Connecting the Dots: From Oil Energy to Green Energy

For decades the USA has propped the House of Saud to safeguard their oil interests. Saudi Arabia has funded the worst kind of Wahabism in the Muslim world. (See Fifth Estate, CBC). Nobody who has grown up and lived in Pakistan during the 1980’s can ever forget fascist-Islam. (see Khamosh Pani by Sabiha Sumar in case you did not). Saudi Arabia has funded Osama Bin Laden and funded Wahabism. Perhaps the reason that compelled Saudi Arabia is that fanatics would never question its leadership. By protecting the Muslim Ummah from external influences, one ensures their obedience. It is ironic that Saudi Arabia funded this Fascism from the Kafir’s money—USA.

The US was only after the one thing that mattered. The oil, without which US capitalism could not survive or so we were taught to believe. The US was being pre-emptive. It turned a blind eye to Osama Bin Laden for the longest time. Thinking all the while that its worst enemy is Saddam Hussain, a defiant dictator who wanted to control the middle-east and be a grand lord himself. His wars with Iran and Kuwait showed his megalomania. His burning of the oil wells during the gulf war showed his defiance. The message was clear, if he became the leader of the middle-east, he’d rather burn the oil than sell it to USA.

Osama it seems quite clearly believes in Islamo-fascism. Protecting his ummah from modern influences is key. A man with renal failure who needed kidney dialysis every week used to arrange it through the few facilities in Pakistan. The fact is that Osama is/was a small time threat to USA. His facilities and supporters are cobbled together fanatics who can be easily contained. It doesn’t warrant a huge war but small time skirmishes. Osama may already be dead--Pervez Musharraf has gone on record to say that Osama most likely died a few years ago.

Instead the US government used the 9/11 opportunity to invade Iraq. In view of the existing knowledge, Osama’s existence was somehow key to the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was the last remaining resistance to oil control. The Bush government could swing public opinion enough to make people believe that Saddam was a likely source of terror. Whereas what is more likely is that the US was convinced that Saddam had the resources, the army and the hatred to deny US the oil. The other interesting connection is between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family. Hints of a mutually beneficial business relationship exist. Did the Bin Laden family want US protection in return for greater oil interests? We shall probably not know. The answer could even be in the now demolished World Trade Center.

People have theorized that the opportunity in 2003 was too good to be missed because Saddam had been considerably weakened. Why not just take him out at this time? Saudi Arabia was still seen as an accomplice in the larger scheme of things because it was dependent on US. Osama was really a decoy, who posed no real threat to USA. Yes 9/11 happened but that was seen as a one-off incident that could be contained and perhaps the US strategists concluded that Islamo terrorism is not a sustained revolt.

The timing of the invasion of Iraq is interesting. In 2003, many people were questioning the relationship of the house of Bush with the house of Saud. There was considerable concern over the seeming rank incompetence of the agencies from NSA to CIA and FBI. Surely, US needed to re-examine its priorities, and its bureaucracy. It was therefore, the perfect time to go after Iraq and suspend the valid questioning that was taking place in public.

Conspiracy theorists even deny that 9/11 could have happened without help, either knowing or unknowing from the USA. The real question is not what if conspiracy theorists are right, the real question is why there are many holes, foul-ups and goof-ups in the 9/11 story.

The ones that really got my attention were as follows:

1. The fact that 15 out of the 19 terrorist hijackers got US visas is almost criminal negligence. All 15 were male, single and their visa applications don’t show how they will support themselves in USA and don’t even give a destination address.

For all of those who have ever applied for a VISA to US, this is a big issue. Here is the opposite evidence:

1. Single women are refused visas even if they show ties, jobs or even family support in USA. Single female parents/widows have even a harder time regardless of their financial situation because they are seen as an ultimate drain on the system. The US VISA policy document was inadvertently displayed on the Internet, which clearly laid out guidelines for how women from Islamic or Third World countries are to be treated. This document was subsequently pulled from the web in 1999.
2. Men, single or otherwise obtain VISAs far easier than women. The unofficial reason being that even if they stay back in USA, they are illegal, are not considered a drain on the system and can contribute cheap labour to USA. For years the INS has turned a blind eye to single men going to USA. Surely, the number of young men who went off the USA was not a co-incidence.

For years US has been playing a double game. Allowing illegal people in to fuel its economy is morally wrong. Also, this was exploitation of the illegal people who paid taxes but had no political voice. In the larger framework it meant that US currency remained the preferred currency with a lot of clout all over the world. The brain drain subtly weakened other cultures--in a nutshell this was imperialism--US style.

2. The doubts regarding the mechanics of 9/11. Osama's haunting comment that 'we were surprised at how successful our attacks were.'

A number of conspiracy websites cast doubt on how 9/11 played out. The most involved rebuttal was published in Popular Mechanics. It should have stopped it. Instead of their cacophony and questions dying out over the years, their questions have only increased.

The missing Pentagon plane is a famous one--it is again in the limelight because recently--5 years later, the DOD issued highly edited videos that still don’t show the plane. However, the debunking article in Popular Mechanics quotes a man saying that he found body parts, and airplane parts on the ground in front of the Pentagon.

This bias of the conspiracy theorists and the people defending the official version is understandable. But, what if both were true? A hypothesis based on synthesis: That, perhaps to provide a simple enemy, the DOD did not inform people that two flights were attacked in mid-air and therefore exploded casting plane parts all over the area, rather than crashing on the ground. The hole in the Pentagon was created by a missile so that people don’t find out that the government shot down the flights.

Continued confusion over the fall of the towers is fueled by fairly convincing arguments from the scholars for 9/11 truth who have petitioned the government for a thorough investigation. Steven Jones, Jeff King and David Griffin are the leaders in this controvers who remain unconvinced that the two towers and the third building could have fallen without explosive assistance in the way they did. Some questions have not been answered convincingly to date--even the 9/11 commission report did not address the scholar's concerns.

Piecing together their work, several hypothesis can be made, here is a fresh hypothesis:

Why did Ramzi Yousef attempt an attack on the same World Trade Center some years ago-in the basement? A top secret CIA office was in WTC-7 the short building that fell even though it hadn’t been directly hit. Was their something critical in the World Trade Center that was not in public knowledge? If so, then the detonation hypothesis makes sense. Perhaps the two towers and the third building were wired to be exploded in such an eventuality rather than expose what was inside them.

We may never have final closure on what happened, but the truth may be that alternative theorists are asking the wrong questions for the right reasons.

Their success (hundreds of sites keep popping up) lies in the genuine unanswered questions around the events prior to and following the incident that may never be answered, except through more hypothesis.

Governments are notorious for hiding the truth and mysteries around grand public events persist years after the event. Hindsight however passes a clearer judgment.

Perhaps the definitive conclusion is that the government simplified and magnified the 9/11 threat to the country, for reasons that are murky and not morally clear. For years the world has believed in the morality of the land of the free, it has inspired millions to become part of the capitalist grist and abandon their own worlds to avail the American dream. Immigrant labor is the US’s biggest strategic asset and if people don’t believe, than they won’t listen to USA. Every great civilization has had a dream to inspire people and US had its own. Even when the dream was a manipulated one- it couldn’t openly state that we need the oil and we must do what we must to ensure we get it. Couched in terms like ‘strategic interests’the oil story sounded a lot less dangerous. Only the simple minded US patriot can accept this logic. The others would find it hard. This is why we see such a huge polarization between the Red States and the Blue states, because the Blue states can’t accept this simplistic goal as truly American patriotism.

Let’s Go Green, Al Gore Says

Surely the stage is set for a reinvention of the American Dream that does not pin itself on Oil. Isn’t it high time? Writers have been murmuring the need for US independence from oil for a while. And finally, here is a dream, an idealistic vision that can make it happen, born from the intellectuals who are most unhappy with America's lust for oil and deeply affected by the hurricanes last year.

Al Gore has come back with an alternative to wars, his documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is firing up the technology world. He has shown this for years and now the world is ready to listen. Suddenly the environmentalist movement that a few people on the fringes really believed in, labeled ‘leftist’, academic, Green and plain stupid, finds itself brought out of the University and the alternative lifestyle into the mainstream. Quite suddenly it is fashionable to think green, anti- petro-chemical, pro-organic and simple.

Re-inventing the American economy on green lines is the next big vision. The American entrepreneurial soul inspired by obstacles and disasters (pick any Hollywood movie to corroborate this), the Green movement may have found its tipping point. Unless for some reason business interests and technology fails it (the only threat being large corporate interests in petro-chemicals), Green is in. Instead of looking to Bush, writers today are quoting the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson.

Al-Gore, not in the White-house, but as a traveling visionary is inspiring more people than Bush. The world of US politics has found an oppositional force outside its present structure. To quote Al Gore, the conversation of democracy must be resurrected. (The Wired, May 2006).

Suddenly going Green is IN. It may inspire people to spend on reducing consumption of energy. And spending is how things work in the US economy.

So, within our life-time you may see:

1. The end of Petrol powered cars, SUVs and other gas guzzlers. Instead ‘smart cars’, hybrids and gas powered are the wave of the future.
2. More options for public transit. Instead of endless highways, people will turn to electric trains/buses.
3. Solar panels as the coolest heating alternative
4. The resurrection of Downtowns vs. endless highways.
5. More organic farming.
6. Made in US vs. Made in China by small community networks and entrepreneurs
7. The end of Wahabism or at least the withdrawal of funding for Jihadi outfits if a strong enough chain reaction happens.
8. Smaller houses
9. More stringent measures to protect green spaces.
10. Dare one hope? Less carcinogenic chemicals in personal use products, household cleaners--vegetable based soaps rather than petrochemicals.
11. The end of PVC, Teflon and other harmful substances.

If USA is galvanized, a green boom may take place, oddly enough that may avoid a confrontation between Islamo fascism and other religions.

Doesn’t this sound better than the torture of the wars, the surveillance, the military-industrial complex, the oil wars, the endless fear and the paranoia? All these made America seem so small, not at all the grand West, but the greedy and nasty West.

Can it happen in a capitalist system that has so far rewarded consuming energy rather than reducing energy consumption? It is quite possible. Europe with 50% more population than USA emits half the amount of carbon emissions that USA does.

Will this work? Low energy consumption along with low petro-chemical consumption may create a bust for the energy and chemical companies. Corporate interests in these type of companies will fight this revolution. For every proof that a green believer puts out, the chemical cartel will put out an alternative theory thus obfuscating the whole argument.

Unlike the conservative myth that Kyoto will be so bad for the economy, going green is actually good for the economy (Sierra Club), it would create jobs and galvanize a bored workforce sick with obesity, auto-immune disorders, stress and caffeine. If it happens fast enough it would mean that the Texan oil and the Alberta oil profits take a nose dive—it may mean that small businesses threaten big corporate interests, it may mean that your neighborhood organic store may make more money than the huge petrochemical food, cosmetics and cleaning products that you have been carefully convinced to use. (Assuming of course that the big names don’t quickly buy out the organic producers, then change the formula and sell the brand).

It may mean that you don’t need to shop at Walmart. It may mean true wealth rather than the madness of senseless consumption. It may mean ultimately a better quality of life using things that last instead of plastic rubbish produced in China, every year just to keep the seasonal spending cycles going. Perhaps we would get selective products rather than endless models of everything put out every year. We may see more alternative products produced in the old dead mill towns that dot the US landscape. It may mean meaningful and creative work rather than the myth of the ‘service based economy’ that really means, India and China do our work.

Can demand side innovation happen at last?

It’s time to like the constraints that are built into the eco-system. What is not good for the planet Earth, can’t be good for us. Perhaps it really is that simple.

It is time, really, for simplicity.

Let’s imagine harmony with nature.