If we put the global pieces
of the puzzle together, we can see that countries within OPEC
have spent the year prior to the lead-up of these high oil
prices putting in place strategies to have more control over
the marketplace.
For example, Russia is one of the largest suppliers of oil outside
of OPEC. You cannot control prices without Russia also controlling
prices. Well, on Sept 2nd, 2003, we saw this agreement:
"Russia
and Saudi Arabia agree on gas and oil cooperation
Russia and Saudi Arabia have agreed to jointly
control raw material prices on the international market,
Russian Fuel and Energy Minister Igor Yusufov told reporters."
RussiaJournal.com
Then, of course, it is hard to deny the fact that Russia has shut
down almost every effort to supply oil to the U.S.
"Beginning
in May 2002, Russian
and US energy officials appeared to endorse public
announcements from the two leading Russian producers and exporters,
Yukos and LUKoil, that they were prepared to start strategic
shipment
of oil to the US. Russian tanker operators were skeptical from
the start. Yukos led with the shipment of about 250,000 tonnes
of oil,
which was dispatched to Houston in June of 2002 on three 80,000-tonne
tankers which transferred the cargo to a VLCC in the Mediterranean.
LUKoil followed with an announcement it was preparing a shipment
at Malta." Russian
Journal
Well, the former CEO Khodorkovsky
of Yukos was suddenly imprisoned and Yukos oil had their assets
frozen for
supposedly not paying
taxes
in 2000. There went the U.S. alliance and, of course, LUKoil had
a change of heart about supplying oil to the U.S. No significant
amount
of Russian oil comes to the U.S. anymore,… only a token 300,000
barrels per year.
Instead, Russia agreed
to send oil to Iran and China. China has become the second
largest consumer
of oil, and
they happen to be
conveniently
located on Russia’s doorstep. This has really changed the
playing field in the international oil market. Russia has consumers
to purchase
all the oil without any need for U.S. business. They no longer
have an interdependent relationship, which changes the relationship
between
the countries tremendously. If this was solely about getting the
highest price for oil, it is very doubtful that Russia would specifically
target the U.S. as a country to not supply with oil.
Then, without a genuinely
valid reason, OPEC reduced oil output, contrary to any common
sense.
In fact, with China’s
new level of consumption, it made no sense at all unless they
were reducing
output for another reason. They kept sweet-talking us, but actions
speak louder than words.
Terrorists have also been targeting the oil industry by physically
blowing up pipelines around the world. The oil industry is high on
their priority list. Consider that the terrorists have an infiltration
training manual that teaches them to integrate into political organizations,
wait patiently until the most effective moment, and then strike.
We have seen this model used by al Qaeda through the 9/11 terrorists,
by the infiltration of our military system, and by the infiltration
of lobbying groups to change our legislation. Has OPEC also been infiltrated
by terrorists or those who support extremism? It would only make sense
after looking at the many of the Middle Eastern countries that make
up OPEC. Bin Laden said, "Oil is the
umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community."
If we ponder the thought
of terrorists, or those who are against the U.S., being in
OPEC, then it would
only be
logical to consider
they would also infiltrate the UN and the Security Council. The
UN
Oil-For-Food Program is under investigation for corruption between
Saddam, Russia, France and China, UN officials, and the head of
the
UN, Kofi Annan’s son… and we found newly made Russian
weapons in Iraq.
It seems the UN, the Security
Council, and OPEC are extremely anti-US… this is, by
the way, who Senator Kerry proposes to be in charge of our
decisions and our
military
in Iraq. That
is a very grave long-term
proposition for America.
At first I suspected this move was mainly targeting the U.S. Presidential
election to affect our economy and oust Bush. I still believe that.
It is well known by those in politics that President Bush Sr. lost
his reelection due to fighting a foreign war and seemingly not paying
enough attention to the poor economy and jobs at home. So it only
makes sense that driving our energy prices up could affect our elections.
I bring the following point
up not as a “told you so,” which
would just be obnoxious, but to bring credibility to the very serious
and critical implications of my future predictions. Over one
year ago when oil prices were stable I was following the international
strategies being implemented globally, I publically predicted that
oil prices would be at their highest prices in 20 to 30 years leading
up to the elections, particularly in October 2004. They are.
It happened as I outlined.
If I was just throwing wild accusations out or running on a
conspiracy
theory, I would
have only had approximately
a 1/240 chance of being correct (12 months x 20 years), which are
not very good odds. I doubt if it could have been a lucky guess
then.
My prediction was “poo-hooed” by those with conventional
wisdom at the time, but we don’t live in conventional times
and our evaluation of the war on terror cannot be compartmentalized.
Some said they just wanted to make more money from their oil… I
could see that point BUT why at this specific moment and not two
years ago? It is too much of a coincidence the price hikes occurred
this month. Their timing was impeccable…
We have to interlink our information on international affairs, history,
global politics, national politics, oil, steel, military capabilities,
technology, and terrorism. If you are to win a game of chess, you
have to know what all your pieces are capable of, and what they are
doing to win. We cannot be constrained by old thinking, but must open
ourselves to pure thought. We cannot view the world through the eyes
of an American, but through the eyes of an enemy dedicated to our
defeat.
Look how the Baathist soldiers
fought in Iraq… they covered
themselves in civilian clothes to give themselves an advantage. They
don’t fight by the Geneva Convention rules of war. They pretend
to be our friends, then strike.
Now as I reassess, I think
from a State point of view this has also been a much larger
strategy
that goes back
once again to the
Palestine/Israel
issue, as well as an overwhelming desire in the East to reduce
the power of the U.S. That can be done two ways… economically or
with military might. They cannot compete via traditional military
against the U.S.’s superior military (why terrorists come
in so handy), but they do have control over our economy by holding
the
oil reserves. Without oil we don’t have military
might because it takes oil and money to run our military.
Remember that it has been Putin that has stopped the flow of oil
to the U.S. Remember that it has been Russia that was providing arms
to Iraq. Remember that it was Russia that opposed the war on Iraq
and is now under investigation for involvement in the Oil-For-Food
Program and taking large bribes from Saddam. Remember that Russia
supports Palestine. Did you realize Arafat was originally trained
to be a terrorist many years ago by the former KGB? Did you know that
President Putin was the former Director of the KGB?
Well, France’s De Gaulle had wanted to remove the power of
the U.S. by aligning with the Middle East. He had tried to convince
the European Community for many years to move alliances to the Middle
East but was met with much resistance… until 1973/1974.
The Arab Oil Embargo over
Israel was the answer to De Gaulle’s
dreams. Remember the grave effect that oil embargo had on the U.S.
economy when we suffered economic stagnation in the mid-70s? People
were concerned about having enough gas to ride their Harleys. It
also
gave the European countries incentive to become more aligned with
the Arab world, after all, as they relied on Middle Eastern oil.
It
was at that point we saw a shift in Europe away from America.
I know there is the old oil adage that OPEC cannot push oil prices
too high or it will entice drilling in new locations, which will bring
down prices. I think they have a much grander idea at this moment
than to concern themselves with that perhaps out-dated adage. Besides,
they have new consumers in the marketplace like China and India that
are increasingly guzzling oil at a much faster rate. That changes
the supply and demand balance that kept them restricted by that old
oil adage. OPEC have many things in their favor right now.
So are the world bodies the organizations that the citizens around
the world really think they are? Or are they just a manipulative tool
used by those who have either an interest to remove American power
or want to spread extreme Islamic ideals by defeating the West? When
you assess the accumulative facts from around the world, actions speak
louder than words.
How do we respond? By exactly
how President Bush is responding… not
giving up those oil reserves except in case of emergency. Not even
in an attempt to lower prices, which would only have a nominal
effect. However, I am sure there will become increasing pressure
to do so. The reserves are our insurance policy and the risk of
needing
them has increased tremendously. We need to open up oil production
in America to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously
looking for alternative energy sources. We need to reassess oil
efficiency.
Environmentalists who push to prevent drilling for oil in America
need to balance their views at this moment between the impact on the
immediate environment and the possibility of another large economic
decline. The oil has to come from somewhere. It would be much better
in the global scheme of things if it came from America instead of
having to rely on the good will of the Middle East. Is there any good
will anyway?
If Senator Kerry wins this U.S. election and begins seeking approval
from world bodies that want to remove our power, the U.S. will suffer
in many ways.
END
SECURITY
Our only security is our ability
to change.
- John Lilly
