Record­ed Novem­ber 20, 2005
Lis­ten:
MP3 One Seg­ment
RealAu­dio

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.”

(“Reduc­ing Pop­u­la­tion in Step with Oil Deple­tion” by William Stan­ton; Asso­ci­a­tion for the Study of Peak Oil Newslet­ter; No. 573; July/2005, p. 1.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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’?”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.’”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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.”

(Idem.)

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’”

(“The Com­ing Pan­ic over the End of Oil—Coming to a Bal­lot Box Near You” by ‘Scoop’, Sec­tion News; Post­ed on 12/24/2003 by Walt Con­tr­eras Sheas­by.)

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. . . .”

(Idem.)

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.]”

(Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Man­ning; Lyle Stu­art [HC]; Copy­right 1981 by Paul Man­ning; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; p. 237.)