracked with myriad abuses and insidious indoctrinations -- what else can come of this other than that which is here now if the inner work and healing remains yet largely undone? Only clarity, critical thinking and astute living can begin to reveal the mysteries of the fears, joys, torments and triumphs that permeate all of our individual and collective lives.

I fully realize as I say all this, I'm leaving myself wide open as a tall lightning rod to get struck from any and all directions by high energy strokes. If need be, then so be it.

For the benefit of the critical reader, allow me to present some of my personal evolution with the implications of the topic of hominidic eco-parasitism, a wrinkle on the theme of "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin:

"But for me, that [tome by Garrett] begs the questions 'what is this consciousness we are?', 'what's the point of persisting?', 'what of any metaphysical dimensions have we access to?' Is it that we've developed such a staggering denial of our mortality by way of dogma and faux spirituality that we need an Auschwitz-like wake up call to fit back into the natural world again? Back to Dickens of sorts. Except, like you, I am of a bent that Scrooge doesn't get it this time. No second chance. I think the argument that our time is over has solid constitution. We had x millennia to make our ascent after which, show over. Fall the Great Curtain of Endings on our giddy little drama of hopeless waste and futile aspirations born of imaginations filled with muse infinitum. We are but mere collections of molecular arrangements through which pulses of bioelectric sparks rouse dim awareness. I would actually go further, 'As an ecologist, I would say that if humankind does discover a source of free energy then there is absolutely no hope: we will use up the whole world and there will be no survivors.' and dare to say we will do this regardless the energy subsidy, but surely faster should it be found. I once, long ago, quipped to my biology teacher how amazing (are) the parallels between bacteria in a Petri dish and humans on Earth. Yes, indeed: Show Over. Poetic justice; incontrovertibility thickens the air.

It all reminds me of Agent Smith sharing his 'revelation' with Morpheus: "There is another organism that follows the same pattern (as humans in nature). Do you know what it is? A virus... You (humans) are the disease; and, we -- are -- the cure." Kinda brings the whole thing back to Richard Dawkins"

I go on to later say in my peculiar Midwestern vernacular:

"I must admit, I have been spinning free-willy in epistemological no-where land on the 'The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective, the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to redress the planet's energy balance. David Price' piece. It really has a way of bringing 'self' right down to the neural level, if you know what I mean. You have my heartfelt congratulations on "though I try to be a little cheerier when addressing my twenty-year-old students just starting off in life." just the same. Yours is a practice I could really benefit from. In theory at least, regardless what the final destination is for us (all), living according to the optimally-functioning-human-critter ethic must be the way to go. Reminds me of bonobos. They need to be my pattern. I do love fun; I have spats of sobriety now and again. But, I don't need to immerse in "but what's the point if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?" beyond its useful function of putting me back into realistic perspective -- god or no god, spirit or no spirit. Seems like living is in the struggle."

As of now, a "deer caught in the headlights" image as a metaphor might best describe my sentiments regarding how the wheels are turning in my head. That's why I consider the work Roger Nelson is doing to be of such importance. The 'art' of life is as important as the 'science' of it. It is balance we need and it is balance we will have or for the sake of balance, our chapter will end. Cliché as it may sound, it is still as true as ever, Nature Bats Last. It matters not a wit whether we were ever right in our Maps about the Territory; if we don't live right, we will surrender our privilege of being alive in this world system.

So as to not end on a crappy note, Intelligent Systems are all around. We are teachable, learning organisms -- things can be different; but no cheer-from-the-sidelines approach will do. It must come from within everybody. We did not get into this mess by accident and we're not going to get out of it by accident.

And one last thing: It is impossible to not have an agenda. If you're alive and you eat, breathe and eliminate, every act of altering your environment so that you don't die *is* your agenda. Using language is an agenda; thinking is an agenda; doing nothing is an agenda. The issue is not about agenda but rather intent. In this world of mis-intent and deliberate competition, one of your few safe harbors is critical thinking. Another is right view. Providing physical, emotional and mental security for ourselves is truly a martial art. It takes a life of great courage, strength and wisdom to dodge all the trauma that survival throws at us every day. Every piece of information has to be used or discarded with great care and a keen intellect. Being overly dismissive or accepting places anyone in harms way.

[EnviroEngr]

I hope Richard doesn't take offense at this but the tail end of this month's newsletter regarding The Party’s Over is worth considering in its entirety in light of recent observations made on this thread:

"Many readers have contacted me to say that my book is depressing. I am sorry if this is the case, but that was not the intent. My aim has been simply to alert as many people as possible to a profound change that is about to overtake our civilization and our way of life. I did try to offer hope in the final chapter, by suggesting things that people can do to help their families, communities, and nations survive the coming energy famine. In the end, optimism is most useful as a state of mind that fosters constructive action; it is self-delusional to dwell on hopeful images of the future merely to distract ourselves from facing unpleasant truths.

While the international political scene looked bad enough as I was writing this book and, as I have explained above, it looks even more worrisome today, there is at least some good news to report: the subject of global oil peak is quickly getting out to a larger audience. Other books on the subject have been written, and the Hubbert peak is now frequently discussed on national radio programs and in newspapers and magazines (as noted above). This increased awareness will not by itself lead us toward a survivable future, but it is an essential prerequisite.

I believe that if the people of the world can be helped to understand the situation we are in, the options available, and the consequences of the path we are currently on, it is at least possible that they can be persuaded to undertake the considerable effort and sacrifice that will be entailed in a peaceful transition to a sustainable, locally-based, decentralized, low-energy, resource conserving social regime. But inspired leadership will be required. Everywhere I have traveled to speak on this subject, audiences have shown, not just a willingness, but an almost heart-wrenching eagerness to be part of such a collective undertaking. If the people demand action, leaders must eventually follow."

The fact that this has nothing to do with a personal vindication on his part makes it clear to me that the intent lying behind his agenda isn't to be an expert or even a mover-shaker, but rather a way-shower and a kindly soul whose concern for humanity reaches beyond games and theatre. In all my interactions with him, Richard has been thoughtful, even-tempered and compassionate -- in a word, integrated. Apart from the knowledge he imparts, he is -in my best estimation- a highly credible source of information *and* inspiration. What he can or can't do in other venues isn't part of this debate. What he produces in The Party’s Over ought to, and in my opinion, does stand on its own merits.

[MattSavinar]

You know how we look at cave paintings and try to interpret what the people were communicating?

Well, about 10,000 years from now, somebody is going to pick up an old tattered copy of The Party's Over and say,

"It would appear that this person tried to warn the other people, but nobody listened until it was too late."

Matt
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[gg3]

Other points at which politics converge with energy issues:

One, the tendency of the "neo-cons" (a term which, to my old-school conservative ears, sounds suspiciously like "con-men") toward a grossly irresponsible fiscal policy, undermines and impairs our ability to respond to discontinuities and crises generally. I find it plausible that the neo-cons are ideologically motivated to, in effect, bankrupt the government. They are squandering economic resources at precisely the time when we need to conserve and defer gratification generally.

Their squanderousness will cost us dearly when we cross the peak. Consider the outcome of the convergence of extraordinary national (and consumer) debt, and chronically increasing inflation brought about by post-peak oil price increases. This is a formula for economic suicide, and there is no gentler way to put it.

Two, the factor of radical religious extremism. One night while surfing the net, I found myself on the website of one of the more powerful Christian Reconstructionist groups. Folks, these people are *scary.* They want to bring back the death penalty for things such as apostasy (leaving the church/denomination one was born into) and heresy. And they want to impose their death penalty by *stoning.* They would replace prisons with a form of "restitution" that consists of indentured servitude and sounds like a revival of slavery. If you doubt me one bit, put the name Rushdooney into a search engine and read. These people are the Christian equivalent of the Wahhabi and the Taliban rolled into one.

Why this is relevant: they *do* have significant influence in Washington, perhaps only as a result of Straussian "realpolitik," but none the less. Their "fellow-travelers" are the various more-mainstream "religious right" types (which again, to my old-school conservative ears, sound terribly radical). Together they add up to a very very large nexus of power. They believe in a kind of Biblical literalism (which I personally consider "bibliolatry" or idol-worship applied to the Bible) whose direct and explicitly-stated implication is that we can use up all of our resources without care or concern because the Second Coming is right around the corner. Remember the James Watt quote to that effect? He was the tip of an iceberg that's grown much larger over the past 15-20 years. With these "end-of-the-worlders" in charge, we can expect zero effort to address the peak oil crisis or any other longterm resource crises.

Whether or not the 2000 election was "stolen," and whether or not the Bush administration deliberately disregarded intel that would have prevented 9-11, I have my serious doubts (though lately I've had to conclude that the Administration's conduct of the war has been frankly incompetent from a military point of view). Whether these other items are at all relevant to the next oil crisis is also questionable. But there is every good reason for voting-out an Administration that is so full of ideological extremists that it can't see reality staring us all in the face.

[dmtu]

I could envision Ashcroft throwing rocks at a dog or a person till death.

[k_semler]

Another very good read on the MuseLetter site is http://www.museletter.com/archive/110.html. It is a "Letter From The Future". Of course, I do not really believe it is from the future for the primary reason that I do not belive in fate, I belive in Mankind's ability to determine the future.

This was one of the very first things I read when I found out about Peak Oil. The essay is very well written, and gives the impression that the author actually lived through the experiences that he describes. This is a very powerful think piece, and I reccomend it to anyone who is interested in our possible future after Peak Oil. Of course, this article is also by Richard Hienberg. I highly reccomend this everyone interested in Peak Oil read this.

Also, I too am in favor of stoning, but not the type of stoning with rocks. Three Words: ¡Quiero al tokabong!

[Pops]

That was a good read, K, thanks.

[hymalaia]

Using up all our resources because one believes in an impending rapture is kinda self-fulfilling... Like I've said before I truly believe that our current leaders are sociopathic nut cases. And it doesn't seem we human's are capable of being led by anyone other kinda personality.

[gg3]

"... aren't capable of being led by much better."

Only because our chimpanzee-nature is so easily mesmerized by shiny objects.

We have been faced with "evolve or die" before, and are here today only because we've succeeded every single time in the past. That's a nice track record. Not one to be taken with complacency, but I tend to believe that civilization will find its way through the current mess.

[EnviroEngr]

"... aren't capable of being led by much better."

That reminds me of what Alan Watts used to say, borrowing from De Tocqueville: "The people get the government they deserve."

I must of done something really bad.

[TheSupplyGuy]

George W. Bush must be the result of 50 years of American apathy and distrust of politics.