Terrorist war hysteria

profits despotic regimes.

Terrorist war hysteria

creates a climate of fear and insecurity

which despots use to justify draconian laws

increase the power of the executive branch

promote public acceptance of intrusive policing

foster submission to state authority and a

willingness to surrender personal rights

    *     *     *     *     *

Terrorists hate our freedoms

they hate our values

so let’s surrender them

let’s discard our civil rights

let’s capitulate to the terrorists

let’s forgo our liberties, in the name of terror

let’s accept random bag searches, random body searches

let’s embrace summary executions, torture

presumption of guilt, detention without charge ...

Our governments want to hand victory to the terrorists.

They willingly surrender our rights to the terrorists.

The terrorists are no doubt greatly encouraged

to see how easily we surrender our rights and freedoms.

It looks like our governments are helping the terrorists win.

Or are the terrorists actually helping our governments

providing the authorities an excuse to increase control

Are the terrorists actually government black-ops

designed to provide cover for the preparations

in anticipation of impending calamity

the inevitable depletion of oil

Do the anti-terror laws have a more sinister purpose?

Are they to be used to silence dissent and intimidate critics?

Will they be used to suppress and disrupt civil protest?

As oil depletion constricts supply and energy prices soar

as factories and airlines and transport companies flounder

as farmers go broke and labourers are laid off

as the public rails against inflation

as the ranks of the homeless and unemployed swell

as protests and general strikes and civil unrest erupt on the streets

will the government be disappearing the trouble makers

with these anti-terror laws

The Great Downer

Australian foreign minister, Alexander “The Great” Downer,
has been making a fool of himself again at our expense.

Downer let fly a bucket load of sanctimonious hogwash at the United Nations last week, exposing the feeble minded backwater of contemporary Australian politics for the whole world to witness.

Downer is the prototypical postmodern politician; smug, arrogant, petulant, lazy, complacent and incompetent. He exhibits about as much political acumen as the tar baby.

He is completely impervious to rational thought and utterly intolerant of criticism. He can be condescending, haughty and hurtful at times.

His innate ability to avoid public debate and parley nonsense rivals that of his fellow western leader, friend and coconspirator, George W Bush, president of the United States.

Downer suffers from an incurable case of self-importance, which has been exacerbated by ten years of ministerial privilege and preening.

He fancies himself as a great statesman, striding the world and dispensing pearls of wisdom. But those pearls are plastic imitations.

He is in fact, a phoney, a fraud, a laughing stock. He’s a prancing pony, a flamboyant fruit cake, a perfumed powder puff.

Downer is the political equivalent of a loose cannon with a screw loose.

He is a bumbling, fatuous half wit with unbounded pretension.

Radio shock jock Ray Hadley once called him “a pompous dope”.

Downer exemplifies the shallow absurdity of the pro-war, anti-democratic, neoconservative, post-9/11 terror-crazed, groupthink mindset that as become de rigueur in the current political climate.

His performance at the UN provides an illuminating illustration of just how lame brained and ill informed our foreign minister really is.

Downer launched a scathing attack on the UN for failing to prevent the spread of nuclear technology and get tough on terror.

He criticised the “outdated ideology” of some UN delegates who believe that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

Wasn’t that the ideology of Reagan and Bush senior, whose CIA financed, trained and armed with stinger missiles, the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahedin “freedom fighters” throughout the eighties.

But wait a second, aren’t Bush, Blair, Howard and Downer currently supporting the Northern Alliance “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and the Peshmurga “freedom fighters” in Kurdistan?

Downer said it was important to criminalise “terrorist organisations and their foot soldiers - like those captured in Afghanistan - who bear arms on a battlefield but pay no heed to the laws of war, fight for no regular army, wear no uniform, and no recognisable insignia”.

But wait a second, isn’t that an exact description of the two British spies caught in Basra last week. Isn’t that pretty much an exact description of the American and Australian spies operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere round the world. And isn’t that an accurate description of all those mercenaries employed by private security firms in ever greater numbers.

“How can some nations continue to assert that the deliberate maiming and targeting of civilians is sometimes justified?” Mr Downer asked.

But wait a second, aren’t we one of those nations that asserts it is justifiable to deliberately target, kill and maim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to spread freedom and democracy?

And just who was responsible for the failure of the UN summit to reach an agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? Well of course, it was Downer’s good friend and ally, George W Bush, who, according to senior diplomats quoted in the Observer, “sabotaged” the agreement by refusing to countenance any form of disarmament.

Downer desperately needs a reality check. His conception of the world bears little relation to the situation he helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His rhetoric about “staying the course” and “getting the job done” is meaningless drivel, errant nonsense, misguided, misleading and deluded tripe authored by the White House.

His stubborn refusal to consider any viewpoint other than his own, his denial or ignorance of pertinent facts and his blasé rejection of expert opinion, leaves him with very little to recommend his attitude or substantiate his position, apart from his title of foreign minister.

But these days, political office is sufficient to garner credence.

An historic victory

Speaking at the Pentagon yesterday, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the US occupation of Iraq. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq, he said, would let “terrorists claim an historic victory over the United States.”

“The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the safety and security of the American people, that’s not going to happen on my watch,” he said.

But actually, that’s not the only way the “terrorists” can win. Ironically, Bush has put the “terrorists” in a win-win situation. For sure, if America retreats, it will look weak and ineffectual. This will be a great loss for America, and an equally significant gain for its enemies.

On the other hand, while America remains in Iraq, its reputation crumbles, its enemies multiply, its resources are depleted, its debt climbs, its “best and brightest” die in vain while Bush and his cronies reap enormous profits.

This is clearly a loss for America, even if it benefits Bush and his ilk.

Equally, it benefits America’s enemies, rivals and competitors.

Whether by coincidence or design, the Bush-Cheney agenda has reaped immense personal benefit for a select few at home, while the power and prestige of America abroad has dramatically declined.

Bush is the one who has given the so-called terrorists the opportunity to benefit from Americas trouble in Iraq, and he is the one who has left America with no alternative but to eventually leave Iraq, stained with humiliation and defeat.

With each passing day and every brutal killing, the role of the US in Iraq is questioned anew, their motives and objectives are reconsidered, the outcome is queried, strategy is scrutinized, tactics are criticized, principles are compromised, credibility is strained and trust is frayed.

Every day, the task gets harder, the resistance grows stronger, the losses accumulate, the costs rise, the opposition gets louder, the leadership loses direction, the rhetoric becomes repetitive, the assurances ring hollow, the killing continues, the grieving mounts, anger rises and Bush shrugs.

Bush doesn’t care, he doesn’t get it, he’s useless, incompetent, immoral and corrupt. He is a liar and a cheat, a mass murdering warmonger who has dragged his country into the mire of Middle Eastern conflict for secret reasons and personal advantage.

When America finally wakes up to the reality of what Bush has done, it will be shocked at how badly its system of government has failed to protect itself, its constitution and its people from the sort of criminality that pervades the Bush-Cheney regime.

Fall of the Lying Criminals

Bush, Howard and Blair told lies to justify their attack on Iraq.

They told lies about Iraq’s ties to al Qa`ida and support for terrorism.

They told lies about “massive stockpiles” of chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, sarin and VX nerve gas.

They told lies about aluminium tubes and mobile laboratories, and they told lies about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.

Those who tried to expose the lies were either ridiculed or ignored by the pro-war corporate politico-media establishment.

The lying criminals that conspired to attack Iraq really did not care about lying to the public, nor did they hesitate to lie to their parliaments. The power of executive privilege would protect them, or so they believed.

Those who spoke out against the lying criminals were quickly silenced, some permanently. Smear and fear are the tactics most commonly used by the lying criminals to silence and intimidate critics, but not all critics can be silenced, and some are simply too credible to ignore.

Former US ambassador Joe Wilson was not afraid to challenge the lying criminals. The CIA sent Wilson to investigate the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. He found the claim was false and based on forged documents. He later wrote an editorial in the New York Times that exposed the “uranium from Africa” lie. The Bushites knew they had a problem on their hands, and being inveterate liars with very few scruples and too much power, they responded in the usual way, the only way they know, with lies, smear and innuendo.

Karl Rove is principal political strategist, right-hand man and bossum buddy to the president. Bush dubbed him “Turd Blossum”, due to his skill at dirty politics. Others simply call him “Bush’s Brain”, due to his crucial role in the Bush ascendency.

Rove is the master of smear and character assassination. When Bush ran against fellow Repug John McCain in the 2000 primaries, Rove spread rumours that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

Rove probably orchestrated the bugging of the UN building in New York and the salacious smear campaigns against Hans Blix and other UN weapons inspectors.

When former Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke resigned and then criticised the Bush administration, Karl Rove launched a vicious smear campaign against Clarke.

The 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against presidential contender John Kerry was a brainchild of Karl Rove.

And when Joe Wilson exposed the uranium lie, Rove leaked the identity of his wife. Rove told reporters that Wilson was sent to Africa by his wife who works for the CIA, a lie which implied that nepotism was rife at the CIA.

Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked undercover for the CIA in a front company called Brewster Jennings and Associates. This firm posed as an energy consultancy with offices and contacts all round the world, but it was secretly gathering intelligence about nuclear proliferation.

When Rove leaked Plame’s identity, he also exposed the true identity and nature of the firm she worked for, effectively destroying an entire clandestine network, an important national security asset that had taken years to establish. The CIA was mighty pissed off.

George Tenet, then head of the CIA, demanded an investigation into who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. The White House lie machine went into overdrive. The lying criminals were in a panic. Bush insisted that he would tell the truth, he would demand that his staff tell the truth and cooperate fully with the investigation.

Of course, that was just another lie, he can’t stop lying now, even if he knew how to, because the truth will destroy his presidency. And so, Rove lied to the FBI, and he lied to the grand jury, and Bush lied, and Cheney lied, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, he lied, they all lied and lied, that’s what they do, they can’t help themselves.

But you know, it’s illegal to lie to the FBI, and it’s illegal to lie to the grand jury, and it’s illegal to lie to Congress and it’s illegal to leak classified information to the media. And in war time, the penalty for leaking classified information relating to national security, is death.

That’s right, the death penalty, or any term up to life in prison.

The Grand Old Party, Joe Conason opines, has “became a front for sleaze, corruption and cynical criminality. Across the country, from the Capitol to statehouses, Republican officials are under indictment, under investigation or under suspicion.”

These lying criminals have conspired to commit very serious crimes, not least of which, the bombing of Iraq and the slaughter of thousands based on the fabrication of evidence; perjury, treason and espionage; obstruction of justice and very shortly, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury will begin presenting indictments against Bush administration officials.

And then FBI agents will begin arresting them.

Hold onto your seats, this will be big!

Peak Oil: a matter of opinion

Despite the growing public awareness of Peak Oil, the mainstream media continues to portray the issue as a polarized debate between doomsayers and techno-optimists. For example, an opinion editorial in the New York Times opens with the views of Mr Pickens, a reputable Texan oilman, who has “taken sides in a surprisingly heated debate” because he “subscribes to what is being called the peak oil hypothesis”.

The Times editorial declares the “peak oil hypothesis ... holds that there simply isn’t very much new oil left to be found in the world. As a result, we are currently in the process of draining the proven reserves that are still in the ground.”

The Times editorial characterizes the world view of those it terms “peakists” with a quote from Matthew Simmons, that energy demand is about to outstrip supply and “we are in a serious energy crisis”.

Opposing this view, of course, is another group, “who argue with equal vehemence that the world is not in an energy crisis and it probably won’t face one for a very long time.”

Notably, this other group is spared the trite epithet “theorist”. Their arguments are never labelled “hypotheses”. Perhaps that’s because this group rallys to the mantra, “Price is the only thing that matters.”

That’s right, “It’s the geologists on one side and the economists on the other side”, energy analyst Seth Kleinman explains.

Not surprisingly, given their god-like status these days, the economists are revered with child-like credulity, while the geologists are deemed mere theorists. Moreover, the issue is not so much about scientific fact as it is about opinion.

Does it surprise you, that the issue would be portrayed as an argument about whether or not we are facing a crisis? It shouldn’t.

This representation of the Peak Oil debate exemplifies the fanfare and pretension that characterises much of the mainstream commentary on most issues. It reveals a lack of intellectual rigour and an inability to comprehend some fairly basic science.

For a start, Peak Oil is not a theory or hypothesis, it is an observable phenomenon. Peak Oil is simply the point at which oil production from a notional deposit ceases to increase and begins to decline. If oil production from a typical field is graphed against time, it follows a bell curve, the familiar pattern of a normal distribution. The peak in oil production is that portion of the curve tangent to maximum production.

Peak Oil applies equally to individual well heads, oil fields, basins, producer states, regions and the world as a whole. There is no dispute about the fact that Peak Oil is an intrinsic attribute of oil production.

Indeed, every single oil producing country outside OPEC and the FSU has already peaked and is now in terminal decline. For example, Germany peaked in 1967, the US peaked in 1971, Indonesia in ’77, India in ’95, Malaysia in ’97, Columbia, Equador and the UK in ’99, Australia in 2000, Oman and Norway in ’01. Peak Oil is a fact!

By comparison, the economists’ arguments really are pure theory, with very little relevence to the real world beyond the rarified climes of financial institutions. So let’s take a look at their theories.

The economists describe two possible consequences of escalating oil prices; one is that higher energy prices will make it viable to invest in more expensive and less profitable energy sources, such as deep water reserves, shale oil and tar sands. The other possibility is that higher energy prices will dampen demand and reduce consumption, which will lower the price of oil.

The dilemma for investors is the risk that major capital investments could prove unprofitable if energy prices fall. Proven short term profits are substantially more attractive than possible longer term losses. Hence the energy industry prefers to maximize the profit making capacity of proven reserves while minimizing exposure to future losses.

There is a temptation to postpone major capital investment in the face of future economic uncertainty, and focus on the near term advantage of high profits. This approach ensures future supply constraints and prices hikes, which in turn raise the likelihood of economic recession.

The free market forces of supply and demand form the fundamental framework of neoliberal economic theory. The profit motive is the prime mover of all transactions, in a game plan where self interest is the ultimate goal.

Three basic assumptions are axiomatic to economic theory; resources are limitless, knowledge is perfect and markets are rational. Of course, in the real world, resources are very much limited, knowledge is never perfect and markets do not always act rationally.

The challenges posed by the inevitable depletion of world oil reserves represent a set of circumstances for which contemporary economic theory has no logical solution. The techno-optimist fantasies of hybrid cars, nuclear reactors and fuel cells are about as plausible as the clean green dream of corn and sunflower powered trains and planes.

The real debate is about the precise timing and consequences of Peak Oil. The Times editorial alludes to this fact, but nowhere makes it explicit. Instead, it presents an argument that is completely irrelevant and actually misleading, an argument that serves to confuse and obscure the fundamental dilemma posed by Peak Oil, an argument that stifles and obstructs the development of strategies for responding to the inevitable and predictable consequences of Peak Oil.

Like much of the mainstream commentary on Peak Oil, the New York Times erroneously portrays the Peak Oil debate as a political battle, a matter of opinion, devoid of real world certainties. This approach to news reporting is becoming increasingly popular, since it requires so little thought or research. Journalists are encouraged to champion conventional wisdom and obscure unpleasant facts.

Natural limits, ignored by economic theorists but recognised and studied by ecologists, biologists and geographers to name a few, clearly apply to humankind as much as to any other species, notwithstanding our sophisticated technology and ability to manipulate the environment.

The ecological carrying capacity of the environment is a natural limit that cannot be ignored with impunity. Any species which exceeds that limit risks calamity and mass starvation. For this reason, in nature, most species are limited in range and number. Humans are unique in that our population has hitherto grown exponentially, a trend that is clearly unsustainable.

The single most important limiting factor for any species is the availability of energy. Sunlight is the primary source of energy for life on earth. Seasonal fluctuations in plant growth and animal reproduction correlate with variations in the amount of solar energy available from one season to the next.

Humans have been able to exceed the natural ecological carrying capacity of the environment by exploiting energy reserves that have accumulated over millions of years. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this, but it is important to realize that there is a cost associated with exceeding natural limits.

In our case, the cost could be as high as mass starvation, or as low as a simple change in attitude and lifestyle. The determinant will be global political leadership. If the risks are recognised in time and the appropriate solutions are devised and implemented, it is possible that future generations will be spared the worst consequences of Peak Oil, the twin perils of energy scarcity and environmental degradation.

But while our leaders maintain their current stubborn delusion and misplaced faith in economic theory, while they continue to ignore the warning signs and scientific studies, the prospects of a brighter future fade by the day.

Potus calls kettle black

Last week, Bush told the UN that it must be “free of corruption and accountable to the people it serves”. This is of course, good advice, but coming from Bush, it smacks of hypocrisy.

Consider for a moment, the corruption of process that led to the war on Iraq, the fabrication and exaggeration of evidence, the disinformation and propaganda used to justify aggression.

Consider the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts given to leading US corporations with close ties to the Bush administration, firms that have engaged in fraud, bribery and other corrupt practices in Iraq.

Is anyone in the US government accountable for the loss of life and limb or the destruction of towns and villages in Iraq? Is anyone accountable for wasting $200 billion on a war of aggression?

Bush also told the UN it must “live by the high standards it sets for others”. But presumably, that is not a goal Bush sets for himself.

In fact, quite the opposite. While Bush preaches freedom and democracy, praising respect for human rights, equality and the rule of law, his government and their allies are systematically eroding those very principles, both at home and abroad.

Consider the “free speech zones”, the suppression of dissent, the obsessive secrecy, the cronyism, the hidden agendas, the contempt for government agencies like the CIA, FEMA and the EPA.

Witness the prison camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, the torture and humiliation of detainees, the legal void in which the accused are deprived due process, all by presidential decree.

The use of collective punishment, summary execution and torture are the hallmarks of brutal dictatorships. They are not compatible with the high standards championed by the United States. And yet this is the standard that Bush has achieved.

The divergence between the rhetoric and the reality of US foreign policy under George W Bush is stark and pronounced. With every escalation of his skillfully crafted flourishes and grandiose speeches, there is further descent into fear and destruction as Bush employs his forces in Iraq.

Sure, it is easy to criticize the United Nations, an improbable organization with an impossible task. As a force for peace and collective security, it could not protect one of its members from unprovoked aggression and it has since failed to confront the aggressor, restore order or provide security in Iraq.

At the same time, the UN has been attacked by the US for failing to support US aggression. The US exhibits a curious ambivalence toward the UN, which it views as an important instrument for pursuing and legitimizing US national security and foreign policy goals, but also as a threat to US ambitions when the UN opposes or fails to comply with US demands.

Perhaps the best thing would be for Bush to stop lecturing the UN and take time to reflect on his own performance, and that of the United States, and see if he can make some use of his own advice.

Erasing Standards

A report on the ABC’s evening news and current affairs program, PM, about the plight of Australians stranded in New Orleans and the slow response by government, is typical of many news reports where the treatment of important issues is reduced to, or subsumed by, petty theatrics and party political point scoring.

This is exactly the sort of “news story” that reflects poorly on both politicians and journalists.

It seems every issue has to be portrayed as a party political struggle, right versus left, us against them, with a winner and a loser. There is little intelligent debate based on factual evidence or rational thought, instead there is a steady stream of personal abuse and character assassination.

Consequently, both journalists and politicians end up losing respect and credibility.

Even worse, the public remains ill-informed and disempowered.

The media likes to absolve itself by claiming it is simply the messenger, but it is the selection of news stories and the focus of attention that ultimately determines public perception.

For example, in the story referenced above, the producers may well claim that they were simply highlighting the “poor behaviour” of politicians in general by giving airplay to parliamentary antics.

Such an argument would carry some weight if there really was an effort to analyze and critique the behaviour in some way, but there never is. Instead, political rhetoric and partisan grandstanding is simply piped wholesale, with very little relevance to anything at all.

There seems to be an aversion to critical thinking when it comes to dealing with current affairs and political issues in general, with a tendency to trivialize or ignore serious concerns about some issues (eg. the effects of western aggression) while enflaming passions on others (eg. the threat of terrorism).

There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the waft of daily news, with very little thought given to the role media plays in portraying reality, nurturing fantasies and promoting conformity.

The media is not a passive player in shaping public opinion, and nor should it be. But if the media is to truly serve the public, it must operate on a moral basis. It must clearly differentiate between truth and falsehood, between the trivial and the significant.

The media - reporters, journalists and editors alike - share a great responsibility to serve the public good, not just by accurately reporting events, but equally important, placing those facts into context, whereby they make sense and provide useful information.

In the matter of the story referenced above, the debate could have focused on the lessons we can learn about how and why human systems fail under extreme circumstances, and how best we can translate those lessons into methods for preparing and dealing with future disasters.

Instead, the debate degenerates into the tired old charade of empurpled politicians abusing each other across parliamentary benches.

If journalists were not entirely comfortable with such a puerile performance, surely they would find more important stories to report, or at least treat it with the disdain it deserves.

But the fact that AM, PM and the World Today routinely channel this sort of political bombast, without ever intelligently addressing the practice, suggests that many ABC journalists simply don’t realize how low standards have dropped.

Unfortunately, journalistic standards do not appear to be very much better than parliamentary standards, and neither journalists nor politicians seem to care much about raising their standards.

Raising Standards

I listened to an interview with Liberal Senator Russell Trood on The National Interest this week, and I was startled to hear something so unusual as to be almost unique.

What I heard was a pro-war politician actually being asked challenging questions about why he supports war in Iraq.

At first I was amazed, excited and impressed, and even felt some grim satisfaction that at last a war supporter was being put on the spot.

But as the senator’s responses reverted to the impenetrable dissembling and obfuscation that has characterised pro-war propaganda from day one, the memory of the nightmare that was “the making of the case for war” came back and hit me like a Mack truck.

Half-baked, flimsy, incoherent arguments and unsubstantiated allegations, absurd and irrelevant analogies, outright conceit and deception. Twisting the truth, rewriting history, this is how war was and is justified.

The spin, the hype, the lies, the blood lust that spread and engulfed the mass media, the corruption embedded at the highest levels of government, the disdain for the United Nations and international law, the catastrophic loss of life ... all this and so much more has been buried from view, rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.

The architects and perpetrators of this stupendous scandal remain revered and protected from public scrutiny by a servile, complicit mass media establishment.

Pro-war politicians have been allowed to shift all responsibility for the war in Iraq to “faulty intelligence”, without so much as a peep from mainstream media commentators.

Government inquiries have cleared their governments of any wrong doing and ministers have dismissed claims they manipulated intelligence to support the case for war.

The mainstream media has not challenged the official denial of government culpability in the decision to attack Iraq, nor has it seriously reviewed the case for war.

Sure, they want us to move on, put all that behind us, what’s done is done, mistakes were made, blah blah... but of course they would say that, because in truth, they know their actions were illegal, immoral and unjust, and of course, they are shit-scared of the consequences should the depth and extent of their crimes of complicity ever surface to public view.

Which is why we so desperately need the sort of quality journalism offered by shows like The National Interest, Late Night Live and a (very) few others. Keep up the pressure, don’t stop questioning, it’s really important we get to the truth and expose the deceit and corruption that has led us to war.

Nature, politics and disaster

The chaos that befell New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina is a foretaste of the calamity that will engulf thousands of cities around the world in the wake of peak oil.

The political failings that made worse the inevitable and predictable disaster in New Orleans, as in Iraq, are the very same flaws that will help ensure a much worse global catastrophe some time in the not too distant future.

These political failings range from permitting gross social disparities to ignoring human induced environmental harm, from denying the depletion of natural capital to wasting resources on weapons and war.

The combination of short-sighted profiteering, a reckless disregard for predictable risk factors and a refusal to consider the legacy we are leaving our descendents, constitutes a lethal political failing.

A few simple precautions and commonsense solutions could prepare us for the imminent global catastrophe, but politicians will continue to ignore the warning signs until a few days after disaster strikes.

That’s because their corporate task masters want to maximize profits from the dwindling resource base. Any reduction in consumption or demand will bring prices down and cut corporate profits.

The economy must continue to grow and devour more resources in order to increase wealth and prosperity, the economists preach. Natural limits are not permitted to interfere with this ideology.

Evangelical techno-optimists prophesy miraculous inventions to solve every problem, but their snake-oil cures and whimsical charms are comfort only for the ignorant and deluded.

The problems we face are wide ranging and far reaching. There is no quick fix, no simple solution to the problems of oil depletion, climate change, toxic waste, species extinction, mass starvation and war.

Our best friends are foresight, forethought and forewarning, which may enable us to take precautions and make preparations for the inevitable collapse of the global industrial economy.

In New Orleans, had thought been given to the likelyhood of massive flooding, effective preparations could have saved thousands of lives. So too, around the world, if thought were given to the prospect of global petroleum shortages, life saving preparations could be made.

But the task falls to the people, because our politicians are working for big business and the military industrial complex. We know the ruling elite will protect itself at any cost, even if that means marshal law, mass murder and environmental devastation.

Trusting governments, corporations and politicians is the worst mistake we can make. If we hope to survive the coming crisis, we must work toward local self sufficiency in food, fuel, fibre, basic services and security. If we wait for government to provide solutions, we’ll end up like those stranded in New Orleans.