Introduction: In this broadcast, we examine the fascistic, genocidal underbelly of the Peak Oil doctrine—one which asserts that the world is running out of oil and that drastic measures must be taken as a result. The Peak Oil phenomenon is discussed in FTR#’s 478 , 506 . A paper written and published by leading figures in the Peak Oil movement advocates a draconian, eugenic program of systematic murder in order to reduce the world’s population sufficiently to meet the alleged threat of Peak Oil. In addition to eliminating civil rights and most of the basic tenets of popular democracy, the paper advocates getting rid of the vast majority of the earth’s population over the period of the next century and a half. What the paper does not spell out is just who will make the decisions as to who lives, who dies and who gets to reproduce? The conclusion of the program reviews the Nazi heritage of the Peak Oil movement. Note that the subject of Peak Oil will be discussed at greater length in future programs.
Program Highlights Include: Discussion of the epicenter of the Peak Oil movement—IHS Energy Group; IHS Energy Group’s status as a subsidiary of Thyssen-Bornemisza industries; review of Thyssen-Bornemisza’s links to the Third Reich and the Bush family; review of the Bormann capital network’s pivotal stock holdings in Standard Oil; review of the fact that IHS Energy Group uses data fed to it by the petroleum companies to justify the Peak Oil deception, which justifies enormous profits for those companies!!
 1. Much of the program consists of the reading of a truly horrifying, evil document, presented in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil Newsletter  and defended by Colin J. Campbell , that periodical’s leading figure. The document speaks for itself—it advocates a murderous, genocidal “New World Order” as a solution to the dubious question of Peak Oil. It is beyond the scope of the present discussion to delineate all the flaws in the hypothesis of Peak Oil. Some of these are set forth in FTR#’s 478 , 506 . Others will be dealt with in the future. It should be noted in passing that a combination of predictably increased global demand stemming from the rapidly increasing industrialization of China and India and deliberately reduced refining capacity, particularly in the United States, has resulted in the enormous increase in petroleum and gas prices. As discussed in FTR#’s 478 , 506 , the data used by IHS Energy Group to generate the statistics underlying the Peak Oil deception come from the oil companies themselves! Suffice it to say for the purposes of the present discussion that the author of the document—one William Stanton—presents an argument that makes consummately presumptuous judgements, and then proceeds on the basis of those erroneous judgements to draw some utterly monstrous conclusions. The document advocates a eugenic approach to humanity, eliminating the majority of the world’s population in the name of ecological necessity. One should not fail to note that the genocidal eugenic nature of this document is in perfect keeping with the Nazi programs of extermination, in turn derived from the international eugenics movement. (For more about the eugenics movement, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 32 , 102 , 254 , 312 , as well as three interviews with Wesley J. Smith [FTR#’s 117 , 124 , 141 .] A detailed overview of the eugenics movement is contained in Miscellaneous Archive Show M12 —available from Spitfire.) Stanton’s Nazi screed begins with a characteristically flawed assumption–that the increase in the world’s population is due to oil. There are many factors, including the discovery of antibiotics, the discovery of the germ theory of disease, major advances in plant and animal hybridization, irrigation and other agricultural techniques, as well as political and economic reform. In addition, throughout the document, Stanton (like his fellow “Oily Peakers”) ignores major advances in alternative fuels and the role significant conservation and the development of mass transit could have in the energy future of humanity.
“The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750–2000 , contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic.”
2. “Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be.”
3. “In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is ‘more of the same’. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.”
4. “In 2150, for example, a wind turbine constructed of steel, concrete and plastic may not be able to generate, during its lifetime, as much renewable energy as would have been used up in creating it. Imagine mining, refining and smelting the metal ores, quarrying and transporting the rock, growing the biomass; fabricating the component parts, and erecting and maintaining the structure, using only the trickle of electricity produced by another similar turbine. Vast engineering projects such as constructing the first Airbus A380 airliner (Bowie 2005), using only renewable energy from start to finish, would be unthinkable (to say nothing of flying the plane without oil!).”
(Ibid.; pp. 1–2.)
5. “If, in this article, I discuss ways in which a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century, precedent suggests that nearly everyone will ignore me. ‘He must be mad’, media reviewers concluded when they read my first probes into the subject two years ago and effectively blacklisted the book (Stanton 2003). After all, do the world’s leading politicians and their scientific advisers, including highly paid demographers working for the United Nations and other international bodies, ever doubt that economic ‘business as usual’ will continue for the foreseeable future?”
(Ibid.; p. 2.)
6. “But, given that ASPO is successfully challenging conventional wisdom on oil depletion (there were four anxious letters on the subject of peak oil in my local weekly newspaper in May), what are the options? The first and most likely scenario is rejection. People in high places view an alleged need for population reduction with incredulity, scorn and denial. In consequence, the price of fossil fuels, especially oil, goes on rising without causing serious alarm in the West, except perhaps in the business world.”
7. “When, probably before 2010, the price is so high that construction of new airliners, airport terminals, Olympic villages and traffic reduction schemes shudders to a halt, uncontrollable inflation and recession will spread round the world. The oil price may stabilize for a while, as manufacturing wilts, along with demand for its products. In Third World nations, without oil, that can neither buy food nor grow it in adequate quantity without mechanized agriculture, a Darwinian struggle for shrinking resources of all kinds will be in full swing. Tribe against tribe, religion against religion, family against family, the imperative to survive will be driving strong groups to take what they want from weak ones. The concept of human rights will be irrelevant: ‘How can the weak have rights to food, when there is not enough even for the strong’?”
8. “It may well be that, in the West, the same argument will affect the thinking of militarily powerful nations. ‘If billions must die, and we have the technology to ensure that they are others, not us, why should we hold back’? Instantaneous nuclear elimination of population centers might even be considered merciful, compared to starvation and massacres prolonged over decades. Eventually, probably before 2150, world population will have fallen to a level that renewable energy, mainly biomass, can sustain. It is likely to be similar to the population before the Industrial Revolution. That is the do-nothing, let Nature take its course, scenario, involving more than a century of immeasurable human suffering. What alternatives are there? They have to be scenarios in which enlightened governments and their peoples, with astonishing foresight and determination, take positive action to reverse population growth by new, Draconian, laws. China has pioneered such an approach, by its one child per family policy.”
9. “ASPO’s Oil Depletion Protocol (Campbell 2004) is a scenario that aims to persuade national governments to cope with declining oil production equitably and peacefully, on the world scale. An annual depletion rate (the percentage of remaining global oil reserves produced each year, currently about 2.5% per year) is calculated by experts, after which nations agree to reduce their consumption and/or production of oil year after year strictly in accordance with the depletion rate. How population reduction will be achieved in step with growing oil shortage is not spelt out. Some will see the Protocol as too idealistic for a Darwinian world, because it expects every nation to co-operate regardless of whether they are resource rich or poor, have a high or a low birth rate, or are responsibly or chaotically governed.”
10. The murderously totalitarian, fascist nature of the Peak Oil doctrine is evident in the following passage. “Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak. In fact, human civilization in the fossil fuel era has been totally anomalous, fuelled by the unthinking exploitation and exhaustion of all the world’s resources, not just fossil fuels. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out, decades ago, that Western civilization was a ‘one-shot affair’, for this reason (Duncan 1997).”
(Ibid.; p. 3.)
11. “So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness (Stanton 2003 page 193). It is best examined at the nation-state scale. The United Kingdom will serve as the model. To those sentimentalists who cannot understand the need to reduce UK population from 60 million to about 2 million over 150 years, and who are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say ‘You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful qualify of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.’”
12. Note the explicitly eugenic orientation of the Peak Oil advocates: kill people born with disabilities, just like the Nazis!
“The Darwinian approach, in this planned population reduction scenario, is to maximize the well-being of the UK as a nation-state. Individual citizens, and aliens, must expect to be seriously inconvenienced by the single-minded drive to reduce population ahead of resource shortage. The consolation is that the alternative, letting Nature take its course, would be so much worse. The scenario is: Immigration is banned. Unauthorized arrives are treated as criminals. Every woman is entitled to raise one healthy child. No religious or cultural exceptions can be made, but entitlements can be traded. Abortion or infanticide is compulsory if the fetus or baby proves to be handicapped (Darwinian selection weeds out the unfit). When, through old age, accident or disease, an individual becomes more of a burden than a benefit to society, his or her life is humanely ended. Voluntary euthanasia is legal and made easy. Imprisonment is rare, replaced by corporal punishment for lesser offences and painless capital punishment for greater.”
13. “A rough calculation suggests that by following these Draconian but simple rules UK population could be reduced by 5 to 10 million during the first ten years, without excessive pain (compared to the alternatives). If this was thought too fast or too slow, there would be scope for modifying the child entitlements. The punishment regime would improve social cohesiveness by weeding out criminal elements. UK military forces should be maintained strong and alert, given that other nations working to different scenarios, or to none, would certainly attempt Darwinian piracy on UK trade routes, or mount mass immigration invasions of UK coasts. Collaboration with other nations practicing the same population reduction scenario would be of great mutual advantage.”
14. “Initially the greatest threats to UK security would come from rogue nations unwilling to curb traditionally high birth rates but lacking the means to feed the ever-growing numbers of new mouths. In the past, these were the poverty-stricken nations that repeatedly received humanitarian aid and famine relief, which did nothing to reduce the birth rate. In a Darwinian world. Nature would take its course. In consequence, their populations would reduce particularly fast and their threat would fade away. After four or five decades the populations of the UK and other nations following the same scenario would probably be halved. In the rest of the world, where Nature was doing the reduction in an ambiance of massacres and destruction, the proportionate fall would be greater and the pain would have been terrible. In the UK, in contrast, where orderly population shrinkage would have outpaced resource shrinkage, a relatively comfortable quality of life would have been enjoyed throughout the period. There would have been no toss of technological expertise, but it would no longer be employed in grandiose energy- wasteful projects. Instead, there would be intensive research into cost-effective methods of renewable energy recovery.”
(Ibid.; pp. 3–4.)
15. “A particular problem could arise from the fact that the world’s greatest oil reserves are controlled by the nations surrounding the Gulf. They have dizzyingly high birth rates, which, for cultural reasons, they might not want to lower. Their populations exploded following the discovery of oil, and if the explosion continues, even a very high oil price will not provide enough national income to prevent general poverty. Indeed, the demand for Gulf oil might occasionally fall. If for example alternative sources were still available to nations practicing orderly population reduction, and there was minimal demand from the chaotic rest of the world. After a decade or two of unrestricted population growth, with limited income from oil and terrible shortages, especially of water, Nature will begin to reverse population growth around the Gulf.”
(Ibid.; p. 4.)
16. “Of course, in a Darwinian world, a militarily powerful nation might try to take oil by force anywhere on the planet. World War Two provided recent examples: oil supply being critical to Germany and Japan. Another problem is likely to be the residual opposition to population reduction from sentimentalists and/or religious extremists unable to understand that the days of plenty, when criminals and the weak could be cherished at public expense, are over. Acts of violent protest, such as are carried out today by animal rights activists and anti-abortionists, would, in the Darwinian world, attract capital punishment. Population reduction must be single-minded to succeed.”
17. Next the program reviews an excerpt from an article about the epicenter of the Peak Oil doctrine—IHS Energy Group (formerly Petroconsultants). It is altogether significant that the data produced by IHS Energy Group/Petroconsultants is fed to the outfit by the very petroleum and geological engineering firms that stand to benefit from the alleged scarcity of oil!!
“ . . . The leading trio of Jean H. Laherrere, Colin J. Campabell, and L.F. (Buz) Ivanhoe have worked for, or with, the leading firm modeling oil fields, Petroconsultants of Geneva. Since the 1950’s, they [Petroconsultants] have been fed data on oil exploration and production by just about all the major oil companies, as well as by a network of about 2000 oil industry consultants around the world. They use this data to produce reports on various matters pertinent to the oil industry, which they sell back to the industry. ‘This much is known, Kenneth Deffeyes writes, ‘the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants’”
18. IHS Energy Group is a subsidiary of the Thyssen-Bornemisza industrial group, a core element of the Bormann capital network and the Underground Reich. For more about the Thyssen connections to the Bormann group, the Underground Reich and the Bush family, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 273 , 305 , 361 , 370 , 435 , 506 .) Considering the character of the epicenter of the Peak Oil doctrine, the genocidal, fascist nature of the Stanton document should not be too surprising. The apples don’t fall too far from the tree. In FTR#’s 385,  506 , we noted the Thyssen firm’s primary position in the purchase of the Leuna refinery in the former East Germany. That facility had been one of the primary I.G. Farben synthetic oil factories during World War II. What relationship exists between the Thyssen role in the resuscitation of the Leuna facility and the emergence of the Peak Oil doctrine (which began in Germany)? Has the possibility of a more efficient hydrogenation process been used to blackmail the petroleum industry into going along with the Peak Oil scam? Would it have taken much arm-twisting, given the enormous profits for which Peak Oil is serving as justification? This question will be taken up in future discussion of the Peak Oil scam. Note in the context of this discussion, that the Bormann network holds as much stock in the Standard Oil complex of companies as the Rockefellers. For more about this, as well as the massive Rockefeller capital participation in the Thyssen firm, see FTR#506 .
“In a late 1998 merger, Petroconsultants became IHS Energy Group, a subsidiary of Information Handling Services Group (IHS Group), a diversified conglomerate owned by Holland America Investment Corp., IHS Group’s immediate parent company, for the Thyssen Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.). [Emphasis added.] In the 1920’s George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law, Prescott Bush, had helped the Thyssen dynasty finance its acquisitions through Union Banking corp. and Holland-American trading Corp. Until his death last year, Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the nephew of the Nazi steel and coal magnate, was one of the world’s richest men. . . .”
19. More about the Bormann capital network’s participation in Standard Oil: “ . . . The Bormann organization continues to wield enormous economic influence. Wealth continues to flow into the treasuries of its corporate entities in South America, the United States and Europe. Vastly diversified, it is said to be the largest land-owner in South America, and through stockholdings, controls German heavy industry and the trust established by the late Hermann Schmitz, former president of I.G. Farben, who held as much stock in Standard Oil of New Jersey as did the Rockefellers.’ [Emphasis added.]”