For over 40 years, we are told that the Middle East is a region in terms of capital reserves and oil production. We like this area the most important. And it makes us think that this is important enough for the Western states intervene regularly in the region.
1) We present the Middle East as the largest oil region for geopolitical reasons. The real reason: to have a pretext to intervene. And intervene to allow the expansion of the state of Israel
However, as we have seen, since oil is abiotic, everywhere there is oil in huge quantities. The USA have reserves that allow them to be independent for probably 10,000 years or more. And there are certainly far in South America, Africa, Russia, Australia, China, and probably even in Europe.
So, if a region of the globe has been presented as the major oil region is that it has voluntarily chosen to become one. It has nothing to do with chance discoveries. In the case of the Middle East, given the poverty of the region, this is clearly not for economic reasons other than oil. So, it's obviously for political reasons . And if we beat the drum for 40 years for us to believe that this is an extremely important economic zone, is obviously a reason for capital to those who run the world.
Why the Middle East has been chosen, then it is very far from America-which is the state used by the masters of the world to intervene everywhere, and some countries of this region were already relatively populated with strong governments with armies that although very low, were not completely absent (which would of course become much more powerful once discovered oil and money flowing out), so that it was much easier to control small American countries Central or South, or some African countries? It is completely illogical.
When we know a minimum area, the reason for this choice is obvious. We struck oil in these regions, and it said it was a major oil region largely for a reason to support Israel militarily and eventually enable it to implement its plan of "Greater Israel".
Without this because oil from the Middle East, there would be no further military intervention in this region (interventions that will coincidentally always in the interests of Israel). These are countries compounds mostly desert or semi-arid areas, which do not produce much. Before oil, they were poor as church mice. Without oil, there would be no explanation for financial aid, diplomatic and military in the region: support for Israel. But that is not presentable. It shows too that command in the US-Israeli couple. It quickly raise objections enormous.
course, we will reply that the first reason usually presented to the people to intervene in these countries is the fact that these countries are dictatorships and the U.S. are going to restore democracy. But that it does not work obviously not the people who have a modicum of intelligence and culture. So, we need a second reason, more credible that one, to present to the people to intervene. This reason is the fact that the region is assumed to be crucial in terms of oil supply. The reason is a false humanitarian reason put forward voluntarily so that people at least informed their way to the second. It gives a reason voluntarily easy to decode, so that people fall into the trap of the second version, which is actually also a trap.
And second reason this works well because it makes the people of the countries involved West. Insofar as we do believe we will run out of oil, much of the people will not find much wrong with the U.S. go to war in this region. Somewhere, the U.S. defend our western standard of living. And then there are quite a few people who agree more or less a state makes the war for economic reasons. For others, it's a bit in the order of things. People will criticize, they'll find it cynical, but as they accept reason and they feel more or less involved, their criticism will remain at a relatively low virulence.
Having made this region an area rich in oil has also another interest. If the states of the Middle East remained as poor as Job, Israel would have met with no opposition, and was even seen as the villain. Powerful states have in front of you, it can justify aggression thereof. Attacking defenseless countries, it would have sent Israel a monster. Attack of the rich and powerful armies with thanks to oil is already much more presentable. And then, with many countries with oil, Israel may involve the U.S. to fight in his place.
is also why we sold so many arms these countries. They have to have armies of importance to appear as threats.
And that's why some revolutions market. The revolutionaries did not win power by themselves. They were left to do. And in fact, the more likely is that the revolutionaries working for the clique that runs the world. And they have not imposed the nationalization of oil. Again, we let them do, or when, or rather, they were told to do so. That's because mastering the production of oil by the states involved in the fact that there are grounds to intervene in the region.
If the masters of world had not had an interest in the success of these revolutions and the takeover of reservations by the states of golf, be sure that none of this would not be realized. The revolutionaries would have massacred all the facts, and the slightest desire to nationalize oil wells, Westerners have mounted an expedition to prevent it, or, much simpler, have staged a palace coup. All governments current Golf is actually composed of people with the orders of the masters of the world, including Iran.
Presumably also Kippur War and the war of 7 days were held Express (with the result known in advance) for, inter alia, provide a justification then to U.S. interventionism. It has been made to present Israel as a small country surrounded by powerful enemies. Which was also used to feed the paranoia of the Jews base.
Incidentally, one might think that the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War fits into this overall project. He had to have dismembered the Ottoman Empire, because otherwise, the power lying against Israel would be far too powerful. With the dismemberment of that empire, Israel was now facing several countries inevitably much less powerful individually, and more divided.
Similarly, one can imagine that Islamist movements have been fortunate to again have a reason to intervene, and to have a permanent threat, of course, fictitious towards Israel. Threat and sham controlled allowing for Israeli leaders to create a permanent paranoia among Jews. Paranoia to weld them against the common enemy.
Moreover, revolutions, wars and nationalization in the home of golf, then the higher prices mainly orchestrated by the governments of this region (supposedly) helped to make it a warm region where it can take anything (anything that one can, for example, raise oil prices). And since this is considered an economic capital region, this instability becomes a major problem for Westerners.
All these events, and media exploitation that is made is likely to give a justification for the intervention of Western countries. It instills in people's minds the idea that the instability of the region is a source of potential economic disaster and that the intervention could not be a bad thing. This is what happened in 1990 with the invasion of Iraq.
But the base of it all is the fact that we present this region as the oil region of the globe. Without it, none of the strategies presented here have had any impact, and even, in some cases, could not be implemented.
2) The discovery of oil in the Middle East were not made by chance
course, the basic discoveries of oil from the Middle East are not a coincidence. In the years 1920 and 1930, knowing that the state of Israel would be established soon, we made surveys in the Middle East, knowing full well that we would find a lot of oil, since we are everywhere. Once this oil found, he had only to raise the sauce and bring up this region as the region most oil-rich at the expense of other oil-producing areas of the globe. When you look
were performed when the first oil discoveries in the region, most of the time shortly before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
For Iraq, oil was discovered in 1927, although applications for concessions were made to Turkey in 1912. Oil was discovered in Kuwait in 1936. For Qatar, the oil was discovered in the 40s. As for Saudi Arabia was in 1939.
We had well found oil in Iran earlier this century (and we can say that again, it was not a coincidence; we laid the groundwork) in 1908 (research started in 1901) . But the Middle East remains a region of oil from another. There, with new discoveries, it became a major oil region.
had to make the discoveries to This period there, so that events move at the pace required then: discovery circa 20/30 of economic wealth at the base of the future power of the states of the Middle East, Israel's founding in 1948, rise of states of the Middle East during the years 40/50 through oil, military opposition to these statements on Israel during the years 60/70 with their new economic power, instability in the years 70/80, and finally, U.S. intervention States in the region.
And if you do not surveyed earlier in Algeria and, more generally, in the old colonized countries that now produce oil (excluding oil off shore of course) is simply that if we had surveyed in priority in these countries, we would probably prospected in the Middle East until much later. And that, it would have been bad for the calendar in question. Or, one might crumbled under the oil, and go get increasingly have seemed suspicious. That's why we have discovered oil in Libya in 1959, Algeria in 1956, Egypt in 1970 (the discoveries were made in 1886, but they were minor, discoveries that enabled them become a major producer were made in the 70s) and Chad to 1967 (but was actually used these deposits only from 2003).
And we can think we limited the findings in these African countries, as well as estimates of reserves, just to ensure that this region does not appear to be more important than the Middle East. While it is obvious that, given its surface, the African continent has reserves of at least 5 times greater than that of the Middle East.
In more general terms, it limited the findings, estimates of reserves and production in other regions of the globe to prevent Middle East becomes a producing and exporting region among others (and also to prevent its reserves represent only a minor share of world reserves).
3) The purpose of the promotion of the theory of peak oil for the U.S.: give crucial to the Middle East
Presumably, if the U.S. production was reduced voluntarily from 70 years is also in order to have a reason to intervene diplomatically and militarily in the Middle East. There are other reasons, economic ones there, having voluntarily reduced production (see my post on October 16, 2005). But it is likely that the most important is that relating to Israel.
The problem is that present the Middle East as a region extremely rich in oil was not enough. It was more that the accession countries (the USA) operating in the region are considered to be relatively poor in oil. However, until then, the country chosen to police the world in the future, the U.S., was considered very rich on this raw material.
As we could not say that U.S. production would fall overnight, everything was organized well in advance to get there.
The theory of peak production in the USA, issued in 1958, has certainly been created for the occasion. King Hubbert was a nominee for the case, perhaps a CIA agent or something like that. If U.S. production had not been deliberately reduced to the point they are forced to import their oil, the U.S. had no reason to intervene diplomatically in the first region to provide quantities of arms Israel, and subsequently to intervene militarily in Iraq.
Hubbert's theory does not therefore certainly not a man one that would have made a personal analysis of the situation, but very high, from people who had developed the plan and preparing an explanation for these future events well in advance. And obviously, the promotion of this theory has subsequently been made knowingly.
It helped justify the drop in U.S. production. With the promotion of Hubbert's theory, people did not say it was odd that the U.S. production decline. They said that Hubbert was a hell of a visionary. And they said that as Hubbert had said, the reserves were exhausted and it was therefore normal for the production decline. Of course, such a theory could be advanced only when the production was diminished, but it was better to publish before long. The quoted "prophecy" is always more impressive and thus more convincing.
So around 1958, we launched the theory of Hubbert. And around 1970, he was made a reality by reducing U.S. production voluntarily. They were forced to import more and share more of their oil, and a growing share of these imports came from the Middle East, making this vital region economically, thus justifying a possible intervention military.
Perhaps the masters of the world had not originally planned to use the theory of Hubbert for anything other than the justification of declining U.S. oil production, and they said afterwards they could be recycled in part to justify war against Iraq, the problem of when to say it was near the end of oil, and that the U.S. went into Iraq to grab the small amount of oil remaining.
So, is that from the beginning, they planned to use the theory of peak oil in this case too, or do they have revived the theory for the occasion ? Mystery. One the other as is possible. But as the masters of the world are people who see afar, one might think that it is rather the first hypothesis is correct.
In passing, we note that in the years 20/30, he had been obliged to raise production from the U.S. to justify the power of his speech during the Second World War. U.S. without oil, it would have been pretty average for the war against Japan and Germany. So, it was initially still have U.S. oil independent for the 2nd World War and after the war, the U.S. have increasingly dependent on foreign oil (and Here, oil from the Middle East). Maybe it has delayed the introduction of lower U.S. production, and it would have happened 10 years earlier otherwise.
Returning to the timing of discoveries in the Middle East, we see at once that they probably could not find oil in this region sooner or later. As production of the U.S. was pushing for them to make war on their own in the '40s, finding oil in large quantities in the Middle East since the years 1900/1910 have brought down prices too. And as they were not to find oil later, it does could be found in the 20 and 30.
course, all this assumes that Israel controls the USA. Anyway, nowadays, anyone with a minimum informed knows that's the reality. The governments of the USA are regularly filled with ultra-Zionist Jews, and at key positions. At first, Israeli governments have never been filled Christian supremacist. So the answer to the question "Who controls whom?" is obvious. 15 years ago, as people were not informed, everyone would have rejected this assertion out of hand. Now, everyone a little informed knows.
Map of Israel as well as future major priori desired by the Zionist leaders For this plan the next big Israel is achieved, we must conquer the countries concerned. Since this is not the Israeli army (too low) can do that, and that the Zionist leaders prefer that others fight for them, it will be the USA who will. For the U.S. to do so, they must have a reason. The pretext of oil is one reason presentable. So they can advance the pretext of oil, they must have needed to import oil (even as it said the end of oil is coming soon), and the Middle East is considered the major oil region. Since oil is abiotic, and it's everywhere in enormous quantities and therefore, that the Middle East is a region oil among others, and that the U.S. is actually largely autonomous must lie on the importance of the Middle East and on American reservations. And we must limit the production of other parts of the globe to the Middle East does not see its importance diminish too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment