This is a courageous and beautiful piece. It's very hard to find a way to honor soldiers who have died in wars while also naming the manipulation by the power elite that put those soldiers in the position to die. This post is an important accomplishment for the well-being of the world.
Great reflections as always. Humanizing all people around the world and seeking to understand why they might commit an act (if they actually did) is a key part to making good long term decisions as a species. It also helps us see when we are being deceived as you pointed out.
Could not agree more. I protested against the Afghan war from 2001. I couldn't understand how inflicting more death and suffering on more innocent people would protect anyone. My banner said "Stop the Warmongers" with photos of Bush, Blair and Bin Laden.
Madhava - please go to the Corbett report. James Corbett’s research is impeccable. If you want to find out about the “pilots” you’ll learn most don’t even exist. He also connects covid 19 biowarfare to 911. Also read Liam Scheffs “Counter Arguments for a Culture in Need” - came out around 2011. If you research any topic in that book you will find it’s true.
Thanks for linking it up. I’m familiar with his work on 9/11. Very strong and ahead of the curve. While I wouldn’t be surprised that some or all the pilots didn’t exist or are still alive living normal lives it’s not something that can be irrefutably proven. On the other hand the 9/11 commission claims that the planes hit the buildings at speeds that those planes could not have achieved at level flight. This is indisputable.
They have produced zero surveillance pictures or even confirmation that all these men checked in or were even at the airport on 9/11. Several individuals with the same names are not the pictures they displayed on tv & were nowhere near the US at the time.
Read Liam Scheff’s book - everything he wrote about - 9/11, vaccines, hiv/fauci, federal reserve, etc is confirmed with reputable research.
Hey, but the passports they found on the ground after the twin towers collapsed. Isn’t that evidence enough? Everything explodes, but the passports remain found & undamaged/untouched.
Isn’t that enough proof to simply wrap up the full investigation and move immediately to shock and awe war??
Wellll.... let us for sake of argument say that 9/11 was an inside job, carried out by - at least - the US government. Such a plot would require a chief, jefe, CEO, director, Pooh-bah. Who might that be? And who was the intellectual author that got the donkey tail pinned upon him? So if the tragic events were in fact planned, orchestrated and executed inside the government, as opposed to inside a tunnel or cave in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, such a plot would necessarily include a deception plan to shift focus onto a credible culprit. Correct, Osama bin-Laden. So how did OBL become a credible culprit? Two attacks on embassies in East Africa. Hmmm, OBL from a rich Yemeni family connected to a US presidential family via business, and his operational area in South Asia, sets up attacks in... East Africa? That doesn´t ring any bells, really. Perhaps we should muse upon the ponderation that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11, and the attacks on US embassies in East Africa were articulated by the same plotters of said tragic events in NYC, specifically to build a punching dummy to take the blame later. Note: The FBI wanted poster for OBL included the East Africa attacks, but not 9/11. Curious, no?
Everyone on this SS lives large compared to most of the world ... I don't think we have many Somalians or Uruguayans here....
Why is that?
It's because the resources of the planet are finite -- and every country and every person is competing for these finite resources - and that means that there are winners and losers.
The winners get homes, vacations, automobiles, heaps of food and lots of stuff to shove into their 3 car garages
The losers get to live in filthy slums, malnourished.. a grim nasty brutish existence.
Why do you live large - its because of WAR.
You are fortunate that you have leaders who understand this .. and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure you get a nice hunk of the spoils of wars... and as we know - almost all wars are about resources... about pillaging the resources.
Ya'll want to sing KOOMbaya and bang tambourines... and Give Peace a Chance. You are living in a delusional and dangerous world.
The Chinese and Russians would salivate if the US and it's vassals in NATO decided to Give Peace a Chance -- and refuse to go to war.
They would immediately tear the throats out of all NATO countries and ya'll find our real quick what it's like to live the 3rd world lifestyle.
This is not complicated. I do not understand why people do not understand this.
We actually do not know if we live in a world with scarce resources or one with abundance.
There is no question that war depletes resources. How much more would be available if we didn't blow up infrastructure, oil refineries and pipelines under the ocean? How much more would we have to spend on aid and education if we weren't upgrading our arsenals every year at a cost of a trillion dollars per annum? How much squalor would there be in the third world if we devoted half of that to improving conditions outside our borders?
How many terrorists and bellicose leaders would there be if everyone had clean water and enough to eat?
We don't know because we have never run the experiment. The question is, how long are we going to wait before we try something new?
Because we are steaming oil out of sand... drilling thousands of holes in Texas dropping bombs down the holes to blow up the shale - then sucking up the dregs... we are also drilling miles beneath the ocean surface for oil ... and we are trying to work out how to extract oil from the Arctic.
All of this makes it quite obvious that we are desperate
If you cannot see what is right in front of your face... then it's because you do not want to see... you cannot handle the truth.... very few can. It leads to despair in most people
How are you certain that this increasingly desperate search for fossil fuels is not a ruse?
While I would agree that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels on our planet, it is much less clear how much really exists and how much of it is accessible. It seems to me that the vast energy industry upon which our society depends would find it highly profitable to create the illusion of scarcity to drive the value of their commodity up.
Moreover, wars drive the supply of energy down. Fuel is needed to fly the planes, drive the tanks and power the destroyers and aircaft carriers. There's a tactical advantage to destroying the fuel supply chain of an enemy. Rebuilding after the ravages of war takes energy too.
In any case, our government has been very interested in suppressing real solutions to the energy dependency we seem to be burdened with. I'm not talking about solar panels and wind turbines. I believe that there is technology on this planet that could liberate humanity from our constant search for energy. Even in the early 70's the USG made it clear in their designation of patents that pose a threat to national security that they were interested in keeping revolutionary technology away from the public.
Unlike you, I am not absolutely certain about anything aside from the fact that we don't have enough information to make any firm conclusions. All I am proposing here is that it would be worthwhile to abolish war for a decade or two and see what happens. There's far too much to be gained from not running the experiment.
The Energy Transition Story Has Become Self-Defeating
There is still a widespread belief that it is possible to transition away from fossil fuels, a myth which is contradicted by an ever growing body of evidence. Not that the previous model — based on coal, oil and gas — was even a slight bit more sustainable: we are talking about finite resources after all. However, the “energy transition” was a far more easier sell, than admitting that we have reached the end of growth, and that a long winding road back to a much simpler life is what awaits. Meanwhile, the real crisis (climate change), has proved to be a far more complex topic than what could be “tackled” by turning a few coal fired power plants off, and wishing for the magic unicorn of the Hydrogen economy to materialize… Where did it all go wrong? What kind of transition is possible then?
Let’s start by making a simple statement first: There has been no energy transition ever taking place in human history. Neither in the 19th century, when coal came into the picture, nor in the 20th with the advent of nuclear, or in the 21st, for that matter, with the widespread adoption of wind and solar. As the term implies, it would’ve required us to abandon a viable energy source in favour of another, ramping down the old one in advantage of the new. That would’ve meant leaving vast reserves of the old energy source out there, untapped. That has never happened, and never will, for a simple reason: the Maximum Power Principle.
The MPP posits that complex systems (like the human economy) tend to evolve in ways that maximize their power intake or energy throughput. Which means, that as long as there is a viable energy source out there, we will not stop using it: It has to run out first, or become otherwise unavailable for us. (And as the history of climate conferences show, that pretty much seems to be the case with fossil fuels.) In a nutshell: no, there is no such thing as an “energy transition” — only addition to the existing mix.
The second thing which needs to be stated here, is that energy efficiency is not a solution for two reasons. First, it too violates the Maximum Power Principle — and thus puts the entity reducing its overall energy intake into a major disadvantage; effectively allowing other entities to outcompete it. Since we are living in a competitive environment, where the weak gets eaten/occupied/robbed/colonized/etc. this cannot allowed to happen. As a result energy saved by efficiency measures will always be used up in other ways (usually by increasing economic output). And while we could debate how this is a bad thing from a moral standpoint, this is the world we live in. Just take a look at the chart below:
The other reason, why energy efficiency cannot possibly save the day (not even in a benign, cooperative environment) is the Jevons-paradox, put forward by an English economist William Stanley Jevons in 1865. The phenomenon named after him occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource (like coal) is used, but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand. Likewise, if you were to give up coal use in favour of “renewables” all it would achieve is to make coal much cheaper elsewhere, and thereby drive up its use. The same goes for gasoline (vs electric cars) or any other form of energy saving. Unless an energy source gets physically banned worldwide, or becomes less available due to depletion, its consumption cannot be expected to fall — no matter how detrimental its use proves to be on the long run.
Now, with these two factors in mind take a look at the first chart above. Have you noticed the plateauing (or the taper off) of fossil fuels: first coal, then oil, and as of late: natural gas?
Was there any ban on their use globally? No?
THE PUNCHLINE!!!!
Then why did they stopped growing? Due to the energy transition — which never was — or perhaps because of energy efficiency measures [sic]? Or maybe, because we have arrived at hard limits to their extraction? Take a minute to ponder on that.
I know it is not fake because I have two cousins working there...
Are you suggesting fracking is fake... and deep sea?
Do you think resources are infinite? Do you not agree that we use the easiest to extract resources first - and what's left eventually becomes to expensive cuz that drives inflation through the roof?
This is not a complicated issue - if you cannot see it then you do not want to see it
I'd suggest you bring yourself up to speed on this topic ...
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECTSTORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
These are (were) two of the largest oil fields on the planet ... and they were discovered relatively recently ... and they are in steep decline.
Is this fake?
Try to get your head around the idea that by 2027, US tight oil production might be 12 MM BOPD, not the 9 MM it is now, which is what cheerleaders say it will be, and that means we'll actually have to find and extract 12 MM BOPD... before we can ever grow the new 3 MM. Man, that is a slew of new wells! Thats gonna take like...four times the HZ wells we've already drilled in the US.
Feel free to contact Mike ... he's been in the business for decades...
Also fake?
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources.
Do you believe oil is infinite? That elves are churning out more of it inside the Earth?
Do you believe that oil can rise to $300 a barrel?
Is this a lie?
HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH
According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH
This is a courageous and beautiful piece. It's very hard to find a way to honor soldiers who have died in wars while also naming the manipulation by the power elite that put those soldiers in the position to die. This post is an important accomplishment for the well-being of the world.
I suggest watching this interview with career commercial airline pilot Dan Hanley
https://rumble.com/v4l0040-captain-dan-hanley.html
Excellent!
Hanley paid a heavy price. Uninterruptible Auto pilot. That’s a term to remember.
Great reflections as always. Humanizing all people around the world and seeking to understand why they might commit an act (if they actually did) is a key part to making good long term decisions as a species. It also helps us see when we are being deceived as you pointed out.
Could not agree more. I protested against the Afghan war from 2001. I couldn't understand how inflicting more death and suffering on more innocent people would protect anyone. My banner said "Stop the Warmongers" with photos of Bush, Blair and Bin Laden.
https://corbettreport.com/bestof/
Madhava - please go to the Corbett report. James Corbett’s research is impeccable. If you want to find out about the “pilots” you’ll learn most don’t even exist. He also connects covid 19 biowarfare to 911. Also read Liam Scheffs “Counter Arguments for a Culture in Need” - came out around 2011. If you research any topic in that book you will find it’s true.
Thanks for linking it up. I’m familiar with his work on 9/11. Very strong and ahead of the curve. While I wouldn’t be surprised that some or all the pilots didn’t exist or are still alive living normal lives it’s not something that can be irrefutably proven. On the other hand the 9/11 commission claims that the planes hit the buildings at speeds that those planes could not have achieved at level flight. This is indisputable.
They have produced zero surveillance pictures or even confirmation that all these men checked in or were even at the airport on 9/11. Several individuals with the same names are not the pictures they displayed on tv & were nowhere near the US at the time.
Read Liam Scheff’s book - everything he wrote about - 9/11, vaccines, hiv/fauci, federal reserve, etc is confirmed with reputable research.
Hey, but the passports they found on the ground after the twin towers collapsed. Isn’t that evidence enough? Everything explodes, but the passports remain found & undamaged/untouched.
Isn’t that enough proof to simply wrap up the full investigation and move immediately to shock and awe war??
Things that make you go.Hmm.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can understand it ?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
It isn't the heart that's deceitful but the false ego.
That too comes from the heart. A deeper study of Scripture would help. I don’t contradict God.
Wellll.... let us for sake of argument say that 9/11 was an inside job, carried out by - at least - the US government. Such a plot would require a chief, jefe, CEO, director, Pooh-bah. Who might that be? And who was the intellectual author that got the donkey tail pinned upon him? So if the tragic events were in fact planned, orchestrated and executed inside the government, as opposed to inside a tunnel or cave in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, such a plot would necessarily include a deception plan to shift focus onto a credible culprit. Correct, Osama bin-Laden. So how did OBL become a credible culprit? Two attacks on embassies in East Africa. Hmmm, OBL from a rich Yemeni family connected to a US presidential family via business, and his operational area in South Asia, sets up attacks in... East Africa? That doesn´t ring any bells, really. Perhaps we should muse upon the ponderation that OBL had nothing to do with 9/11, and the attacks on US embassies in East Africa were articulated by the same plotters of said tragic events in NYC, specifically to build a punching dummy to take the blame later. Note: The FBI wanted poster for OBL included the East Africa attacks, but not 9/11. Curious, no?
You won't like it... but... this is truth: https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/why-war-is-awesome
We have been taught that war is necessary????
War IS necessary.
Everyone on this SS lives large compared to most of the world ... I don't think we have many Somalians or Uruguayans here....
Why is that?
It's because the resources of the planet are finite -- and every country and every person is competing for these finite resources - and that means that there are winners and losers.
The winners get homes, vacations, automobiles, heaps of food and lots of stuff to shove into their 3 car garages
The losers get to live in filthy slums, malnourished.. a grim nasty brutish existence.
Why do you live large - its because of WAR.
You are fortunate that you have leaders who understand this .. and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure you get a nice hunk of the spoils of wars... and as we know - almost all wars are about resources... about pillaging the resources.
Ya'll want to sing KOOMbaya and bang tambourines... and Give Peace a Chance. You are living in a delusional and dangerous world.
The Chinese and Russians would salivate if the US and it's vassals in NATO decided to Give Peace a Chance -- and refuse to go to war.
They would immediately tear the throats out of all NATO countries and ya'll find our real quick what it's like to live the 3rd world lifestyle.
This is not complicated. I do not understand why people do not understand this.
If you want to understand why this is ... what it is ... read https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-species-ever
I'm not nearly as certain as you, obviously.
We actually do not know if we live in a world with scarce resources or one with abundance.
There is no question that war depletes resources. How much more would be available if we didn't blow up infrastructure, oil refineries and pipelines under the ocean? How much more would we have to spend on aid and education if we weren't upgrading our arsenals every year at a cost of a trillion dollars per annum? How much squalor would there be in the third world if we devoted half of that to improving conditions outside our borders?
How many terrorists and bellicose leaders would there be if everyone had clean water and enough to eat?
We don't know because we have never run the experiment. The question is, how long are we going to wait before we try something new?
You know why I am absolutely certain?
Because we are steaming oil out of sand... drilling thousands of holes in Texas dropping bombs down the holes to blow up the shale - then sucking up the dregs... we are also drilling miles beneath the ocean surface for oil ... and we are trying to work out how to extract oil from the Arctic.
All of this makes it quite obvious that we are desperate
If you cannot see what is right in front of your face... then it's because you do not want to see... you cannot handle the truth.... very few can. It leads to despair in most people
BTW - war is necessary -- that's another truth people seem to be unable to handle https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/why-war-is-awesome/
How are you certain that this increasingly desperate search for fossil fuels is not a ruse?
While I would agree that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels on our planet, it is much less clear how much really exists and how much of it is accessible. It seems to me that the vast energy industry upon which our society depends would find it highly profitable to create the illusion of scarcity to drive the value of their commodity up.
Moreover, wars drive the supply of energy down. Fuel is needed to fly the planes, drive the tanks and power the destroyers and aircaft carriers. There's a tactical advantage to destroying the fuel supply chain of an enemy. Rebuilding after the ravages of war takes energy too.
In any case, our government has been very interested in suppressing real solutions to the energy dependency we seem to be burdened with. I'm not talking about solar panels and wind turbines. I believe that there is technology on this planet that could liberate humanity from our constant search for energy. Even in the early 70's the USG made it clear in their designation of patents that pose a threat to national security that they were interested in keeping revolutionary technology away from the public.
Unlike you, I am not absolutely certain about anything aside from the fact that we don't have enough information to make any firm conclusions. All I am proposing here is that it would be worthwhile to abolish war for a decade or two and see what happens. There's far too much to be gained from not running the experiment.
The Energy Transition Story Has Become Self-Defeating
There is still a widespread belief that it is possible to transition away from fossil fuels, a myth which is contradicted by an ever growing body of evidence. Not that the previous model — based on coal, oil and gas — was even a slight bit more sustainable: we are talking about finite resources after all. However, the “energy transition” was a far more easier sell, than admitting that we have reached the end of growth, and that a long winding road back to a much simpler life is what awaits. Meanwhile, the real crisis (climate change), has proved to be a far more complex topic than what could be “tackled” by turning a few coal fired power plants off, and wishing for the magic unicorn of the Hydrogen economy to materialize… Where did it all go wrong? What kind of transition is possible then?
Let’s start by making a simple statement first: There has been no energy transition ever taking place in human history. Neither in the 19th century, when coal came into the picture, nor in the 20th with the advent of nuclear, or in the 21st, for that matter, with the widespread adoption of wind and solar. As the term implies, it would’ve required us to abandon a viable energy source in favour of another, ramping down the old one in advantage of the new. That would’ve meant leaving vast reserves of the old energy source out there, untapped. That has never happened, and never will, for a simple reason: the Maximum Power Principle.
The MPP posits that complex systems (like the human economy) tend to evolve in ways that maximize their power intake or energy throughput. Which means, that as long as there is a viable energy source out there, we will not stop using it: It has to run out first, or become otherwise unavailable for us. (And as the history of climate conferences show, that pretty much seems to be the case with fossil fuels.) In a nutshell: no, there is no such thing as an “energy transition” — only addition to the existing mix.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4e0fd934-8772-472d-9206-607d609fc960_1000x685.png
The second thing which needs to be stated here, is that energy efficiency is not a solution for two reasons. First, it too violates the Maximum Power Principle — and thus puts the entity reducing its overall energy intake into a major disadvantage; effectively allowing other entities to outcompete it. Since we are living in a competitive environment, where the weak gets eaten/occupied/robbed/colonized/etc. this cannot allowed to happen. As a result energy saved by efficiency measures will always be used up in other ways (usually by increasing economic output). And while we could debate how this is a bad thing from a moral standpoint, this is the world we live in. Just take a look at the chart below:
The other reason, why energy efficiency cannot possibly save the day (not even in a benign, cooperative environment) is the Jevons-paradox, put forward by an English economist William Stanley Jevons in 1865. The phenomenon named after him occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource (like coal) is used, but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand. Likewise, if you were to give up coal use in favour of “renewables” all it would achieve is to make coal much cheaper elsewhere, and thereby drive up its use. The same goes for gasoline (vs electric cars) or any other form of energy saving. Unless an energy source gets physically banned worldwide, or becomes less available due to depletion, its consumption cannot be expected to fall — no matter how detrimental its use proves to be on the long run.
Now, with these two factors in mind take a look at the first chart above. Have you noticed the plateauing (or the taper off) of fossil fuels: first coal, then oil, and as of late: natural gas?
Was there any ban on their use globally? No?
THE PUNCHLINE!!!!
Then why did they stopped growing? Due to the energy transition — which never was — or perhaps because of energy efficiency measures [sic]? Or maybe, because we have arrived at hard limits to their extraction? Take a minute to ponder on that.
More https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-energy-transition-story-has-become
It's not a ruse... unless you believe this is fake https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tar+sands+steaming+operation&iax=images&ia=images
I know it is not fake because I have two cousins working there...
Are you suggesting fracking is fake... and deep sea?
Do you think resources are infinite? Do you not agree that we use the easiest to extract resources first - and what's left eventually becomes to expensive cuz that drives inflation through the roof?
This is not a complicated issue - if you cannot see it then you do not want to see it
I'd suggest you bring yourself up to speed on this topic ...
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECTSTORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
I’m not saying fracking is a ruse. I’m saying the need for fracking is.
I am struggling to see the logic in any of what you are suggesting.
Do you believe this is fake?
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fce03757a-c71e-40f1-a44a-1f7f02fe1c67_800x676.jpeg
And this?
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9f8ba9e0-75d3-4b9b-9fe0-b3890f119c9b_609x281.svg
These are (were) two of the largest oil fields on the planet ... and they were discovered relatively recently ... and they are in steep decline.
Is this fake?
Try to get your head around the idea that by 2027, US tight oil production might be 12 MM BOPD, not the 9 MM it is now, which is what cheerleaders say it will be, and that means we'll actually have to find and extract 12 MM BOPD... before we can ever grow the new 3 MM. Man, that is a slew of new wells! Thats gonna take like...four times the HZ wells we've already drilled in the US.
Where? https://www.oilystuff.com/single-post/the-hamster-wheel
Feel free to contact Mike ... he's been in the business for decades...
Also fake?
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
Do you believe oil is infinite? That elves are churning out more of it inside the Earth?
Do you believe that oil can rise to $300 a barrel?
Is this a lie?
HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH
According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH
For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil production has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world’s economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth
Simply depopulation by the Elites!