Page 1 of 4Next
Put a Tyrant in Your Tank
You thought ExxonMobil was bad? Meet the new kings of crude.
Jeroen van der Veer is no pushover. The 60-year-old CEO stands out as a tough guy in an industry filled with them. In 2004, after taking the helm of Shell, the frugal, hawk-faced chief executive forced the $300 billion oil company through a painful restructuring. He borrowed a management model from his Dutch military days, deliberately holding strategy sessions in cramped rooms where his subordinates had to stand while their leader remained seated.
This tough demeanor was glaringly absent, however, when van der Veer met with Russian president Vladimir Putin in the winter of 2006. Shell had toiled for a decade to develop Sakhalin-2, a vast $22 billion oil and gas project on Russia's remote eastern coast, when Putin seized the reins and handed them off to Gazprom, the state energy concern. To retain a financial stake in the project, Shell reportedly had to pay the Kremlin a special dividend worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Yet in announcing the deal, the hard-assed CEO came off more like a cheerleader. "Thank you very much for your support," van der Veer gushed, addressing Putin as the two men stood together in an ornate Kremlin stateroom. "I think for us, the great news is there's now stability, so we can all work together."
Advertisement
Advertisement
Groveling may not come naturally to guys like van der Veer, but they'd best get used to it. Soaring oil prices have emboldened Russia and other petrostates to stand up to Western execs and build up their own state-run petroleum operations. While some oil multinationals continue to haul in record profits, they're rapidly losing global clout, and with their holdings on the decline, executives have little choice but to grin and bear it. We're "seeing a further shifting in the oil industry in which national oil companies are the power brokers," says Andrew Neff, senior energy analyst at economic forecaster Global Insight.
Anyone inclined to celebrate Big Oil's recent misfortunes had better hold off on the champagne. For however badly the Western firms may have behaved, the new global oil barons could one day leave environmental and social activists nostalgic for the bad old days of ExxonMobil.
A decade ago, Western petroleum companies still ruled the world. To entice these firms to develop their oil resources, cash-strapped exporters such as Venezuela and Russia gave away the store. Fairly typical was the original Sakhalin-2 agreement, which let Shell recoup all the money it had put in before Russia earned a dime in oil revenues, and generous incentives from Caracas lured some 60 firms to Venezuela's oil sector during the 1990s.
Funny how a sevenfold price increase changes the game. Years of global terrorism, war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, rebel attacks in Nigeria, and assorted other mayhem recently helped oil broach $100 per barrel. Asian industrialization has done the rest: China, once able to produce all the crude it needed, is projected to import three-quarters of its petroleum by 2025, and consume half as much as the United States. The booming demand has transformed Russia from a pauper state into one that sits atop nearly $500 billion in liquid assets, while Iran, with the world's third-largest supply of crude, now earns record annual revenues from oil.
Pay 'em not to drill Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa says his country will leave nearly a billion barrels of oil untapped in the Yasuní, a delicate stretch of rainforest, if rich nations pony up $4.6 billion—half of the expected revenues. Seems like a pump dream, yet Spain has committed $4 million, others are interested, and the Clinton Global Initiative has embraced the project. But even supporters fear betrayal, so Ecuador will issue certificates redeemable if the Yasuní is later exploited. Correa recently approved drilling in another sensitive area, but still, sitting on Ecuador's largest oil prospect would be truly historic.
—Mark Engler and Nadia Martinez
Click here to see more Bright Ideas.
Big Oil, by contrast, faces a grim future. During the 1960s, multinationals such as Mobil, BP, and Shell had access to more than 80 percent of global oil and natural gas reserves. These days, Western multinationals control just 10 percent of the world's oil, while state-run firms, according to a November 2007 paper from Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, exercise exclusive domain over roughly 77 percent. America's own oil production has been in a prolonged slide, and exploration prospects appear limited—Iraq, once the great Western hope, has barely recovered to prewar production levels.
The petrostates haven't been shy about wielding their power. In addition to negotiating the Shell coup, the Kremlin pushed British energy giant BP to sell its stake in Kovykta, a major Russian gas field. In spring 2007, Venezuela, which ranks seventh in oil reserves, took control of projects owned by foreign companies in the rich Orinoco Belt, a move that cost America's ConocoPhillips 10 percent of its oil holdings and nearly erased the firm's profits for that quarter. "They won't be missed," president Hugo Chávez said of the Westerners. In nearby Bolivia, president Evo Morales nationalized his oil and gas fields in 2006, and Ecuador has forced foreign firms to cough up more in taxes. "They understand the way energy markets have changed, and they're reinforced by Chávez's success," says Michael Shifter, vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit.
The state-run firms have exploded in size and number and now include 15 of the world's top 25 oil companies, according to Petroleum Intelligence Weekly. Gazprom is the biggest natural gas company on earth, and Aramco and the National Iranian Oil Company may be the globe's most powerful oil concerns. The United Arab Emirates has amassed so much oil wealth that it boasts a state-owned investment fund worth an estimated $1.3 trillion. Kazakhstan, where the world's biggest new oil field was discovered in 2000, has also taken advantage of the power shift. After letting a consortium of multinationals develop the massive project, last fall the government began pressuring the firms to boost its stake. In December, the country's deputy finance minister told the Financial Times that the days of Western dominance were "ancient times."
Can't muster sympathy for the captains of industry? Well, consider this. In the past, activists pushing for improvements from oppressive oil regimes such as Burma's got leverage by launching PR campaigns to embarrass their Western oil partners. But those days are over. Given their waning power, the multinationals are more likely than ever to overlook the abuses. To get their hands on the petroleum of Libya, a nation with an abysmal human rights record, oil companies have offered dictator Moammar Qaddafi nearly all the proceeds from any partnership deals. Six months after the Kremlin took back Sakhalin-2, Putin met with a collection of leading CEOs at a forum in his hometown of St. Petersburg where they competed to suck up to him. "The president is very open and straightforward," Christophe de Margerie, head of French oil giant Total, fawned to the press afterward. "We'd like to invest more." And even as the Kremlin turned the screws on BP to muscle it out of a key project in Russia, chief executive Tony Hayward turned on the charm, declaring that BP was "pleased to be a minority shareholder in Rosneft," another state-controlled oil firm.
If Big Oil is willing to overlook the petrostates' abuses, there's another global partner that can even protect them from international sanctions. China, after all, has veto power over United Nations Security Council resolutions. PetroChina, Beijing's state-run behemoth, is the world's most valuable company, and its parent firm, China National Petroleum Corporation, is trolling for oil around the globe. These firms share the multinationals' hunger for oil investment but resemble Gazprom in their lack of accountability. Consumer campaigns in America mean little to autocratic regimes when China is knocking on the front door.
Most years, the triennial World Energy Congress plays out like a celebration of plutocracy.
Page 1 of 4Next
Comments
Venezuela should not be grouped together with some of these other countries. There are truly democratic elections in this country for one. And saying that "oil-funded purchases of arms and helicopters, help consolidate his power domestically" is laughable. Does the US massive military budget do this? If anything, arms have an international effect.
Wonderful article. It really illustrates the incredible importance of energy in modern economies and the risks that are imposed by addiction to particular sources of energy that are found in limited geographic areas.
Read with an understanding of the history of modern warfare, it is also easy to see why some historians believe that oil access has played a fundamental role in every conflict of the 20th century.
Finally, the financial numbers, attitudes and personalities described in this article provide support for one of my main theories about the power behind the anti-nuclear movement. Since nuclear power is the only new source of energy that actually has succeeded in taking market share from fossil fuel, I believe that purveyors of coal, oil and gas have provided some of the financial support used by the anti-nuclear activists to slow down the growth of the industry. The competition would reduce their money and grip on power.
The idea that CEOs of companies that receive billions in revenue would grovel before dictators just shows me that most of them have no sense of morals at all and are willing to sell their souls for a bit of coin. Incredible.
While this article is informative on some level, I find the hypocrisy of the basic arguments laughable. Pot meet kettle. If you read this article from the perspective that the US or that corporations own the world, then it makes more sense. However, if you take off the shades and look at if from other nation's perspectives, all arguments fall far, far short.
here it comes:
"American corporate tyrants are *nicer* & *better* than foreign corporate tyrants"
*sigh* okay... I'll bite.
Tell a resident of 'The Other Americas' about the *benevolence* of American corporations...
...or an African...
...or a Asian...
... or the PEOPLE WHO GET SHOT BY AMERICAN CORPORATIONS who are trying to prevent privatization, resource exploitation or unionization
Its called REGIME CHANGE, WHINSEC & private contractors.
You just didn't THINK it was Americans... "just those 'brown' or 'yellow' peoples who seem to be always fighting or throwing rocks at one another", right?
ITS BEEN GOING ON, its just that the residents of the United States didn't have to stare it in the face every day. Meanwhile, they made the armaments & consumed the benefits.
Why do you *think* everybody BUT the US had such high oil prices for decades? *duh* You aren't even CLOSE to the prices of petroleum paid by non-US residents for decades.
excepting that the oil is being bought by military might, & will be subject to compound interest & international courts of settlement.
all nicely sanitized by "*The* American" mass media.
you know, the mass media that stomps local culture & information into obscurity...
~~~
Spread Love...
BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"Do no harm"
H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y
Tyrants do not allow elections OR accept the results of elections that go against their will.
Therefore: Chavez is not a tyrant and the USA is for cancelling or challenging elections in Central America, Vietnam, Korea, and lately in Iraq because they did not like the results.
Tyrants do not give a "flip" about the poor and only pay attention to them in the form of "bread and circus" handouts.
Therefore: Chavez is not a tyrant because he has done more against poverty in his country than anyone before him and the USA is a tyrant because the poor people of America, of which there are many, receive very little from the government other than lip service.
So much for identifying the tyrants.
Mother Jones was a brave and tireless advocate of justice but she must be spinning like a top right now due to MJ magazines' bs articles like this one.
This article obfuscates more than in clarifies. It's pretty neo-liberal in its orientation, trying to force the nasty medicine down the throats of lefties. Bull[deleted], I say. Boycott oil, take the 1/2 trillion dollars that went to Iraq and subsidize green energy. Cut back on electricity use. This business that oil is inevitable is a hoax. We changed from wood to coal to oil -- let's change to using the untapped resource of intelligent innovation.
Sure, the multnationals play by healthier rules, and no wonder since they've been forced to, but they originally set the standard and stage for what was to come.
On the other hand, the nationalist oil giants are just responding to the example that multinationals and their supportive governments have done prior to the rise of nationalist oil interests.
Your article speaks from the perspective that the past is not that relevant. I beg to differ. And so does the truth.
rm
The US government, for 30 years and even now, has been methodically and ruthlessly weeding out any attempts at developing the alternative sources of energy in this country. The only difference between Putin and Bush is that Putin came to power from secret services thanks to his talents and hard work, while the apparently gift-less and spine-less Bush was delivered to power by secret services via his father and with invaluable help of Baker III.
This Bush administration made it inevitable that tyrants in the oil-producing countries have got an upper hand (habeas corpus? tortures? secret courts?) Those who have arranged the disastrous Bush epoch were sitting tightly at the source of oily money.
A lot of blood-covered money...
It seems to me that there is a line of thought among both the individual writing the article and those responding. That is that there is a particular entity to blame. People denounce oil companies while simultaneously reaping the benefits gained via their exploitation of the third world. If you buy any consumer goods in the US, you have blood on your hands just as those companies do. The fact that we are all on computers that take oil to produce means that we promote a lack of social responsibility. Any electronics we buy contain copper mined in Africa by children wading in mercury. Then there is the coltan that is mined in the Congo using the same practices to give us laptops and cell phones. The fact of the matter is that oil will run out, it's just a matter of time. The other reality is that 6 billion people cannot be supported on this planet without industrialized agriculture, which will come to a halt when the supply of oil is cut off. Nuclear is not a real option. It is too expensive to produce and creates waste that does not break down for millions of years (check Yucca Mountain). You also can't run the same American (or international) fleet of vehicles using nuclear power. I find it laughable that this writer really believes that state-run oil companies will be worse than their capitalist counterparts. They are one in the same. The US government through the CIA has supported state-sponsored violence in the name of profits. The real problem this writer speaks of is the growing inability of the United States to continue to influence these repressive governments, which could mean hard times for us. We are living on borrowed time, which will end when oil becomes too costly to continue to use. That time is rapidly approaching.
Change is good for the soul. The US is on its way to losing its superpower status. Some (like the rest of the world) may say we’ve already lost it.
Who’s to blame for this change? The wealthy-powerful few who control policy. They’ve sold our future for short-term profit. Greed and corruption by disgustingly wealth individuals have led to this change. That’s individuals, not a whole country, corporations or governments.
What to do? Embrace the change. Change is good. Lets get gas to $10/gallon or higher. That’ll push us all to make the right change and get off our oil diet. So, thank you wealthy one-percenters for this change.
One World, under the sun.
Peace.
I think Nick gets it right, "The real problem this writer speaks of is the growing inability of the United States to continue to influence these repressive governments, which could mean hard times for us."
I would however, not include Venezuela in the mix as Rick Little points out. They do have a democratically elected leader who has done much to improve the lot of his country's poor.
With China & India quickly becoming big oil consumers and the supplies dwindling, I would say $10.00 a gallon is on the horizon.
Shall we continue to use our military to keep our hand on Iraq's oil spigot just so Americans can continue drive Expeditions and Hummers? Can we really blame the corporations when we so eagerly lap up their product?
Why don't we pull the teeth of all these Oil Megoliths and look for funds to promote Hydrogen technology. Go to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=105... Is this for real?
Chavez was democratically elected several times, and he may be a leftist, but he is not a tyrant. This article uses the USA imperialist slogans to make the Bolivarian revolution sound like tyranny, while the real tyrants are in the current White House. Our tyrants in Washington, D.C. have a different revolution; instead of helping the poor, as Chavez has done, Bush and Cheney have helped the rich. What a terrible article, Mother Jones.
I don't often agree with the articles that you print, and only read them to be sure I have missed as little as possible in MY search for truth.......
This time, However, I am of the opinion that homework was done, and someone looked into all aspects, and found just what it says.
kudos to you, and sorrow to us.....
Cyborg (Mike Sartor Sr)
Hey! Who was the ghostwriter of this article? Karl Rove?
Go this way and you will sure get a job in the George W. White House...It is only a couple of months to go, but you can still get rich..
After reading most of the comments to this article I guess is all said.
Hey everybody, would it hurt to do as I started doing? It may not be the answer but I swear the effects have been good for me. This year I planted a garden to which no pesticides will be added, I will hoe by hand (no tillers) I will eat my food that I grow. In the process I will be getting Vitamin D from the sun, exercising my body, acquiring pride in myself, sharing with my neighbors, teaching my grandchildren about nature (and possibly how to survive in a few years), all at a cost of -O-. Stay home and plant a garden instead of watching television, ride a bike with your family, work in a soup kitchen and see "Americans" as bad off as those in Third World countries. Just try and not be a "consumer" but a "recycler" for a change.
Never in a million years would I have expected such right-wing, corporate-related drivel as I read in "Put a Tyrant in your Tank". Your neo-con writer criticizes Hugo Chavez for starting new social programs, like a literacy program for the people of Venezuela? He criticizes Chavez supplying cheap oil to citizens, even those in NYC? Is this MOTHER JONES I am reading such horse[deleted] in? You mean Venezuela cares more about its own people than about US interests?!? Which corporation just bought you out - Exxon, Halliburton, or the ghost of Enron? Never again will I believe what I read in this disgusting rag of yours, and that's because I will NOT be reading Mother Jones again...and I will tell everyone I know why. What crap!
What the hell kind of neo-con article like this doing in Mother Jones? I know this magazine has always had a troubling right wing bent, especially with regards to Latin America, but this is ridiculous. Why not just call for global war over resources?
when even mother jones condemns chavez unequivocally, you know its time to stop reading us media (counterpunch and in these times excepted). supposedly left wing magazines like the nation and mother jones make themselves useless by failing to take a strong stance. why shouldn't i read the new york times, if i want denunciations of chavez from a liberal view?
My only hope is that the natural oil market will become so convoluted that the major energy players will either "miraculously" come up with a synthetic fuel (didn't the Nazi's have a formula for that?), or a company like Chevron (which bought out Ovonics and the batteries) will explain that they've developed a workable electric. At some point the consumer backlash from the higher prices will start to come down on the politicos and force a real reckoning--because until Mr. and Mrs. America can figure a budget, consumer spending is going to continue to be in doldrums. No one making any amount of money at this point in time can figure out how much they are going to spend on fuel costs; not this week, not next month--this creates the kind of uncertainty that prohibits discretionary spending of any kind--it is this uncertainty that will spur the electorate and hence whip the politicans into action of some sort. At least I hope so.
They can charge blebteen-zillion dollars per 1/2 ounce for their 'stuff' as far as I'm concerned, they day's gonna come when people see the merit of domestic 'greenfuels', and that'll be the end of the whole little show, there. Sure, when you're a billionaire, you can hire commodity traders to help you jack up the price for the Precious Juice, but ultimately, you're digging your own grave, there. The Day Will Come when people just won't buy it no more, and that day may come sooner than they think, I believe.
Once upon a time, before dear ol' gasoline, there was another way of generating the old electromechanical forces. It was called 'steam'. You heat water past 212F, doesn't really matter how, the water doesn't really have any special preferences to take into consideration, no boutique fuels that it likes better than the others, anyway, 212+F and the water wants to Go Away, somewhere cooler, kind of like when people in Texas head north for summer vacation or something. Only, water wants to leave NOW. Think Robert Fulton, think 1800's choo-choo, think Stanley Steamer, where there's a will, there's a way, and if the Stanley Steamer could do a buck and a quarter on a sandy beach a hundred years ago, imagine what they might be able to do these days if Detroit et. al. really put their minds to it. Lots of things can be burned to give off heat, and done a lot more efficiently than in an 'otto' engine, and if people work on this stuff at home, then other folks who might try to monopolize the technology or twist the law in their favor in an anti-competitive way will be out twisting in the wind as millions of people drive to work in SPITE of them. But, maybe instead, the petro-peeps might decide to have a little change of heart, there, and see about dropping those prices a notch. Either that, or sell the land they've got their gas stations built on...decisions, decisions...where there's a will, there's a way.
In "Put A Tyrant In Your Tank," Mr. Kurlantzick indicated that it was better to have multinationals control the oil in foreign countries than state-run firms. Despite some PR concern multinationals may have, they surely are not as concerned with actual environmental results. He claims multinationals firms are "at least obligated to respond to public criticism." Evidence shows that Big Oil hasn't been too concerned with public perception. Take the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill which they still refuse to pay for, as well as the toxins left in the Amazon rainforest in Equador by Chevron which has caused massive health problems among the local population. Yes, BP has put a huge PR push behind it‚s green initiatives.
But as reported in the November/December 2006 issue of Mother Jones, (It's Not Easy Being Green by Paul Roberts) as "BP put $500 million into solar power between 2000 and 2005, it spent $8.4 billion exploring and producing petroleum in 2004 alone." It also at one time lobbied hard to get ANWR open to drilling.
Rex Tillerson, head of ExxonMobil was quoted as saying "At a time when we should open doors to trade, resource nationalism closes them." I, and I'm sure many others, don't take this quote to heart since it comes from a huge corporation that has not only helped lead our country down the road of imperialism, but has also exploited other nation‚s oil like Iran & Venezuela for their own personal gain and said to hell with any mutual benefit.
The underlying feeling I get from the article is jealousy. Mr.
Kurlantzick creates a mood that is angry that the US no longer has the power it used to have over these countries and is now the beggar rather than the master. He attacks Chavez for supposedly consolidating his power by purchasing arms and helicopters despite the fact that he was democratically elected and refused to force his constitutional changes on the population when he lost the referendum.
Was in Venezuela twice in last year and everyone with lower incomes that I talked to love Chavez. The rich do hate him and from what I saw it was for crazy reasons. They believe that Chavez is about to send troops into their homes at any moment to commandeer bedrooms for the poor, their 2nd homes will be confiscated, inflation will ruin the country. All these fears have turned out to be myths. Meanwhile inflation has reversed and been cut in half in last 6 months due to government good handling of the economy.
Hey People,
How come we jsut don't make Venezuela our 51st state..? We should have knocked off that lame-ass dictator a long time ago. Since the prohabition aginst assassination of him is now LEGAL, maybe we should hook up with the "Freedom Fighters" in his country and make that country our 51st state..?
Oil forever, right..?
Bill
Is exxon mobile one of your sponsers? This article reads like a propaganda press release from the oil corporations.How dare a country nationalize a national asset.Exxon mobile should be the owners of other countries natural resources they certaintly have a track record that make them seem like greenpeace.I thought mother jones was a left wing rag not a mouthpiece for corporate spin.
I would think that Chavez's buying of arms was to protect his country from countries like ours. There is no evidence that Chavez is a tyrant or that he is trying to do anything other than protect his people. He has fed the poor as well as educated them. He is not just passing out welfare checks he is actually building a working class economy. And yes, this pisses off "The Rich"! Venezuela does not belong on that list. Period!
neo-liberal you say? How is it then, that the studies quoted came from a conservative think tank? At some point you have to put aside the politics and look at reality. I, for one, am moving my household off the grid, and will bicycle to/from work. I see the tidal wave coming and I don't want to drown.
Though I agree more with the comments than the article, I find it typical that everyone on this board has nothing positive to say despite some interesting concerns raised by the article. What about Russia's national oil company using oil to influence the politics of sovereign neighbors? Electing Bush (twice... sigh) has been a huge mistake but everyone is quick to wish America ill-will. WWII wasn't so long ago in the course of human history (I think we deserve some credit) and America did a great job standing up to the Russians who objectively, make Bush look like a saint (if not Corky from "Life goes on"). I understand this article though it is written from a position of fear, unnecessary as it were. The same things that make this author cringe in fear make me smile with joy. Because soon enough we will be putting serious money/time/resources/pressure into coming up with alt fuel technology. Find the green companies, buy their stock, and hold on, though do diversify.
Seventy percent of planet Earth is polluted due to the fact that "Big Oil", in complicity with world governments has suppressed green technologies since the time of Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla, the greatest inventor that ever lived had brilliant, new ways to supply all the energy needs of the world for free, but J.P.Morgan, refused disgusted by the thought that would be free.
Clearly, one is baffled at the unfeeling minds that rule these individuals, for they cannot be human, perhaps they are subhuman, or are automatons created by the "Reptilian Grey Aliens". Ask yourselves why was the EV1, a carbon free car, designed by General Motors, taken out of production, back in 1996? This car could have slowed down global warming, pollution, and averted the Iraqui war. Ask yourselves why is it that there is so many billions of dollars available for the war machine, but not much trickling down to the poor, and improving their health, and education? Ask yourselves why is it that nuclear power is being forced upon the world when we know the lethal dangers of radioactivity to all life? These "Aliens" care not about this planet, and prefer to see it destroyed than to relinquish their power. Do you not smell evil here? Is it not time for the public at large to open their eyes, and stop this manipulation by these extremely selfish, greedy top management that hold so much power over the world just to satisfy their own self-interests, and self-importance, which is ruinning the lives of the majority of the world's people? Ask yourselves why the Media is owned by the Corporate Cartels? To control the masses, and keep them ignorant of the crimes they consistently, and pathologically persist in destroying precious natural ecosystems, without which Mother Earth will not be able to continue to harbour life. Only twenty percent of the world's forests remain, and are being coveted by these "reptilian minds", and the water in the lakes, rivers and Oceans are becoming "titanic containers" of heavy metals, and ill conceived products, such as plastic, tin foil, and styrofoam. In the Pacific Ocean alone a trail as large as five hundred thousand nautical miles of plastic debris - the so called plastic soup - is poisoning marine life, birds, and our food chain. Demand from your Government that all products be designed with the environment in mind. Anything that is not natural is harmful to the health of humans, for we too are part of Nature. The top executives of these multinationals do not care about the wellbeing of the planet, and its people; all they care about is money and power. They are copycats of "King Midas". One has to ask are they human? For one notices that they are incapable of feeling, of discerning that they are, literally, destroying this beautiful planet that took billions of years to create, and in less than a hundred years they have managed to pollute the water, air and land without any scruples or forethought. Again, one has to ask: Are they human? They physically resemble humans, but are not endowed with the thoughtful, caring minds of well balanced human beings. Otherwise, if they were originally from planet Earth, they would try to save it, and not destroy it. Why are we allowing "empty shells",[or perhaps they are extraterrestrials] rule our beloved planet? Once they destroy the Earth, we do not have another one nearby that we could escape to. Our planet deserves our respect and appreciation, for it has given us a "Paradise" to live in, full of life and an array of food sources, but it is our responsibility to take care of it, and treat it with dignity.
Therefore take action, and submit letters to your Government demanding a stop on corruption, fear, greed, egoism, which are what allows for ENRON type characters to flourish, and make a mockery of your economic, political system. Perhaps they too are extraterrestrial.
I really love the ones who say the human race is doomed to destroy itself and that it will be a good day when it does. What are you talking about? Are you crazy? If you people really believe that, start with killing yourself first. By the way, I don't actually advocate that. It's just that the volume of stupid remarks here fascinates me, I can't stop coming back to the site. It's like a morbid curiosity I apparently have.
Chavez will reap the fruits of his massive errors. The people already are.
I was looking for some info and by accident stumbled upon MDs post.
@ Maria Daaz (org: June 6, 2008 10:06:32 AM)
Wow, very well written!
Based on my research, though, the Greys themselves are a sub-race to the Reptilians.
Some more notes:
Many past civilizations were subjected to Alien interference. Some were able to build pyramids to astronomical precisions. Would the same people write nonsense into their history?
Can you image if free energy was released?
You could heat as much as you wanted and not worry about cost. This alone would probably save lives in some countries.
You could grow your own vegetables all year long. Because you could heat as much as you wanted and have power for lamps. That means you could rely on your own healthy meals, grown organically and naturally without dangerous pesticides and a massive food price inflation.
I you had a piece of land with a modest house that is paid off, you would not have to work or rather slave for one of those corporations that in the end destroy us.
Ahh...
People are so blind and aphatetic that humanity is being repressed on a global scale.
There are many unbelievably evil people in power today. We are so apathetic and brainwashed that we believe their stories.
Ask yourself, if you knew that your distant neighbour tortured someone, would you go to a ping-pong party to his house?
Let us hope that we experience true freedom in our life times.
Whether freedom is repressed on the outside or not we first have to learn to cultivate it in our hearts.
Infinity is here and now. It is wrapped inside each atom. However, they are not separate infinities. Each atom is a tiny expression of the Infinity from which it all comes from. We are all centers of Infinity, yet we are all ONE.
This is not some esoterical BS. Look at latest science. They are talking about dimensions folded within tiny strings of energy which "create" the atomic particles.
They also conducted a specific experiment, thousand of times, and each time the same thing was revealed. An atomic "particle" only comes to a specific point and time (and even that is never 100%) when something "looks" at it. When you don't look at it, it is only a wave. A wave of what? It cannot be something physical, since this wave can stretch the entire universe. What are we and the entire universe all made of again?
Can sound a bit overwhelming but in the end it is quite simple. I mean as someone beautifully put it "IT is as natural as going to the toilet".
:-)
Now MJ's authors cite neo-con and CIA-backed Freedom House to complain about a nation's leader using oil profits to fund social programs and arms purchases ... how awful.
Not the "corrupt" nations. Some of these are currently in the crosshairs of US military force and covert operations, even covert-sponsored terrorism or "rebellion".
That MJ would try to pass off a CIA-puff-piece as "progressive", that's awful. (CIA has been sponsoring Left media since the 1960's, exposed by Ramparts and others.)
Dan W: America did a great job standing up to the Russians who objectively, make Bush look like a saint.
------
Putin defending his nation -- and attempting to defend bi-lateral trade agreements from US covert political interference, such as election fraud --- that's bad on Russia?
I do not know how free or unfree Russia is internally. I've not read about any gulags recently. Given the growth of prosperity and shopping, I'd say they're probably more free than most US-backed dictatorships.
However, Dan seems to NOT know what the rest of the world knows -- that the USA and Israel armed and funded Georgia, that the USA and Israel placed armed forces on the ground as "advisors", and that we *pushed* Georgia into attacking Russian-based citizens in the South Ossetia province of Georgia.
We sponsored a massive bombing campaign by Georgia that killed upwards of 1400 civilians. This was the initiating event. Then we complained when Russia responded militarily to that attack on it's people, which caused 61 or so deaths among the Georgian aggressors, plus some damage.
South Ossetia is legally within the boundaries of Georgia, but has been operating as independent for years, and is mostly aligned with Russia. So I've read.
Paul Craig Roberts is a cabinet-level Reaganite who deplores how America has gone from solidly conservative to mindlessly insane, and he blames the Neo-cons for that. Roberts has clarified this noise about Russia's alleged invasion and alleged meddling. In this case, they are legitimately defending their regional interests, and without force, except when force is initiated.
To think that a Reagan Revolution cabinet member would be farther to the Left than MJ ("Left" in terms of a dissident viewpoint and not kow-towing to US political militarism, refuting CIA propaganda), that's pretty astonishing.
Bush's "bold response" was a PR event -- worse a PR event designed to further provoke Russia into conflict. It's called "The Grand Chessboard", you might read it some time. (used, library, or torrent search)
In this example of rolling back Russian CAPITALISM in the East (having already rolled back communism), now figures like Brzezinski, Soros, Woolsey, Bush, Cheney, Rice, are all working together. Unfortunately, that must include Obama, as well.
i just love the comments on
Submitted by michigan legal forms (not verified) on Mon Jun. 29, 2009 10:11 PM PDT.
i just love the comments on this article. they are definitely making alot of sense.
kkmm
Submitted by louis vuitton replica (not verified) on Mon Aug. 3, 2009 12:12 AM PDT.
tiffany jewelry
In this example of rolling back Russian CAPITALISM in the East (having already rolled back communism),
tiffany and co
you would not have to work
Submitted by Teeth Whitening (not verified) on Sun Aug. 16, 2009 6:13 AM PDT.
you would not have to work or rather slave for one of those corporations that in the end destroy us.
ugg bootsugg bootstiffany
Submitted by kimutaku (not verified) on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 9:06 PM PDT.
Michael Jordan Shoes
Submitted by Michael Jordan shoes (not verified) on Wed Sep. 30, 2009 1:49 AM PDT.
Microsoft, in other words, doesn't want to be GE. Puma shoesIt
wants to be the operating system for the digital world. It doesn't want to buy Yahoo because Yahoo is in an exciting business with strong
growth potential. It wants to buy Yahoo so Yahoo can help "transform" Microsoft's business--i.e., puma shoes salemake it more competitive with Google.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
