There has been a lot of Fanfare on the huge increase of oil production coming from the Bakken Field located in North Dakota. There are many stories of people moving to the state to take advantage of the new OIL BOOM. It seems like everyone is going there to start a new life and make it rich in one of the coldest areas in the United States.
However, with all BOOMS, comes the inevitable BUST. This was true shown by the famous example of the 1800′s California gold rush:
According to the article, “The Bakken Boom: The Modern Day Gold Rush”:
Despite the low productivity of the labor-intensive process of gold panning, annual production grew from just over 1,400 ounces in 1848 to more than 3.9 million ounces by 1852. To put this into perspective, prior to 1848, cumulative U.S. gold production amounted to just over 1 million ounces.
Of course nuggets are easier to find than flakes, and the great majority were discovered in the first few years. By 1852, only four years after gold was first discovered, California gold production began a rapid descent. Production declined 50% by 1862 and 80% by 1872.
The decline was only barely checked by the adoption of ‘hydraulic mining’ – a process by which massive amounts of water under intense pressure is used to disintegrate entire hillsides. At the North Bloomfield mine, for example, 60 million gallons of water per day eroded more than 41 million cubic yards of debris between 1866 and 1884. (http://www.sierranevadavirtualmuseum.com/docs/galleries/history/mining/hydraulic.htm)
Typical of all BOOMS, production increases exponentially, peaks and then declines in the same fashion. However, Even with high-tech hydraulic water mining techniques, the industry could never produce more gold than it did in 1852 when it reached nearly 4 million ounces.
BAD NEWS FOR THE BAKKEN: Decline Rate of 63,000 Barrels A Day
The EIA – U.S. Energy Information Agency is now putting out data on the individual shale oil and gas plays in the country. While the American public and world have been made aware of the huge increase in oil production coming from the Bakken, few are privy to the dark side of the equation. The Bakken’s daily decline rate from their existing oil wells has reached a staggering 63,000 barrels a day.
This means, that every day the Bakken pumps oil, its existing wells are now declining 63,000 (bd) barrels a day. As you can see from the chart above, the rate really started to decline in a big way after 2011 when the average daily decline was only 20,000 bd. In less than 3 years, this rate has increased more than 3 times (63,000 bd).
This next chart gives us the total as well as net oil production increases month over month:
The EIA is showing what is indicated to take place in December over November. If we look at the actual data that comes out of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, Bakken oil field production in September hit 867,123 bd. The difference to reach that 1 million barrels a day is coming from the Montana portion of the Bakken.
Here is an actual screenshot of the ND DMR’s monthly report released November 5th:
Moreover, if we look at total production, again using the North Dakota DMR’s data, their total oil production data for the state in September was 931,940 bd. This includes oil production outside the Bakken and Three Forks (data for Bakken in the EIA charts includes Three Forks).
Astonishingly, 93% of North Dakota’s oil production comes from the Bakken region alone.
The Bakken Drilling Frenzy Gives The Illusion of Sustainable Growth
The typical American believes the United States has all this hidden oil and gas resources that we can easily tap into. I just had a conversation with a neighbor yesterday who told me that he couldn’t understand why we weren’t “ENERGY INDEPENDENT.” Gosh, if I had a dollar for every time someone said that…
Again, the public is only told about all the huge increases in production, but for some strange reason, MSM tends to omit the negative side. The only way oil production is increasing in the Bakken is due to the massive amount of new wells that have been added. The chart below reveals the illusion of this sustainable growth:
First, the figures in white represent North Dakota’s total wells producing for their production of the Bakken. Even though the graph includes Montana’s production, it still gives us a good idea of the huge increase in oil wells it takes to grow production.
Second, in 2008, the Bakken in North Dakota only had 479 producing wells, however at last count in September when then Bakken was producing 867,123 barrels of oil a day, it took 6,447 wells to do so. Thus, the energy companies drilling and producing oil in the Bakken have to keep increasing wells each month (and year) to offset the huge 63,000 bd decline.
For example, there were an additional 135 new wells (ND) producing in Sept. over Aug. which added 20,589 bd of production. If there were only say 100-105 new wells added that month, production would have remained flat or possibly declined for Sept.
Lastly, the best and most productive wells are exploited first leaving the dead-beats for last. This will make things even more fun as the peak and subsequent bust finally arrives.
The Coming Bust of The Great Bakken Field
As with all oil fields, there are only so many sweet spots and areas to drill. The 63,000 bd decline rate at the Bakken only has one way to go — and that’s higher. If the present trend continues (highly likely) then we are going to see a daily decline rate of 75-85,000 barrels a day by the end of 2014.
Thus, the shale oil players are going to have to make those drilling hamsters work even harder as they will need to increase more wells each month just to grow production. At some point in time (sooner rather than later), the daily decline rate will reach a figure that these companies will be unable to offset.
There are only so many drilling locations available and once they run out, the Great Bakken Field will become a BUST as the high decline rates will push overall oil production down the very same way it came up.
Those who moved to the frigid state of North Dakota with Dollar signs in their eyes and images of sugar-plums dancing in their heads will realize firsthand the negative ramifications of all BOOM & BUST cycles. At this time, the word “Cold” will have more than one meaning.
Once the Bakken and Ealge Ford oil fields peak and decline, the United States has no other “ENERGY RABBIT” in its hat. This is precisely why investors need to understand energy and why its important to own physical assets such as gold and silver.
Check back for more updates at the SRSrocco Report.
The city of Washington, Illinois, was hit hard by a “large and extremely dangerous” tornado [Reuters]
|Severe storms and violent tornadoes have killed at least two people and injured about 40 and flattening large parts of the city of Washington, Illinois, as they battered the US Midwest on Sunday, officials said.
The storm created tornadoes in Bone Gap and Miller City, Illinois, in Mount Carmel, Noblesville and Vincennes in Indiana, and in Paducah, Kentucky, the National Weather Service said on Sunday.
The storm system is threatening up to 53 million people across the Midwest.
The storm also forced the Chicago Bears to halt their game against the Baltimore Ravens and encourage fans at Soldier Field to seek shelter as the storm roared in.
Chicago’s two major airports also briefly stopped traffic with the metropolitan area was under a tornado watch.
The city of Washington, Illinois, was hit hard by what the National Weather Service called a “large and extremely dangerous” tornado.
Thirty-one people injured by the storm that hit Washington were being treated at St Francis Medical Center, one of the main hospitals in nearby Peoria, according to hospital spokeswoman Amy Paul. Eight had traumatic injuries.
Two people were killed in Washington County, Illinois, about 320km south of Peoria, said Illinois Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Patti Thompson.
The agency estimated that at least 70 homes were destroyed across the state.
Stephen Wilson, a spokesman for Peoria’s Proctor Hospital, said six or seven patients were being treated with minor injuries. “Mostly cuts, bruises, some broken bones,” he said.
Photos from Washington, Illinois, showed buildings reduced to rubble and homes torn in half in the city of 15,000 people about 233km southwest of Chicago.
“We have reports of homes being flattened, roofs being torn off,” Sara Sparkman, a spokeswoman for the health department of Tazewell County, Illinois, where Washington is located, said in a telephone interview.
Many of the injuries appeared to have been caused by collapsing structures.
The Illinois National Guard sent a 10-person fire-fighting and search-and-rescue team to Washington to help with the recovery effort.
Illinois State Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said mobile homes were toppled, roofs torn from homes, and trees uprooted.
She said officials believe some people may be trapped in their basements under debris.
The American Red Cross worked with emergency management officials to set up shelters and provide assistance to displaced residents, even as rescue workers searched for more people who might have been caught and trapped in the storm’s path.
Tornado warnings were in effect for parts of Indiana and Kentucky. Weather officials urged residents of areas with tornado warnings in place to take cover in interior, low-floor rooms of study buildings.
The NWS’s Storm Prediction Center said the storm moved dangerously fast, tracking eastward at 97 kilometre per hour.
Canada no longer knows how to sell anything to the world except oil and gas.
Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but if things keep going the way they are, it won’t be for long.
StatsCan’s latest numbers on Canada’s trade balance, released Thursday, look positive on the face of it: Exports and imports both grew, and Canada’s trade deficit with the world shrank by more than half, to $435 million.
But dig a little deeper into the data, and what you see is a story of two different export sectors. As BMO chief economist Doug Porter put it in a client note Friday morning, “there is energy (doing just fine) and there is everything else (doing anything but fine).”
While energy exports have seen a $63.6-billion surplus for the past 12 months, everything else has seen a $72.9-billion deficit.
Check out this chart of Canada’s trade balance for energy (blue) and everything else (red).
The gap between energy and everything else is translating into a regional divide in Canada — between the booming, oil-reliant West and the plodding economy of the rest of the country.
“The rapid pace of oilsands development is creating economic risks and regional disparities that need to be addressed,” the left-leaning Pembina Institute said in a report released this week.
The report said the “overwhelming majority” of economic benefits from the oilsands boom “are limited to Alberta. Other provinces will benefit less: even the United States would gain more employment opportunities from the oilsands than the rest of Canada if oilsands development goes ahead as projected.”
Bringing more jobs to the oilsands wouldn’t work as a solution; the oil, gas and mining sector employs 225,000 people, compared to 1.5 million jobs in manufacturing. Booming oil exports simply can’t replace stagnating factory exports. (Incidentally, jobs in oil, gas and mining actually fell by about 0.2 per cent over the past year.)
In a report this week, BMO’s Porter called Canada’s stagnating export sector the country’s biggest economic challenge.
“Since 2000, Canadian exports have suffered through their own version of the lost decade, with volumes essentially unchanged over that spell,” Porter wrote.
“To put that in perspective, the next slowest 13-year stretch for real exports over the past half-century was 42 per cent growth from 1970-83.”
Porter notes that manufacturing employment in Canada — which is heavily dependent on exports — has shrunk by 20 per cent since 2000, even as jobs in the rest of the economy grew by a bit more than 20 per cent.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the auto industry, once one of the major drivers of central Canada’s economy. Vehicle production is down nine per cent this year — and that’s despite a global boom in auto sales
And the worst may be yet to come. Analyst Joe McCabe recently told an auto industry conference he expects car manufacturing to shrink another 28 per cent over the next decade.
So what’s to blame for this? Porter notes that the last 13 years of stagnation coincide with “the long upward march of the loonie,” which bottomed out around 62 cents U.S. in 2002 and steadily climbed to parity by 2008. The rising dollar has made Canadian exports more expensive on the global market.
That “played a key role in undercutting the manufacturing sector in particular,” Porter writes, though he’s cautious not to blame the rising loonie on oil exports — the old “Dutch Disease” debate.
But the Pembina Institute has little doubt Dutch Disease is Canada’s diagnosis.
“Recent analysis suggests that surging commodity prices explain as much as 40 to 75 per cent of the dollar’s rise,” the Pembina Institute said, referring to the loonie’s reputation as a “petro-currency.”
The report urges the government to launch a federal committee to look at the problem and recommend solutions “to ensure a robust, diverse economy that supports economic growth and competitiveness across Canada.”
The annual United Nations climate conference, known as the 19th Conference of the Parties or COP 19, is underway in Warsaw with considerably less fanfare than years past. Expectations for this one are even lower than usual, after the disappointments and plodding progress of the last few conferences.
World leaders are backing away from the 2015 target for a global climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, and the news for people concerned about climate change has not been encouraging.
It’s a situation former Irish president Mary Robinson finds profoundly worrying. She now runs the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice, and she has a blunt and rather inconvenient message for global leaders and fossil fuel-producing countries like Canada: If you’re serious about preventing the worst of climate change, you have to leave that bitumen, oil and gas in the ground.
Last year marked another record year for global greenhouse gas emissions. And a recent report from the UK found fossil fuel subsidies around the world added up to about $500 billion in 2011 – on the order of five times the amount of subsidies doled out to renewable energy.
The prospect of keeping the global rise in temperature below two degrees Celsius looks highly unlikely if current trends persist. And Canada, for its part, is not on track to meet its own commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Robinson’s message about reducing oil and gas production is one that would seem to be a tough sell in a country whose economic strategy is largely built around fossil fuel exports.
‘Moving to a low-carbon economy would be very good for Canadians’ futures, and for everyone’s future. And as well as that, we don’t have a choice. We’re running out of time.’– Mary Robinson, former Irish president
“We need two messages,” Robinson told The Sunday Edition’s Michael Enright. “Moving to a low-carbon economy would be very good for Canadians’ futures, and for everyone’s future. And as well as that, we don’t have a choice. We’re running out of time.
“How can Canadians not see that their grandchildren will share the world with nine billion other people (by 2050)? And I have no certainty at all that it will be a livable world.”
Robinson adds that she fears it will be, “a world of catastrophes over and over again. The 200 million people who may be climate-displaced – where are they going to go? There will be no country that will be immune to this. If [the planet] becomes too dangerous, it will be too dangerous for Canadians, for the children and grandchildren of those alive today.”
- Climate change draft report predicts war, heat waves, starvation
- Climate change report’s ‘temperature hiatus’ fuels skeptics
- Time for climate change fix running out, IEA warns
Robinson served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002, and she approaches climate change as a human rights and justice issue.
She argues that in the developing world, climate change impinges on the most fundamental human rights to food, water and life itself.
“Canada is one of the countries that has benefited from fossil fuel growth and has a responsibility to give leadership. And the whole of Africa is responsible for about the same level of emissions, but African countries are suffering hugely in their food security and long periods of drought and flooding. There is an injustice in how climate is impacting them.
“Canada has been a country proud of its development record. It gives a lot of development aid. Well, all that development aid will be wiped out by terrible climate impacts.”
Robinson plans to be a vocal presence in Warsaw. She has no great hopes for a breakthrough on a global climate pact by the time the conference closes next Friday, but she remains optimistic that the global community will respond to the challenge before it’s too late.
“We’re not, I think, a stupid race. I know that political timescales can be very short. But I believe that these next two years – 2014, we have to change course, and 2015, when we need sustainable development goals and a robust, fair climate agreement – we can still do it.
“We need a forward-looking leadership, and that won’t come from Canadian politicians unless it comes from the Canadian people.”
[Listen to Michael Enright’s full conversation with Mary Robinson on The Sunday Edition this weekend, just after the 9 am news, or on theSunday Edition website.]
A rogue US 1% renew threats of war on Iran, including US Secretary of State John Kerry lying to pretend Iran is hostile. The US 1% criminal threat of war continues a history of US lies and War Crimes on Iranand Iraq that most Americans know aspects of, but do not see clearly and comprehensively apart fromconstant political spin.
These “Big Lies” may be more easily recognized, exposed, and ended through analogy; a story of US relations with Iraq and Iran in absolute harmony with today’s conservative history (and here). Documentation also listed below; I wrote this ~four years ago:
Once upon a time, “Uncle” Sam had a Machiavellian business partnership with 40 years of history with Saddam; a history that included transactions worth billions in profits. Sam helped Saddam attack his neighbor Mahmoud from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused Sam’s control over his area of the business. Sam overthrew Mahmoud’s control over business from 1953-1979, making billions. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling product for currencies other than Sam’s.
In response, Sam used his media partners to claim Saddam had deadly weapons with intent to use them on innocent people. Saddam had a previous conviction, was forbidden to possess weapons, and was subject to regular police searches. After Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam, and Sam wanted his own agents with the police to “search” Saddam’s living quarters, Saddam stopped cooperating with searches. When Sam threatened to attack Saddam no matter what the police said or did, Saddam agreed to a full police search.
While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and the search almost complete, Sam shot and killed Saddam.
Sam’s story for shooting Saddam is “legal self-defense.” He explains that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. Sam says that because he had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Sam was justified in killing Saddam in “pre-emptive self-defense” to “make the world a safer place.”
The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Sam (unless Sam was under imminent threat of Saddam shooting, which Sam admits was not the case), and that the police explicitly reminded Sam that the law was a “cease-fire” that only the police have authority to manage, are all somehow immaterial in Sam’s argument.
In fact, Sam insists people like Saddam simply hate freedom.
And yes, after police silence and refusal to stop Sam and Saddam from attacking Mahmoud for 8 years, refusing to arrest Sam for killing Saddam, you should conclude police interests are different from law enforcement. And yes, because Sam’s media continues lying to protect Sam’s crimes, you should conclude Sam’s media interests are different from reporting facts.
In 2004, Mahmoud began selling product for multiple currencies rather than only Sam’s. Sam began threatening Mahmoud again, with claims Mahmoud has secret deadly weapons with intent to use them on innocent people. Mahmoud voluntarily agrees to police searches, and no evidence of any weapon has ever been found. Sam claims Mahmoud threatens his friend, Benjamin, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made protesting Benjamin’s attacks on his neighbor, with the transcript proving Sam and Ben are lying.
Despite the facts, Sam and Benjamin continue saying that Mahmoud is the dangerous one, that his part of the business needs “regime change,” and the time for talk is coming to an end. Benjamin has about 400 of these deadly weapons Mahmoud is being searched for. Sam admits to having over 5,000 that he continuously upgrades, despite his legally-binding promise to get rid of all the weapons.
The police and Sam’s media never point-out that Benjamin and Sam refuse to be inspected, Sam is in violation of the law for improving rather than eliminating his weapons, and the bottom-line is that all evidence shows Mahmoud is within the law and cooperating to be searched to show he has no weapons.
Police and Sam’s media never point-out the history that Sam criminally took-over Mahmoud’s business from 1953-1979, and from 1980-1988 helped Saddam attack Mahmoud while doing nothing to stop the continuous attacks.
Police and Sam’s media are setting-up Mahmoud just as they did with Saddam, of course.
Police officially report that while there is no evidence Mahmoud has weapons, one never can tell if he has them hidden somewhere, or is planning to make them, or will make them sometime in the future. Sam’s media attempts to fear-monger about Mahmoud being a threat to peace, while remaining silent about Sam and Benjamin’s obvious lies and crimes.
One wonders… will the communities suffering under Sam’s gangster violence behind paper-thin propaganda finally rise-up and demand Sam’s arrest for OBVIOUS crimes???
Maybe. Just maybe…
I wrote a brief that began circulating among Congress in 2007. This published version was framed for high school seniors: War with Iraq and Afghanistan, rhetoric for war with Iran
UK Chilcot inquiry and British lies to attack Iran: Blair admits “legal” basis for Iraq war an Orwellian lie; psychopathic monster then threatens Iran
Given our earlier discussion of Nobel winner Sargent’s comments on Greece and the gold standard, and the ongoingmelt-up in asset markets due to the ‘limitless money-printing’ of central banks around the world, we thought it worth a look at what a gold standard is (and is not). Before 1974, U.S. dollars were backed by gold. This meant that the federal government could not print more money than it could redeem for gold. While this constrained the federal government, it also provided citizens with a relatively stable purchasing power for goods and services. Today’s paper currency has no intrinsic value.
It is not based on the value of gold or anything else. Under a gold standard, inflation was really limited. With floating value, or fiat, currency, however, some countries have seen inflation reach extremely high levels—sometimes enough to lead to economic collapse. Gold standards have historically provided more stable currencies with lower inflation than fiat currency. Professor Larry White asks, should the United States return to a gold standard?
It is natural for a society to search for explanations and motivations in the wake of a man-made tragedy. It is also somewhat natural for people to be driven by their personal biases when looking for someone or something to blame. In recent years, however, our country has been carefully conditioned to view almost every criminal event from an ideological perspective.
The mainstream media now places far more emphasis on the political affiliations and philosophies of “madmen” than it does on their personal disorders and psychosis. The media’s goal, or mission, if you will, is to associate every dark deed whether real or engineered to the political enemies of the establishment, and to make the actions of each individual the collective shame of an entire group of people.
I could sift through a long list of terror attacks and mass shootings in which the establishment media jumped to the conclusion that the perpetrators were inspired by the beliefs of Constitutional conservatives, “conspiracy theorists”, patriots, etc. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the system is going out of its way to demonize those who question the officially sanctioned story, or the officially sanctioned world view. The circus surrounding the latest shooting of multiple TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport is a perfect example.
Paul Ciancia, the primary suspect in the shooting, was immediately tied to the Liberty Movement by media outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center, by notes (which we still have yet to see proof of) that law enforcement claims to have found on his person. The notes allegedly use terms such as “New World Order” and “fiat money”, commonly covered by those of us in the alternative media. The assertion is, of course, that Paul Ciancia is just the beginning, and that most if not all of us involved in the exposure of the globalist agenda are powder kegs just waiting to “go off.” The label often used by the MSM to profile people like Ciancia and marginalize the organizational efforts of liberty based culture is “anti-government.”
The establishment desires to acclimate Americans to the idea that being anti-government is wrong; that it is a despicable philosophy embracing social deviance, aimless violence, isolation and zealotry. Looking beyond the mainstream position, my question is, is it really such a bad thing to be anti-government today?
The terms “anti-government” and “conspiracy theorist” are almost always used in the same paragraph when mainstream media pundits espouse their propaganda. They are nothing more than ad hominem labels designed to play on the presumptions of the general population, manipulating them into dismissing any and all alternative viewpoints before they are ever heard or explained. The establishment and the media are ill-equipped to debate us on fair terms, and understand that they will lose control if Americans are allowed to hear what we have to say in a balanced forum. Therefore, their only fallback is to bury the public in lies so thick they won’t want to listen to us at all.
The Liberty Movement now has the upper hand in the war for information. The exposure of multiple conspiracies in the past several years alone has given immense weight to our stance, and reaffirmed warnings we gave long ago.
When we spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, commissioned by George W. Bush on the dubious claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were an immediate threat to the security of our nation, we were called “liberals” and “traitors.” Today, Bush and Cheney have both openly admitted that no WMD’s were ever present in the region. When we attempted to educate the masses on the widespread surveillance of innocent people by the NSA, some of them laughed. Today, it is common knowledge that all electronic communications are monitored by the Federal government. When we refused to accept the official story behind the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious program, we were called “kooks”. Today, it is common knowledge that the Obama Administration purposely allowed U.S. arms to fall into the hands of Mexican cartels. When we roared over the obvious hand the White House played in the Benghazi attack, we were labeled “racists” and “right wing extremists.” Today, it is common knowledge that the White House ordered military response units to stand down and allow the attack to take place. I could go on and on…
Events that were called “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream yesterday are now historical fact today. Have we ever received an apology for this slander? No, of course not, and we don’t expect one will ever surface. We have already gained something far more important – legitimacy.
And what about Paul Ciancia’s apparent belief in the dangers of the “New World Order” and “fiat money”? Are these “conspiracy theories”, or conspiracy realism? The Liberty Movement didn’t coin the phrase “New World Order”, these political and corporate “luminaries” did:
Is economic collapse really just a fairytale perpetrated by “anti-government extremists” bent on fear mongering and dividing society? Perhaps we should ask Alan Greenspan, who now openly admits that he and the private Federal Reserve knew full well they had helped engineer the housing bubble which eventually imploded during the derivatives collapse of 2008.
Or, why not ask the the White House, which just last month proclaimed that “economic chaos” would result if Republicans did not agree to raise the debt ceiling.
Does this make Barack Obama and the Democratic elite “conspiracy theorists” as well?
It is undeniable that government conspiracies and corporate conspiracies exist, and have caused unquantifiable pain to the American people and the people of the world. Knowing this, is it not natural that many citizens would adopt anti-government views in response? Is it wrong to distrust a criminal individual or a criminal enterprise? Why would it be wrong to distrust a criminal government?
The Purpose Behind The Anti-Government Label
When the establishment mainstream applies the anti-government label, they are hoping to achieve several levels propaganda. Here are just a few:
False Association: By placing the alleged “anti-government” views of violent people in the spotlight, the establishment is asserting that it is the political philosophy, not the individual, that is the problem. They are also asserting that other people who hold similar beliefs are guilty by association. That is to say, the actions of one man now become the trespasses of all those who share his ideology. This tactic is only applied by the media to those on the conservative or constitutional end of the spectrum, as it was with Paul Ciancia. For example, when it was discovered that Arizona mass shooter Jared Loughner was actually a leftist, the MSM did not attempt to tie his actions to liberals in general. Why? Because the left is not a threat to the elitist oligarchy within our government. Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, are.
False Generalization: The term “anti-government” is so broad that, like the term “terrorist”, it can be applied to almost anyone for any reason. The establishment does not want you to distinguish between those who are anti-government for the wrong reasons, and those who are anti-government for the right reasons. Anyone who questions the status quo becomes the enemy regardless of their motives or logic. By demonizing the idea of being anti-government, the establishment manipulates the public into assuming that all government by extension is good, or at least necessary, when the facts actually suggest that most government is neither good or necessary.
False Assertion: The negative connotations surrounding the anti-government stance also suggest that anyone who defends themselves or their principles against government tyranny, whether rationally justified or not, is an evil person. Just look at how Washington D.C. has treated Edward Snowden. Numerous political elites have suggested trying the whistle-blower for treason, or assassinating him outright without due process, even though Snowden’s only crime was to expose the criminal mass surveillance of the American people by the government itself. Rather than apologizing for their corruption, the government would rather destroy anyone who exposes the truth.
False Shame: Does government criminality call for behavior like that allegedly taken by Paul Ciancia? His particular action was not morally honorable or even effective. It helped the establishment’s position instead of hurting it, and was apparently driven more by personal psychological turmoil rather than political affiliation. But, would it be wrong for morally sound and rational Americans facing imminent despotism within government to physically fight back? Would it be wrong to enter into combat with a totalitarian system? The Founding Fathers did, but only after they had exhausted all other avenues, and only after they had broken away from dependence on the system they had sought to fight. Being anti-government does not mean one is a violent and dangerous person. It does mean, though, that there will come a point at which we will not allow government to further erode our freedoms. We will not and should not feel shame in making that stand.
I do not agree with every element of the “anti-government” ethos that exists in our era, but I do see the vast majority of reasons behind it as legitimate. If the establishment really desired to quell the quickly growing anti-government methodology, then they would stop committing Constitutional atrocities and stop giving the public so many causes to hate them. If they continue with their vicious bid to erase civil liberties, dominate the citizenry through fear and intimidation and steal and murder in our name, then our response will inevitably be “anti-government”, and we will inevitably move to end the system as we know it.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
When last week’s Iran nuclear talks were blocked by France, it provided a useful glimpse into just who it was that would benefit politically from a continuation of the regional confrontation. But while the French sabotage was an amusing distraction, it revealed a curious shift in middle-east alliances, namely old “enemies” Israel and Saudi Arabia, both feeling shunned by Big Brother, suddenly becoming the best of buddies. It was only a matter of time before this novel alliance moved beyond just paper and tested how far it could go in real life. Said test may come far sooner than expected: according to the Sunday Times, Israel’s Mossad and Saudi Arabia are planning an attack against Iran if negotiations and talks don’t come to an agreement, and that Saudia Arabia will permit Israel to use their air space for an attack on Iran including full technical support.
According to the Sunday Times, the Saudis would assist an Israeli attack by cooperating with the use of drones, rescue helicopters, and tanker planes. “Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” said the paper citing an unnamed official.
The flipside is that by pursuing an outright attack of Iran, the new Israel-Saudi axis would implicitly go against the wishes of not only Russia but, if John Kerry’s detente posture is to be believed, that of the US itself.
Israel’s PM Natanyahu naturally knows this, so instead he is merely lobbying for even more political support starting in the one country, France, which has aligned itself with the new Middle East axis, even as Israel’s old allies appear to have foresaken it. Jerusalem Post reports:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro on Saturday that there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world” on the Iran issue – “one of the few cases in memory, if not the first case in modern times.”
“We all think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make nuclear weapons,” he said. “We all think that a tougher stance should be taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”
Saying that an Iran with nuclear arms would be the most dangerous development for the world since the mid-20th century, and stressing that the “stakes are amazing,” Netanyahu urged the world’s leaders to pay attention “when Israel and the Arabs see eye-to-eye.”
“We live here,” he said. “We know something about this region. We know a great deal about Iran and its plans. It’s worthwhile to pay attention to what we say.”
Netanyahu made the comments as French President Francois Hollande was set to arrive in Israel for talks on Iran on Sunday.
In the meantime, Iran which suddenly finds itself the creme of the international diplomatic circle and is in full compliance with what the US demands, is explaining – via RT – just why a joint attack on its by supposedly former enemies will not happen:
Iranian political analyst Seyed Mohammad Marandi told RT that an imminent joint attack on Iran was unlikely given the serious ramifications it could provoke for the region.
“It is highly unlikely that the Saudis and Israelis would want to attack Iran because at the end of the day both countries would be losers, they would be seen as aggressors and obviously the Iranians would retaliate,” Marandi told RT.
Although he consented that the Saudis and Israelis have been moving closer together lately,neither of them stood to gain from attacking Iran.
“It would create an economic catastrophe for the world and only the Saudis and the Israelis would be to blame,” said Marandi.
Then again, considering a GDP-boosting economic catastrophe (recall the main reason the US wanted war with Syria is to boost the defense spending budget which lately has been in freefall) is precisely what the Fed and the Congressional muppetmasters want, we wouldn’t sleep too soundly if we were in the Ayatollah’s shoes. Especially now that thanks to Reuters the entire world, and certainly the NSA, know just where all his rainy day funds are located. Because while it is true that neither Israel nor Saudi would gain from attacking Iran, the US most certainly would. And now it has not one but two proxy countries in the region doing its bidding.