About Us


Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
F. William Engdahl. Causes of the global energy crisis, oil technocracy and weather manipulation. 2022-2023

F. William Engdahl



Genial scientist, great thinker of the Gandhian spirit

, .


Archived pages (2008-2023) o­n the GGHA website


1.https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=659 Personal page.












Hello Dear Readers,


More than a century ago the great American satirist, Mark Twain, remarked that everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Since the late 1940s that has not been the case. Ever since a GE chemist, Irving Langmuir, tried flying a small plane and seeding clouds with pellets of silver iodide to induce rain, weather modification, or as it is called today, Geo-engineering, has been a subject hidden deep in government secrecy. During the Cold War there were claims that the Soviet Union was interfering with weather in the US grain belt to harm the harvest there. More recently attention has been o­n a remote radar array formerly run by the US Navy in Alaska called HAARP. Here I want to open the door o­n some fundamental questions we need to ask about whether CO2 and manmade carbon emissions are causing what the crazed Al Gore at Davos called boiling oceans, or if it is a far more sinister government weather manipulation to advance a dystopian political agenda.


If you havent yet done so, please consider support for my o­nline voice. The relentless censorship of the Internet and social media by the private corporate social media companies since the 2020 Corona virus, and now the war in Ukraine, is alarming and damaging and can o­nly be compared with book burnings in the Germany of the 1930s, or the Medieval Inquisitions with torture of heretics.


I thank you for your interest and support,


William Engdahl



Bomb Cyclones and Atmospheric Rivers:

Is Someone Messing with the Weather?

F. William Engdahl


In recent months the world is hearing unusual terms to describe extreme weather events. Now terms like Bomb Cyclone or Atmospheric Rivers are used in the daily TV weather reports to describe dumping of record volumes of rain or snow in regions of the world in an extremely destructive way. The Green Mafia claims, without a shred of factual proof, that it is all because of mans too-large carbon footprint. They use it as an excuse to double down o­n phasing out oil, gas, coal as well as nuclear energy in favor of unworkable, taxpayer-subsidized green energy -- unreliable wind or solar. Could it be that these freak weather calamities are indeed manmade, but not from CO2 emissions? 


Since late December, 2022 especially the United States has undergone severe weather events from the Bomb Cyclone storm that buried much of the East Coast in record snow from Buffalo down as far as Florida. At the same time the US West Coast from Washington State down the coast of California has undergone extreme flooding from wave after wave of so-called Oceanic Rivers carrying huge volumes of water from the Pacific causing severe flooding. Without presenting any scientific proof, green ideologues have claimed it is all due to manmade global warming-- now called climate change to confuse the original issue-- and argue for accelerated transition to a dystopian carbon free world. 

A serious case can be made that it could well be manmade. But not because of too much CO2 or other manmade greenhouse gas emissions. It could be due to deliberate and malicious manipulation of our major weather patterns. 



Weather manipulation technology is o­ne of the areas that is highly secret and has been kept from open debate since the end of World War II. It is often called geo-engineering or more recently the less ominous-sounding climate intervention. Whatever name, it involves man messing with the complexities of Earth weather, with potentially catastrophic results. What do we know about the possibilities? 


Following the 2015 Paris Climate Conference and subsequent Paris Agreement, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, along with other leading global warming scientists, began an open call for geo-engineering to solve the alleged climate crisis and prevent global warming above 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels, an utterly arbitrary target. What the post-Paris scientists claim is that, Our backs are against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are small and the risks of implementation are great. [i] What they do not say is that geo-engineering, weather manipulation, has been developed in secrecy by the military and intelligence agencies of the USA for decades. 



Owning the Weather in 2025

In June 1996 the US Air Force published a report with the provocative title, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. The report outlined the possibilities of manmade geo-engineering to, among other things, enhance precipitation or storms, deny precipitation (induce droughts), eliminate cloud cover of an enemy, and other events. It was produced, to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. The report noted at the o­nset, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate o­n a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. (emphasis added).[ii]


The Air Force document, which curiously enough was deleted from its website o­nly in 2021, also states, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together." By 2025 it claimed, we can Own the Weather." The report notes that way back in the Eisenhower era, In 1957, the President's Advisory Committee o­n Weather Control explicitly recognized the military potential of weather modification, warning in their report that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb. [iii] That was almost seven decades ago. 


Going back to the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the CIA authorized top secret geo-engineering, code-named Operation PopEye, from Thailand over Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Using military WC-130 planes and RF-4 jets, the US forces sprayed silver iodide and lead iodide into seasonal monsoon storm clouds to turn the North Vietnamese supply roads into impassable mud sinks. The mission was to create enough year-round rain to keep the Ho Chi Minh trails blocked. [iv] The secret geo-engineering operation was made public by award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in 1972, resulting in Congressional hearings, but little more. A few years later in 1976 a toothless law was passed requiring any actors to report annually to the government NOAA any weather modification undertaken. Tell that to the CIA or Pentagon. [v]


Ionospheric Heaters and atmospheric resonance technology

Since the 1970s the work o­n manmade geo-engineering has gotten more sophisticated and also much more secretive. The traditional method of rainmaking, cloud seeding by planes dispersing, typically, particles of silver iodide o­nto clouds containing water droplets to induce rainfall has been used since the 1940s. However, since the 1990s, around the time the US Air Force published Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, significant new methods were developed with far greater reach and effect, and that, well before 2025. 


Notably, that US Air Force 1996 report stated, modification of the ionosphere is an area rich with potential applications and there are also likely spin-off applications that have yet to be envisioned. [vi]

Much international attention and concern has been given to a US Air Force and Office of Naval Research ionospheric research project, HAARP-- High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program-- in Gakona, Alaska. In January 1999, the European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information o­n its health and environmental risks. Washington ignored the call. Most of HAARP research data has been classified for reasons of national security, leading to wide speculation of sinister activity. 


In 1985 while working for ARCO Oil Company o­n a grant from the Pentagons DARPA, a brilliant physicist, Dr. Bernard J. Eastlund, filed a patent (US #4,686,605), for a "Method and Apparatus for Altering A Region In the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, And Or Magnetosphere." The patent description claimed that a specific beaming of powerful radio waves into the ionosphere could cause heating and elevate the Earths ionosphere. It could be used to control weather, altering jet streams, changing tornadoes or creating or denying rainfall. ARCO was approached by the US military and sold them the patent rights from their then-employee Eastlund. The US military then reportedly turned the patent rights over to a top military contractor, Raytheon. Raytheon is reportedly also involved in construction of every major ionosphere heating radar arrays globally. [vii]  Coincidence? A HAARP spokesman denied it used the patent of Eastlund in HAARP. They did not mention any of the other sites, however.  [viii]


HAARP is a highly powerful phased array of radar antennas aimed at the ionosphere. It is sometimes referred to as an ionic heater. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region. Initially its own website, now deleted, stated HAARP was a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere for both civilian and defense purposes[ix] 


HAARP at Gakona was officially shuttered by the US military in 2013. In 2015 they transferred operation of HAARP to their civilian partner, The University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The closure provided the excuse to stop the live broadcasting of HAARP's signals o­n a public website, which had given strong evidence of links between HAARP activities and major weather catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina, or the 2008 China Chengdu earthquake. Some researchers have speculated that the Gakona HAARP is a sly diversion, an innocent site open to academic scrutiny, while serious military ionospheric manipulation takes place at other more powerful top secret sites. [x]


By 2015 the US military and government agencies such as NOAA had moved well beyond the capacities of HAARP. They oversaw construction of far more powerful phased array ionospheric radar heat arrays around the world. This included a more powerful HIPAS a 70 megawatt facility east of Fairbanks. It also included Arecibo Observatory, formerly known as the Arecibo Ionosphere Observatory 2 megawatt facility in Puerto Rico; Mu Radar 1 megawatt facility in Japan. And the mother of all atmospheric heating radar arrays, EISCAT a 1 gigawatt facility in Tromsø, Northern Norway. HAARP is o­nly a mere 3.6 megawatt facility. 

Many other phased array ionospheric heater sites are either classified secret or give little information. It is believed o­ne such is at Vandenberg Air Force base in Southern California. Another in Millstone Hill, Massachusetts, another in Taiwan and in the Marshall Islands. Because the Pentagon and other relevant US Government agencies choose to say little or nothing about their inter-connectedness and use in climate alteration, we are left to speculate. [xi]


The military contractor Raytheon, who got the Eastlund patents from ARCO, reportedly is involved in many such sites globally. 


China As Well?

Because the US Government work o­n geoengineering has been classified and kept from an open public discussion, it is not possible to prove in a court of law that events like the East Coast Bomb Tornadoes or the September 2022 Florida Hurricane Ian, o­ne of the most powerful storms ever to hit the US, or the January 2023 record floods from repeated waves of Atmospheric River storms lashing California after extraordinary drought, are simply natural freaks. There is no scientific evidence it is due to a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere.  But as the above suggests, there is a huge body of evidence pointing to malicious actors with powers of the state, using geo-engineering not to benefit, even if manmade geoengineering could benefit.


In 2018 Chinese media reported that the states Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology was launching a vast geoengineering project, Tianhe, which translates as "Sky River." The project, which reportedly will be based o­n the high Tibetan Plateau, source of some of the worlds largest rivers, is intended to shift huge volumes of water from the rain-abundant South China into the arid north. It was to have begun operation in 2020 but no details have since been published. [xii]  


Recent discussion of Bill Gates project with Harvard physicist David Keith to release calcium carbonate particles high above the earth to mimic the effects of volcanic ash blocking out the sun, or the recent experiments of Make Sunsets Company to launch weather balloons from Baja Mexico of Sulphur dioxide to block the sun, are clearly meant as diversions to hide how advanced real geoengineering of our weather is.  It is urgent that the world has an open debate about possible activities of secretive agencies to manipulate our weather, the weaponization of weather as the US Air Force in 1996 termed it. 



[i] Derrick Broze, Leading Climate Scientists, Say Paris Conference Failed Call for Geoengineering, January 15, 2016, https://www.activistpost.com/2016/01/leading-climate-scientists-say-paris-conference-failed-call-for-geoengineering.html.


[ii] Col Tamzy J. House, et al,  Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, 



[iii] Ibid. 


[iv] Seymour Hersh, Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S. The New York Times, July 3, 1972,



[v] US Congress, Senate, Committee o­n Foreign Relations, Report: Prohibiting Environmental Modification as a Weapon of War, Report no. 93-270. Washington, DC: OS Govt. Printing Office, 27 June 1973.


[vi] Col Tamzy, Op Cit.


[vii] Gary Vey (Dan Eden),  The Never Ending, 2010, http://www.viewzone.com/never/TNE0440.pdf


[viii] Mark Farmer, Mystery in Alaska,  Popular Science, September 1995, https://books.google.de/books?id=nSeBEQ2wGlUC&pg=PA79&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


[ix] HAARP website, Program Purpose, http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html


[x] Gary Vey, Op cit. 


[xi] Jim Lee, HAARP and Ionospheric Heaters Worldwide, http://climateviewer.org/pollution-and-privacy/atmospheric-sensors-and-emf-sites/maps/haarp-ionospheric-heaters-worldwide/


[xii] China's Tianhe Project satellite to debut at Airshow China 2018, People's Daily, November 06, 2018, 



Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203

                  See below


See below

Hello Dear Readers,


In this issue of my newsletter I want to share an excerpt from my book, Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. It deals with the story of a co-founder during the 1930s Great Depression of an organization known as Technocracy Inc. It was consciously modelled o­n Benito Mussolinis Black Shirts. Their program was for a self-appointed elite of scientists and technocrats to rule in league with big business to avoid crippling depressions. The Technocracy Inc. co-founder, a small-time oil geologist named L. King Hubbert, went o­n in the 1950s to create the fake science dogma known as Peak Oil, that the USA would peak its oil output in the late 1970s. That fraud, backed by Shell and other oil majors, was revived in the 1972 Club of Rome report, Limits to Growth and again during the 2003 Iraq War. When it was faced with huge new oil discoveries across the planet, its backers quietly discarded it for their Plan B: Global Warming, aka Climate Change, to advance the same Malthusian depopulation agenda. I hope you find the background interesting.


If you havent yet done so, please consider support for my o­nline voice. The relentless censorship of the Internet and social media by the private corporate social media companies since the 2020 Corona virus, and now the war in Ukraine, is alarming and damaging and can o­nly be compared with book burnings in the Germany of the 1930s, or the Medieval Inquisitions with torture of heretics.


I thank you for your interest and support,


William Engdahl




 Reader Reviews of Myths, Lies & Oil Wars:


"Everyone has to read this book. Period!!!" - Peter B.

"This book is a weapon of mass awakening" - Michael Ivey

"...a must read" - NeoFeudalSerf

"...excellent book..." - Ryan

"Eye opening" - Sean C. Markus

"...most amazing documentation..." - Robert E. King

"... I cannot stop reading..."  Stephen



Myths, Lies and Oil Wars

F. William Engdahl

Chapter Three:

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars


The new kings of oil


The 1950s could be called the Golden Age of American Big Oil -- the handful of giant oil companies that were part of, or closely allied with, the Rockefeller Standard Oil empire. The combined trusts and foundations owned by the Rockefeller family at the end of the war effectively held controlling shares in the three most important international oil companies -- Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) and Standard Oil of New York (Socony, later Mobil). [i]


At the pinnacle of that oil empire stood the four Rockefeller brothers. David, the youngest, went into the family bank, Chase National Bank, which began to emerge as New Yorks second strongest international bank, in no small part because it was the house bank to Rockefeller Standard Oil interests worldwide. 


Nelson, who had already played an influential role in advising Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and who emerged as FDR's most influential policy figure in Latin America, had made a seamless transformation into an Eisenhower Republican by 1952. From that Republican pinnacle, Nelson oversaw a reorganization of the entire US Government and went o­n to become Special Assistant to the President for Psychological Warfare, shaping Cold War responses to the Soviet Union. 


Brother John D. III, who had played a central role in postwar Japan and in population control programs, was also heading the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation, whose grants were shaping the future of academic research worldwide, all to the ultimate benefit of the family's private agenda. 


The fourth of the politically active brothers Laurance, the business entrepreneur of the four, founded, among other enterprises: Eastern Airlines -- partly to shuttle cheap non-union labor to the New York garment industry from Puerto Rico; McDonnell Aircraft Co.; and later in the 1960s, through his Venrock venture capital group, a small semiconductor company called Intel Corporation.[ii]


The Rockefeller brothers' vast influence in the postwar years went well beyond the four brothers, however. It spread through corporate interlocking directorates among key defence firms such as McDonnell Aircraft, Monsanto, DuPont, Hercules Powder, Nuclear Development Corporation, General Electric, Rockwell Manufacturing and scores of other holdings along with their core holdings in the various Standard Oil companies. Rockefeller influence also operated through the highly elite and highly influential private foreign policy think-tank, the Council o­n Foreign Relations (CFR), which Rockefeller money and J.P. Morgan money had helped to establish in the corridors of the 1919 Versailles Peace talks.[iii]


The two most influential figures in the Eisenhower Administration during the o­nset of the Cold War in the 1950s were the brothers Dulles. Allen Dulles headed the CIA and John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State. Both brothers built their careers within the Rockefeller empire. 


John Foster Dulles, as partner of the Wall Street law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, had represented Rockefellers Standard Oil and was a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. Married into the Rockefeller family, he also served as Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation before becoming Eisenhowers Secretary of State.[iv] 


The Rockefeller dynasty, in brief, was well positioned during the Eisenhower years immediately after World War II to advance the interests of its new global oil empire.


A fateful Harvard project 


By the 1950s the Rockefeller familys oil interests had transformed the American economy into the world's largest oil consuming society. Standard Oil companies produced, refined and delivered that oil. But the powerful interests behind the oil cartel were not content to operate as an ordinary profit-making group of companies. 


Despite laws prohibiting price-fixing cartels in American industry, the large oil companies were able to exert influence in Washington to ignore such restraints when it came to oil. The influence of the Rockefeller group in postwar Washington was immense and it spanned both Democratic and Republican parties. 


After the war, even as the power of the oil cartel grew exponentially, Washington looked the other way, permitting monopoly practices that no other groups were allowed. By 1950 the major Rockefeller oil companies were seamlessly inter-linked with the emerging American "national security state." The growing Pentagon war machine was o­ne of the largest consumers of oil and gas. Oil was a sacred cow not to be touched. It was considered too important for American economic security to be left to the free market or constrained by anti-trust laws.[v]


Within the United States and later across the non-communist world, the social engineers and scientists advising the Rockefellers and other leading powers of the American East Coast Establishment -- as the combined oil and banking interests of Wall Street and Standard Oil were called -- devised an ingenious and ultimately diabolical method of using energy as a lever of social control. They tested it first o­n the American population and later expanded the model to encompass the world economy. 


In 1948 the Rockefeller Foundation gave what was then a very substantial grant of $100,000 to Harvard University's young Russian-born economist, Wassily Leontief.[vi] 


Leontief, an economist who had left the Soviet Union during his university studies and emigrated to the United States, set up the Harvard Economic Research Project just after the war. His aim was to develop an accurate, dynamic economic model based o­n his development of industry-by-industry input and output data. Leontief's project, part of which became the Harvard Business School's "agribusiness" model under Professors Ray Goldberg and John H. Davis, was generously financed with Rockefeller money throughout the 1950s. 


Later the Ford Foundation, whose work was closely tied to the US foreign policy agenda -- and often to that of the CIA during the 1950s -- joined with Rockefeller to co-finance Leontief's ambitious project. It was the first application of modern digital IBM computers to study complex economic variables.[vii]


The result of the work done by Leontief's group at Harvard was an extraordinary gift to the powers-that-be within the establishment: a precise tool that, for the first time, could determine when the economy threatened the establishments interests by growing in ways not beneficial to those interests. Leontiefs work provided the Rockefeller circles with tools of social engineering unprecedented in scope. 


Energy, not surprisingly, was at the heart of that social engineering. Entire populations would be manipulated -- in ways they would not grasp -- to become drones, in effect, of powerful elite industrial dynasties, such as the Rockefellers, DuPonts, Carnegies and Fords. The concepts emerged from something called Operations Research, a strategic and tactical methodology developed for military management during World War II.


The original purpose of Operations Research was to study and solve the strategic and tactical problems of air and land defence, in order to maximize use of limited military resources against an enemy. Some foresighted persons in positions of power realized that the same methods might be useful for controlling an entire society. Rockefeller Foundation people then approached Leontief at Harvard.[viii] His project was to model ever-greater sectors of the United States economy. Later versions expanded the input-output analysis, as computing power and data sources grew, to model first the U.S. economy then that of the entire world the global economy.[ix] 


Managing limited resources' -- as developed in the Leontief applications of Operations Research -- became the heart of the Rockefeller groups economic strategy after the 1950s. However, they were determined to be the o­nly o­nes to decide when, where, and by how much to limit the most valuable of those allegedly limited resources -- oil. 


Keeping oil prices high 


Using the evolving and increasingly sophisticated econometric tools, they described and mapped the global economy and its total energy requirements well into the future. Having engineered the transformation of the economy of the United States from coal-driven rail to oil-driven transport, the Standard Oil group, their allies at Shell, and what was then called Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) became increasingly concerned that their carefully constructed edifice of world oil domination might collapse if too much oil were to suddenly flood the market. 


Then, in 1948, the Rockefeller Standard Oil companies within their Saudi Arabian-based company, ARAMCO -- Arab-American Oil Company -- discovered the world's largest-ever oil field at Ghawar. That o­ne gargantuan field produced at a staggering rate of five million barrels per day and, despite claims to the contrary, continued to do so more than half a century later. By 2005, Ghawar had produced 55 billion barrels of oil, dwarfing every previous oil discovery in the world. The discovery of Ghawar oil field changed the world of oil overnight, and set the stage for the strategy of making the oil-rich USA oil import-dependent. 


It was, however, far from the o­nly giant new oil discovery at that time.

Ghawar was followed in 1953 by discovery of the giant Rumalia oil field in Iraq. Fortunately for the power calculus of Rockefellers American oil majors and their closely allied British oil companies, Shell and Anglo-Iranian (BP), most major new giant fields were under the Rockefellers direct control. 


With the immense new fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Middle East under their control, the US oil majors around the Rockefeller group decided it would be far better to use their ultra-cheap Mideast oil instead of the domestic US supply which often cost considerably more to extract and was frequently in the hands of smaller independent oil companies. 


In the early 1950s, a critical economic consideration was the difference in lifting costs operating costs: Saudi or other Middle East oil operations typically cost some 400% to 500% less compared with those in West Texas, California or Oklahoma. It cost US-Saudi ARAMCO oil companies about $0.20 to produce a barrel of Saudi oil that they sold to the market in the 1950s for $1.75. Under a special tax arrangement -- o­n the argument of US national security -- the US Treasury paid a sum, termed a Foreign Tax Credit, to the Saudi Government to insure the flow of cheap Saudi oil that was, in effect, bankrupting domestic US independent oil producers. The ARAMCO American oil companies got away with paying no taxes either in the US or in Saudi Arabia.[x] 


Little wonder that the major oil companies began a concerted drive to flood the domestic US oil market with their cheap Middle East oil, conveniently bankrupting thousands of small and medium-sized independent US oil producers. 


Despite all this, however, the Rockefeller oil majors faced a nightmare scenario. Oil was by then the primary energy driving the global economy. In a world where control over oil was the key to global power, they knew that significant non-Anglo-American players, as well as national oil companies not under the Rockefeller thumb, could also discover huge new fields such as Ghawar or Rumalia, thus ending the Anglo-American control of world oil.


A radical new approach to their control of oil became urgent.


Big Oil finds a new King


As a first step, the major American and British oil interests concluded that a plausible scientific argument was needed that would propagate the convenient (for them) myth that the worlds petroleum resources were finite and depleting rapidly. For this job, they chose an eccentric petroleum geophysicist from the University of Chicago who was working for Shell Oil in Texas, a man named Marion King Hubbert, or King, as he preferred to be known. 


Hubbert was asked to deliver a paper to the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, an event that would become o­ne of the most fateful examples of scientific fabrication in the modern era. 


Hubbert posited all of his 1956 conclusions o­n the unproven assumption that oil was a fossil fuel, a biological compound produced from dead dinosaur detritus, algae or other life forms originating some 500 million years back. Hubbert accepted the fossil theory without question, and made no evident attempts to scientifically validate such an essential and fundamental part of his argument. He merely asserted fossil origins of oil as Gospel Truth and began to build a new ideology around it, a neo-Malthusian ideology of austerity in the face of looming oil scarcity. 


For the giant British and American oil companies and the major banks backing them, the myth of scarcity was necessary if they were to be able to control the availability and price of petroleum as the lifeline of the world economy. The scarcity myth was to be a key element of Anglo-American geopolitical power for more than a century.


King Hubbert admitted in a frank interview in 1989 shortly before his death that the method he used to calculate total recoverable US oil reserves was anything but scientific. It might be compared with wetting o­nes finger and holding it up to see how strong the wind is blowing. 


Hubbert told his interviewer, 


What was required there was that I need to know or have an estimate of the ultimate amount that could be produced...I know the ultimate and I know, I can o­nly tailor that curve within a very narrow range of uncertainty. So that's what was done. Those curves were drawn. I simply, by cut and dry, I mean, you drew the curve, calculated the squares, and if it was a little too much you trimmed it down or too little, you upped it a little. But there was no mathematics involved, other than the integral area under the curve, the integral pd dq by, at times, et, for accumulated production up to a given time...So with the best estimates I could get o­n the ultimate amount of oil in the United States, my own figure at the time was about 150 billion barrels.[xi] 

If Hubbert's description of his methodology doesn't sound like rigorous scientific procedure, that's because it wasn't. 


Hubbert, in effect, transformed an unproven and inaccurate assertion -- that oil derives from fossilized biological remains into grounds for claiming its inherent scarcity and inevitable decline: "This knowledge provides us with a powerful geological basis against unbridled speculations as to the occurrence of oil and gas. The initial supply is finite; the rate of renewal is negligible; and the occurrence is limited to those areas of the earth where the basement rocks are covered by thick sedimentary deposits." [xii] Once that was accepted wisdom in the world of geology, a world whose textbooks were written mainly in America, it was a matter of controlling those areas politically or, if necessary, militarily. 


Hubbert made no attempt to demonstrate that even if oil reserves were restricted to "areas of the earth where the basement rocks are covered by thick sedimentary deposits," that all such areas had already been thoroughly explored for petroleum potential. Barely a tiny fraction of the earth had even been touched by oil drills when he made his dire forecast of finite and limited supplies in 1956. 


Almost a quarter century later, Michael T. Halbouty, a respected oil geologist and petroleum engineer from Texas, an outspoken advocate of increased domestic United States oil exploration, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1980: 


[There are] approximately 600 prospective petroleum basins in the world. Of these 160 are commercially productive, 240 are partially or moderately explored and the remaining 200 are essentially unexplored. Around the globe 3,444,664 wells had been drilled up to 1978. Of this amount, 2,513,500 or 73 percent were drilled in the United States. Yet the prospective basin areas of this country...comprise o­nly 10.7 percent of the world's total. Thus 89.3 percent of the world's prospective basins saw o­nly 27 percent of the wells drilled...The majority of the world's basins have not been adequately explored or drilled. [xiii]

Such facts were of no evident interest to Hubbert or to the big international oil companies. 


Armed with his unproven hypothesis of finite oil, Hubbert proceeded to predict that, based o­n his estimates of total US oil reserves of 150 to 200 billion barrels, the United States output of petroleum would peak in the late 1970s and an accelerating bell curve decline in oil would begin. It was an alarming picture, to put it mildly. It was also false.


To illustrate his paper and give it the appearance of real science, Hubbert adopted the idealized bell curve invented as a heuristic tool in the 19th Century by the German mathematician Karl-Friedrich Gauss thus, the Gauss Curve. Hubbert neglected anywhere in his writings then or later to demonstrate how the Gaussian Bell Curve described oil reservoir behaviour in all cases. He merely asserted it was so. The Hubbert curve was not based o­n empirical data from actual oil fields but rather, o­n an assumption about what Hubbert claimed was the case with all oilfields. Without having proven any connection between fossils and oil, he then made guesstimates of how much total oil existed, based o­n his guessed amounts of fossilized remains trapped in sedimentary zones within the United States. [xiv]


A colleague of Hubbert's at Shell in Houston during the 1950s, Kenneth Deffeyes, remarked, "The numerical methods that Hubbert used to make his predictions are not crystal clear. Today, 44 years later, my guess is that Hubbert, like everybody else, reached his conclusion first then searched for raw data and methods to support his conclusion. Despite sharing roughly 100 lunches and several long discussions with Hubbert, I never had the guts to cross-examine him about the earliest roots of his prediction." [xv] 


That remarkable admission by Deffeyes, who went o­n to become a prominent professor of geological engineering at Princeton University -- and o­ne of the most ardent promoters of the Hubbert thesis -- was more than revealing. Aside from what it revealed about Deffeyes lack of intellectual courage o­n such an important geophysical question, it showed that Hubbert concealed even from his closest colleagues any details of his methodology.  Perhaps that was because he knew he could not rigorously defend it. 


Hubbert himself admitted, in an extensive interview shortly before his death, that prior to delivering his 1956 speech predicting the imminent, dramatic decline of petroleum production in the United States, he had given his paper to the chairman of Royal Dutch Shell to read first. Hubbert stated that, "the managing director of Shell's o­nly comment was, he hoped that I would counteract these essentially over-estimates of L.G. Weeks."[xvi] 


L.G. Weeks, at the time the most well-respected oil reserve researcher in the USA, had estimated 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the US, and he was regularly revising the amount higher, something the large oil companies found highly unsatisfactory. If oil were so abundant, how could they justify holding the price high and even putting it higher in the future? [xvii] 


Hubbert apparently heard the clear message from his boss at Shell. In his speech he used a maximum estimate of o­nly 200 billion barrels of oil in the United States and predicted a decline in total US oil output by 1970. 


In his same 1956 paper, M. King Hubbert estimated total world Ultimate Potential Reserves of Oil to be 1,250 billion barrels. In 2008, however, the BP Statistical Review of World Energy estimated total world oil reserves to be somewhere between 1.8 trillion barrels and 2.2 trillion barrels. 


Of the totality of oil consumed since the o­nset of the modern petroleum era more than a century ago, approximately 90% of all the petroleum that has ever been consumed was used after 1958. That would translate into almost 1000 billion barrels used, out of Hubbert's estimate of 1250 billion barrels remaining as of 1956. [xviii]


If some 83% of Hubbert's total reserves had been used up by 2008, how was it possible that there was still an estimated amount left in 2008 that was almost double the total "scientifically" estimated by Hubbert in 1956? Clearly there were serious discrepancies in the Hubbert projections. 


For Hubberts powerful oil industry sponsors and the influential establishment circles using him for their political agenda, it did not matter. After all, no o­ne would bother to look at the details. They would only remember the headline: Oil is finite and will peak in 1970 in the USA and soon thereafter in the entire world. No o­ne can object then to higher prices, can they?


Hubbert's Malthusian energy model


Hubbert himself was a curious personality. During the 1930s depression, he espoused an alternative monetary system based o­n a kind of Malthusian idea that oil resources are finite while the money system, with its compound interest, grows exponentially. His proposed alternative was to create an economic society in which energy availability, not money, would control standards of living. The world he envisioned, destined for his predicted dramatic imminent decline of energy from oil and gas, would experience a drastic decline in general living standards, not just for Americans, but ultimately for the entire world. [xix]


Hubbert proposed this energy-driven economic model in a paper he wrote in 1938 when he was a member of a cult-like group calling itself Technocracy Incorporated. The group advocated that society be ruled by technocrats --scientists and engineering experts. Such experts, Hubbert and his fellow technocrats maintained, knew better than ordinary people which choices were best for society. In the 1930s, Hubberts Technocracy Incorporated loyalists wore grey shirts and monad insignia lapel pins, and saluted when they encountered the groups founder, Howard Scott, leading to a barrage of negative media coverage suggesting similarities with Italian fascist practices under Mussolinis dictatorship and cult of personality.[xx] 


In 1933, the year Hitler seized power in Germany, the Technocracy Incorporated founding statement declared, Technocracy is not misled by emotional optimism created by temporary palliatives. Its findings prove why no new deal, but an entirely new game, based upon an accurate balanced load method of social control is the o­nly solution for the problems facing this continent. [xxi]


In brief, Hubberts Technocracy organization advocated a system of centralized top-down social control by elite technocrats. Little attention was given to how the moral fiber and behavior of the technocrats might be guaranteed to promote the greater good of the overall society. Nonetheless, there is no record that Hubbert ever disavowed Howard Scott or Technocracy Inc.


The core of the Technocrats' vision was "an energy theory of value." Since the basic measure common to the production of all goods and services was energy, they reasoned that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy. Hubbert proposed, We distribute purchasing power in the form of energy certificates to the public, the amount issued to each being equivalent to his pro rata share of the energy-cost of the consumer goods and services to be produced during the balanced-load period for which the certificates are issued. These certificates bear the identification of the person to whom issued and are non-negotiable. [xxii]


In effect the Hubbert energy-regulated economic system would insure that as oil reserves declined in availability as the primary energy source for a country or the world as a whole, the disposable income or standard of living would sink along with it. The theme was to be revisited several times in later decades by the Rockefeller circles and their various organizations and think tanks.


During the Second World War, Hubbert had served in the Federal Governments Board of Economic Warfare until 1943, when he went to Shell Petroleum Company to make his career as a geophysicist. Thus the eccentric technocrat who worked for Big Oil, promoting their myth that oil was running out, understood the basics of how oil could be used as a weapon of economic warfare. Whether he realized it or not, in 1956 that weapon was turned against the American people, not against any external enemy.


Hubbert was rewarded for his effort by the powerful oil establishment. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1957; he received the Geological Society of America's Arthur L. Day Medal in 1959, and became the society's president in 1962, giving an aura of prestige and credibility to his thesis of oil peaking.[xxiii]


Big oil uses Hubbert


As it happened, continental US oil output did decline after 1970, but for quite different reasons than Hubberts alleged imminent exhaustion of fossilized dinosaur goo or algae. Domestic US oil production went from a peak of 11.3 million barrels a day in 1970 to 10.5 million a day in 1974. The reason, however, was not depletion of oil. Rather it was US oil majors flooding US oil markets with cheaper Middle East oil, where imports grew from 23% of total US oil supply in 1970 to some 36% in 1974. Hundreds of smaller oil companies simply shut down their wells, unable to compete with the giant Standard Oil and other international companies. [xxiv]


Using Hubbert's pseudo-scientific paper, the major oil companies begged the US Congress for preferred tax treatment to offset the "risk" of importing oil from fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and now Iran. Since the CIA coup in 1953 that restored the rule of the Rockefeller-friendly Shah of Iran, a new flood of cheap Iranian oil was now controlled by US oil majors for the first time.[xxv] 


Essentially, Big Oil argued that their Middle East oil operations should get tax benefits and other preferential treatment over domestic US oil -- oil that in any case soon would decline. They could point to the work of Hubbert as "proof." 


The big oil majors, using Hubberts pseudo-science as backup, argued in Washington that their Mideast oil was a US national security priority. A joint report by the US State and Defense Departments in the 1950s noted, American and British oil companies . . . play a vital role in supplying o­ne of the free worlds most essential commodities. The maintenance of, and avoiding harmful interference with, an activity so crucial to the well-being and security of the United States and the rest of the free world must be a major objective of United States government policy. [xxvi]


Seven Powerful Sisters


What was not so openly stated was that the major US and UK oil companies enjoyed a freedom of action during the postwar period that scarcely any other American corporations enjoyed. They were more or less given free reign over the structures and operations of world oil markets, something that would later have ominous consequences, leading the world into countless wars and conflicts over oil. In 1952, a US Senate Select Committee o­n Small Business released a report titled The International Petroleum Cartel. The report showed that the seven largest oil companies -- Anglo-Iranian (BP), Royal Dutch Shell, Standard of New Jersey (Exxon), Standard of New York (Socony Mobil), Gulf Oil, Texaco, and Standard of California (Socal, later Chevron) controlled 88% of the oil reserves outside the United States and the Soviet Union.[xxvii] 


Those seven companies, nicknamed the Seven Sisters, controlled the majority of the oil-producing areas outside the United States and all foreign refineries. They divided up the world markets, sharing pipelines and tankers among themselves, and fixing oil prices worldwide. 


Meanwhile, in 1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War, had become the US President and John Foster Dulles, former head of the Rockefeller Foundation and a Standard Oil attorney, was Eisenhower's Secretary of State. 


The result was that the monopoly power of the Rockefeller oil cartel became a forgotten issue in Washington; the new foreign policy mythology became "anti-communism." It was indeed an Anglo-American oil world in the 1950s, and the Rockefeller group controlled that world, at least outside the United States.


In 1953, in o­ne of its first moves to expand their control, CIA head Allen Dulles and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had persuaded Eisenhower to authorize a CIA-backed coup to oust popular nationalist Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who was in a bitter battle with British Petroleum, then called Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Iranian Parliament had voted to nationalize Anglo-Iranian following the company's repeated refusals to renegotiate better terms with Iran. The British government, owner of 51% of Anglo-Iranian shares, discussed the possibility of an invasion of Iran to occupy the area around Abadans oil refineries, o­n the Persian Gulf. By 1952 the US Government authorized a covert operation to depose the popular nationalist Mossadeq and bring back the despotic Shah as their proxy. 


The CIA, with British MI-6 support, began a well-financed subversive action against Mossadeq, painting him falsely in US and Western media as sympathetic to the Soviet Union for his call to legally nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil. The CIA coup, led by Kermit Roosevelt, forced Mossadeq out of office and, with US backing, and abundant bribes to religious leaders, a brutal dictatorship under the Shah was returned to Tehran. 


As quid pro quo for the CIA helping their British cousins, Washington extracted a heavy price o­n behalf of the Rockefeller oil group. What had been the sole domain of British oil since 1908 now had to be shared with the American Rockefeller companies. British Petroleum, as the company was renamed after the coup, would henceforth get a mere 40% share of Iranian oil. Each of the five Rockefeller-linked US sisters got 8% or a total of 40%, and Shell got 14%, while the weaker French CFP got 6%. 


The CIA oil coup in Iran was a major signal to other oil producing countries not to get any ideas of nationalizing their oil and gaining independence from Washington or from Big Oil. 


Middle East oil was the lowest cost oil o­n the world market in the early 1950s, by far. At that time, the sentiment in both the White House and the US Congress was that defending domestic oil production and reducing dependence o­n high-risk Middle East oil was the "national security" priority.[xxviii] 


The redefinition of oil in the Middle East as a US national security priority during the Eisenhower years, therefore, was a complete reversal of the conventional notion of national security in terms of vital commodities and raw materials -- which had argued that support of essential domestic supply sources ought to have priority. It was a geopolitical shift and the wellspring for continuous oil wars ever since, either directly involving the United States as belligerent -- as in Iraq -- or via surrogates, as in the US-instigated Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88.


Few during the height of the Cold War and the height of McCarthyism dared challenge national security arguments. For Mobil, Chevron and the other so-called Seven Sister Anglo-American oil majors of the time, the economics of controlling Mideast oil were staggeringly favorable. They simply set out to redefine the term "US national Security." 


With their other tax concessions from Washington added in, the American oil majors could lift crude oil from the ground in Saudi Arabia during the 1950s for less than $0.20 a barrel and sell it in the US refinery markets or in Europe for some $3.00 or more a barrel, a profit of at least 1200%. The o­nly commodity that came close to such rates of return was illegal heroin traded from Laos and Burma -- where the cost of transport was subsidized unwittingly by the American taxpayer in the form of supporting the CIAs Air America during the Vietnam War.[xxix]


By sheer force of the Big Oil lobby in Washington and their bankers o­n Wall Street, led by Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank, the imports of cheaper Middle East oil into the United States overwhelmed the argument for more domestic oil production. 


The shift from domestic to imported oil reliance that began towards the end of the 1950s and accelerated into the 1960s, paralleled the rise of US military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East. Contrary to what had been considered prudent during the early 1950s, the powerful propaganda machine of the Rockefeller faction managed now to define US "national security" as controlling the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Persian Gulf. It would prove to be a fateful re-definition.


By the beginning of the 1970s, the strategic importance of Middle East oil to the US economy and to the Western world had become paramount. King Hubbert's prediction of a peak in domestic US oil production by 1970 came to pass, more or less like clockwork in 1970. 


By the early 1970s, with the United States and Western Europe increasingly dependent o­n Middle East oil as never before, the stage was set for the boldest manipulation of world oil markets yet. The leading US and British oil titans, along with the most select bankers of New York and the City of London and a handful of high-ranking government officials from the United States and Western Europe met in a high security island retreat just outside Stockholm, Sweden to lay the groundwork for a global oil price shock. 


They were about to test the reactions of the world to a deliberate 400% rise in the dollar price of oil, the most dramatic application of their oil weapon -- their silent weapon for quiet wars. Hubbert's greatest day of glory was about to come.   



[i] Mark Hulbert, Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, and the Shah's money..., New York, Richardson & Snyder, 1982, pp. 40-41. 


[ii] The Rockefeller Archive Center, Laurance S. Rockefeller, accessed in http://www.rockarch.org/bio/laurance.php#lsr14


[iii] New York Council o­n Foreign Relations, History of the CFR: The Inquiry, accessed in the official CFR website, http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/inquiry.html. Carefully omitting the role of bankers from J.P. Morgan, the City of London and the Rockefeller group in establishing the Anglo-American alliance that became the CFR, the most influential foreign policy think-tank in world history, the official CFR text merely states, On May 30, 1919, a little group of diplomats and scholars from Britain and the United States convened at the Hotel Majestic, billet of the British delegation, to discuss how their fellowship could be sustained after the peace. They proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with o­ne branch in London, the other in New York, making it sound like a reunion of an Odd Fellows lodge. 


[iv] F. William Engdahl, Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century, 2010, Edition.Engdahl, Wiesbaden, p. 272-274.


[v] Wyatt Wells, Looking the Other Way: Petroleum Antitrust and the formation of the postwar world, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, p. 195.


[vi] Current Biography Yearbook, Wassily Leontief, The H.W. Wilson Company, New York, 1967, pp. 248-249. See also Polenske, Karen R.(1999) 'Wassily W. Leontief, 1905-99', Economic Systems Research, 11: 4, 341 348.


[vii] Ibid. 2


[viii] For a fascinating if controversial discussion of the application of the Leontief project, refer to a document which was putatively authored by Hartford Van Dyke in 1979 under the published title, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, and the sub-title, Operations Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1. While much of the legend surrounding the alleged discovery of the document in a copy machine in an Air Force base can best be ignored, the content of the actual document makes fascinating and highly plausible reading. The 1956 paper of M. King Hubbert, as well as other statements o­n economic matters, and http://www.technocracytechnate.org/index.php?topic=3.0, a four-hour interview with Stephen B Andrews o­n March 8, 1988, fit remarkably well the energy-as-social-control model described in Van Dykes Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars the idea of using control of energy for the economy as the governor of all social life. See Hartford Van Dyke, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars An Introduction Programming Manual, accessed in http://www.rexresearch.com/dyke/slntwpn.htm.


[ix] Wassily W. Leontief, The World Economy of the Year 2000, Scientific American, September 1980, Vol. 243, No. 3, pp. 166-181. 


[x] John M. Blair, The Control of Oil, New York, Pantheon Books, 1976, pp. 197-199. 


[xi] M. King Hubbert, Interview with Ronald Doel, in Bethesda, MD, January 27, 1989, accessed in http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5031_6.html


[xii] M. King Hubbert, Energy Resources, National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1962, p. 43.


[xiii] Michael T. Halbouty, The United States is not 'Drilled Out,' entered by US Congressman Ron Paul into the Congressional Record, February 20, 1980, E 693. 


[xiv] M. King Hubbert, Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels, American Petroleum Institute paper presented March 7, 1956, Publication no. 95, Shell Development Corporation, Houston Texas, June 1956, accessed in www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf.


[xv] Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 135. 


[xvi] M. King Hubbert, Interview with Ronald Doel in Bethesda, MD, January 27, 1989, accessed in http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5031_6.html


[xvii] Ibid.


[xviii] Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Claude Comtois and Brian Slack, World Annual Oil Production (1900-2008) and Peak Oil (2010 Scenario), in The Geography of Transport Systems, 2009, New York: Routledge, accessed in  http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html


[xix] M. King Hubbert, Determining the Most Probable, Technocracy, Series A, No. 12, June 1938, reprinted in http://www.technocracyinc.org.


[xx] William E. Aikin, Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocracy Movement 1900-1941, University of California Press, 1977, p. 101.


[xxi] Website of Technocracy Incorporated, Statement of the Social Objectives of Technocracy, 1933, accessed in web.archive.org/web/20010730223951/www.technocracy.org/articles/social-objectives.html


[xxii] Robert L. Hickerson, Hubberts Prescription for Survival: A Steady State Economy, March 1, 1995, accessed in www.mkinghubbert-technocracy.blogspot.com


[xxiii] National Academy of Sciences, Letter to Members:A Tribute to M. King Hubbert, Volume 19--Number 4, April 1990, Washington D.C., reprinted in http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/tribute.htm


[xxiv] Federal Energy Administration, Project Independence Blueprint, Interagency Taskforce o­n Oil, Oil: Possible Levels of Future Production, Final Task Force Report, pt. 5, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1974, p. II-9. This decline in domestic US oil output owing to cheaper Middle East imports pushing out domestic US production has been confirmed in numerous interviews with independent oil producers over years with the author, from Texas to Ohio to New Mexico and California. It is a chapter rarely discussed in the debate over energy.


[xxv] For an annotated account of the Mossadegh coup see F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, 2004, Pluto Press, London, pp. 91-96.


[xxvi] Wyatt Wells, Antitrust and the formation of the postwar world--Looking the Other Way: Petroleum, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 187-189.


[xxvii] Ibid., p. 196-197


[xxviii] Craufurd D. Goodwin, op. cit., pp. 223-239. 


[xxix] For more o­n the CIA role in Asian heroin traffic during the 1960s, see Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, Lawrence Hill Books, revised 1991 edition.


Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203

                      See below



 See below

Hello Dear Readers,


By the year 2022 the entire world was deep into what was the worst energy crisis in the o­ne hundred year history of the Petroleum Age. Major global media was careful to confuse cause and effect such that most people believed it was caused by the Russian military action in Ukraine. The truth is quite other. A carefully-crafted Green Agenda 2030 with support of the Brussels EU Commission and the Biden Administration in Washington was driving an agenda that was actually drafted in Wall Street and the City of London. It had little to do with Russia. I share with you my analysis of the new investment model which has been adopted by major Wall Street investors and banks known as ESG investing. How it is working is something that has been carefully hidden from most.


If you havent yet done so, please consider support for my o­nline voice. The relentless censorship of the Internet and social media by the private corporate social media companies since the 2020 Corona virus, and now the war in Ukraine, is alarming and damaging and can o­nly be compared with book burnings in the Germany of the 1930s, or the Medieval Inquisitions with torture of heretics.


I thank you for your interest and support,


William Engdahl



How Blackrocks Larry Fink Created the Global Energy Crisis

By F. William Engdahl 

15 November, 2022


Most people are bewildered by what is a global energy crisis, with prices for oil, gas and coal simultaneously soaring and even forcing closure of major industrial plants such as chemicals or aluminum or steel. The Biden Administration and EU have insisted that all is because of Putin and Russias military actions in Ukraine. This is not the case. The energy crisis is a long-planned strategy of western corporate and political circles to dismantle industrial economies in the name of a dystopian Green Agenda. That has its roots in the period years well before February 2022, when Russia launched its military action in Ukraine. 


BlackRock pushes ESG


In January, 2020 o­n the eve of the economically and socially devastating covid lockdowns, the CEO of the worlds largest investment fund, Larry Fink of Blackrock, issued a letter to Wall Street colleagues and corporate CEOs o­n the future of investment flows. In the document, modestly titled A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance, Fink, who manages the worlds largest investment fund with some $7 trillion then under management, announced a radical departure for corporate investment. Money would go green. In his closely-followed 2020 letter Fink declared, In the near future and sooner than most anticipate there will be a significant re-allocation of capitalClimate risk is investment risk. Further he stated, Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change. [i]


In a separate letter to Blackrock investor clients, Fink delivered the new agenda for capital investing. He declared that Blackrock will exit certain high-carbon investments such as coal, the largest source of electricity for the USA and many other countries. He added that Blackrock would screen new investment in oil, gas and coal to determine their adherence to the UN Agenda 2030 sustainability.


Fink made clear the worlds largest fund would begin to disinvest in oil, gas and coal.  Over time, Fink wrote, companies and governments that do not respond to stakeholders and address sustainability risks will encounter growing skepticism from the markets, and in turn, a higher cost of capital. He added that, Climate change has become a defining factor in companies long-term prospects we are o­n the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance. [ii]


 From that point o­n the so-called ESG investing, penalizing CO2 emitting companies like ExxonMobil, has become all the fashion among hedge funds and Wall Street banks and investment funds including State Street and Vanguard. Such is the power of Blackrock. Fink was also able to get four new board members in ExxonMobil committed to end the companys oil and gas business.


The January 2020 Fink letter was a declaration of war by big finance against the conventional energy industry. BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force o­n Climate-related Financial Disclosures (the TCFD) and is a signatory of the UN PRI Principles for Responsible Investing, a UN-supported network of investors pushing zero carbon investing using the highly-corrupt ESG criteriaEnvironmental, Social and Governance factors into investment decisions. There is no objective control over fak data for a companys ESG. As well Blackrock signed the Vaticans 2019 statement advocating carbon pricing regimes. BlackRock in 2020 also joined Climate Action 100, a coalition of almost 400 investment managers managing US$40 trillion.


With that fateful January 2020 CEO letter, Larry Fink set in motion a colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector. Notably, that same year BlackRocks Fink was named to the Board of Trustees of Klaus Schwabs dystopian World Economic Forum, the corporate and political nexus of the Zero Carbon UN Agenda 2030. In June 2019, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a strategic partnership framework to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. WEF has a Strategic Intelligence platform which includes Agenda 2030s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.


In his 2021 CEO letter, Fink doubled down o­n the attack o­n oil, gas and coal. Given how central the energy transition will be to every companys growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy, Fink wrote. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, where BlackRock goes, others will follow. [iii]


In just two years, by 2022 an estimated $1 trillion has exited investment in oil and gas exploration and development globally. Oil extraction is an expensive business and cut-off of external investment by BlackRock and other Wall Street investors spells the slow death of the industry.


BidenA BlackRock President?


Early in his then-lackluster Presidential bid, Biden had a closed door meeting in late 2019 with Fink who reportedly told the candidate that, Im here to help. After his fateful meeting with BlackRocks Fink, candidate Biden announced, We are going to get rid of fossil fuels In December 2020, even before Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, he named BlackRock Global Head of Sustainable Investing, Brian Deese, to be Assistant to the President and Director of the National Economic Council. Here, Deese, who played a key role for Obama in drafting the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, has quietly shaped the Biden war o­n energy. 


This has been catastrophic for the oil and gas industry. Finks man Deese was active in giving the new President Biden a list of anti-oil measures to sign by Executive Order beginning day o­ne in January 2021. That included closing the huge Keystone XL oil pipeline that would bring 830,000 barrels per day from Canada as far as Texas refineries, and halting any new leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Biden also rejoined the Paris Climate Accord that Deese had negotiated for Obama in 2015 and Trump cancelled. 


The same day, Biden set in motion a change of the so-called Social Cost of Carbon that imposes a punitive $51 a ton of CO2 o­n the oil and gas industry. That o­ne move, established under purely executive-branch authority without the consent of Congress, is dealing a devastating cost to investment in oil and gas in the US, a country o­nly two years before that was the worlds largest oil producer.[iv]


Killing refinery capacity


Even worse, Bidens aggressive environmental rules and BlackRock ESG investing mandates are killing the US refinery capacity. Without refineries it doesnt matter how many barrels of oil you take from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In the first two years of Bidens Presidency the US has shut down some 1 million barrels a day of gasoline and diesel refining capacity, some due to covid demand collapse, the fastest decline in US history. The shutdowns are permanent. In 2023 an added 1.7 million bpd of capacity is set to close as a result of BlackRock and Wall Street ESG disinvesting and Biden regulations. [v] 


Citing the heavy Wall Street disinvestment in oil and the Biden anti-oil policies, the CEO of Chevron in June 2022 declared that he doesn't believe the US will ever build another new refinery.[vi] 


Larry Fink, Board member of Klaus Schwabs World Economic Forum, is joined by the EU whose President of the EU Commission, the notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen left the WEF Board in 2019 to become EU Commission head. Her first major act in Brussels was to push through the EU Zero Carbon Fit for 55 agenda. That has imposed major carbon taxes and other constraints o­n oil, gas and coal in the EU well before the February 2022 Russian actions in Ukraine.  The combined impact of the Fink fraudulent ESG agenda in the Biden administration and the EU Zero Carbon madness is creating the worst energy and inflation crisis in history. 


[i] Larry Fink, A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance, Letter to CEOs, January, 2020, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2020-blackrock-client-letter


[ii] Ibid.


[iii] Tsvetana Paraskova,  Why Are Investors Turning Their Backs o­n Fossil Fuel Projects?, OilPrice.com,

March 11, 2021, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Are-Investors-Turning-Their-Backs-On-Fossil-Fuel-Projects.html


[iv] Joseph Toomey, Energy Inflation Was by Design, September, 2022, https://assets.realclear.com/files/2022/10/2058_energyinflationwasbydesign.pdf


[v] Ibid.


[vi] Fox Business, Chevron CEO says there may never be another oil refinery built in the US, June 3. 2022, https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chevron-ceo-oil-refinery-built-u-s


Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203


               See below







                           See below


Hello Dear Readers,


Since Klaus Schwab of the Davos World Economic Forum published a book in July 2020 o­n what he called The Great Reset, a technocratic and dystopian agenda using the unprecedented covid lockdowns to push a global economic transformation, governments from Germany to Holland to France to Canada and USA have advanced incredibly destructive economic policies in the name of alleged Global Warming avoidance. What I want to share in this letter are two analyses I have made o­n the dark origins of this Great Reset going back to the early 1970s and a description of what is being pushed top down by select corporate and government circles to reorganize the global economy. Few citizens have the slightest clue what is at stake. Hopefully this provokes some to look more deeply. 


If you havent yet done so, please consider support for my o­nline voice. The relentless censorship of the Internet and social media by the private corporate social media companies since the 2020 Corona virus, and now the war in Ukraine, is alarming and damaging and can o­nly be compared with book burnings in the Germany of the 1930s, or the Medieval Inquisitions with torture of heretics.


I thank you for your interest and support,


William Engdahl



The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

By F. William Engdahl

22 October, 2022


Important to understand is that there is not o­ne single new or original idea in Klaus Schwabs so-called Great Reset agenda for the world. Nor is his Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda his or his claim to having invented the notion of Stakeholder Capitalism a product of Schwab. Klaus Schwab is little more than a slick PR agent for a global technocratic agenda, a corporatist unity of corporate power with government, including the UN, an agenda whose origins go back to the beginning of the 1970s, and even earlier.  The Davos Great reset is merely an updated blueprint for a global dystopian dictatorship under UN control that has been decades in development. The key actors were David Rockefeller and his protégé, Maurice Strong.


In the beginning of the 1970s, there was arguably no o­ne person more influential in world politics than the late David Rockefeller, then largely known as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. 


Creating the new paradigm


At the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the international circles directly tied to David Rockefeller launched a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks. These included The Club of Rome; the 1001: A Nature Trust, tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF); the Stockholm United Nations Earth Day conference; the MIT-authored study, Limits to Growth; and David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.


Club of Rome


In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat's Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO. [i] That was the beginning of what would become the neo-Malthusian people pollute movement. 


In 1971 the Club of Rome published a deeply-flawed report, Limits to Growth, which predicted an end to civilization as we knew it because of rapid population growth, combined with fixed resources such as oil. The report concluded that without substantial changes in resource consumption, "the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity." It was based o­n bogus computer simulations by a group of MIT computer scientists. It stated the bold prediction, If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth o­n this planet will be reached sometime within the next o­ne hundred years. That was 1971. In 1973 Klaus Schwab in his third annual Davos business leader meeting invited Peccei to Davos to present Limits to Growth to assembled corporate CEOs. [ii]


In 1974, the Club of Rome declared boldly, "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." Then: the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over-population, food shortages, non-renewable resource [oil-w.e.] depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance. [iii] They argued that, 


 'horizontal' restructuring of the world system is neededdrastic changes in the norm stratum - that is, in the value system and the goals of man - are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place. [iv]

In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome further argued:


Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based o­n global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. [v]


That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda2030 and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.


David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong


By far the most influential organizer of Rockefellers zero growth agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller's longtime friend, a billionaire oilman named Maurice Strong. Canadian Maurice Strong was o­ne of the key early propagators of the scientifically fraudulent theory that man-made CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens the planet, so-called Global Warming. 


As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to "save the environment." Strong stated his radical ecologist agenda: "Isnt the o­nly hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about? [vi] This is what is now taking place under cover of a hyped global pandemic.


Strong was a curious choice to head a major UN initiative to mobilize action o­n the environment, as his career and his considerable fortune had been built o­n exploitation of oil, like an unusual number of the new advocates of ecological purity, such as David Rockefeller or Robert O. Anderson of Aspen Institute or Shell's John Loudon. 


Strong had met David Rockefeller in 1947 as a young Canadian high school dropout of eighteen and from that point, his career became tied to the network of the Rockefeller family. [vii] Through his new friendship with David Rockefeller, Strong, at age 18, was given a key UN position under UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. The UNs funds were conveniently enough handled by Rockefellers Chase Bank. This was typical of the model of public-private partnership to be deployed by Strongprivate gain from public government. [viii]


In the 1960s Strong had become president of the huge Montreal energy conglomerate and oil company known as Power Corporation, then owned by the influential Paul Desmarais. Power Corporation was reportedly also used as a political slush fund to finance campaigns of select Canadian politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, father of Davos protégé Justin Trudeau, according to Canadian investigative researcher, Elaine Dewar. [ix]


Earth Summit I and Rio Earth Summit


By 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations in New York and Secretary General of the upcoming Earth Day conference, United Nations Conference o­n the Human Environment (Earth Summit I) in Stockholm, Sweden. He was also named that year as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation who financed his launch of the Stockholm Earth Day project. [x] In Stockholm the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created with Strong as its head. 


By 1989 Strong was named by the UN Secretary General to head the 1992 UN Conference o­n Environment and Development or UNCED (Rio Earth Summit II). He oversaw the drafting of the UN Sustainable Environment goals there, the Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development that forms the basis of Klaus Schwabs Great Reset, as well as creation of the Intergovernmental Panel o­n Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN. Strong, who was also a board member of Davos WEF, had arranged for Schwab to serve as a key adviser to the Rio Earth Summit. 


As Secretary General of the UN Rio Conference, Strong also commissioned a report from the Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King which admitted that the CO2 global warming claim was merely an invented ruse to force change:


            The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is o­nly through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. [xi]


President Clintons delegate to Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted the same, stating, We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." [xii]


At Rio Strong first introduced the manipulative idea of sustainable society defined in relation this arbitrary goal of eliminating CO2 and other so-called Greenhouse Gases. Agenda 21 became Agenda 2030 in Sept 2015 in Rome, with the Popes blessing, with 17 sustainable goals. It declared among other items,


 Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injusticeSocial justice, urban renewal, and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can o­nly 'be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole."


In short private land ownership must become socialized for society as a whole, an idea well-known in Soviet Union days, and a key part of the Davos Great Reset. 


At Rio in 1992 where he was chairman and General Secretary, Strong declared:


            It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing  are not sustainable. [xiii] (emphasis added)


Strong did not heed his own call. What Strong did not tell his environmentalist allies at Rio was that he had also made a huge purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, from Saudi arms dealer and CIA asset, Adnan Khashoggi. 


By that time Strong was at the very center of the transformation of the UN into the vehicle for imposing a new global technocratic fascism by stealth, using dire warnings of planet extinction and global warming, merging government agencies with corporate power in an unelected control of pretty much everything, under the fraudulent cover of sustainability. In 1997 Strong oversaw creation of the action plan following the Earth Summit, The Global Diversity Assessment, a blueprint for the roll out of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, an inventory of every resource o­n the planet, how it would be controlled, and how this revolution would be achieved. [xiv]


At this time Strong was co-chairman of Klaus Schwabs Davos World Economic Forum. In 2015 o­n Strongs death, Davos founder Klaus Schwab wrote, He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board. [xv]


Before he was forced to leave the UN in disgrace over an Iraq Food-for-Oil corruption scandal, Strong was member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Rothschild Foundation.  Strong was also a director of the occult Temple of Understanding of the Lucifer Trust (aka Lucis Trust) housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, where pagan rituals include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for blessing. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a sermon, as worshippers marched to the altar with bowls of compost and worms [xvi]


This is the dark origin of Schwabs Great Reset agenda where we should eat worms and have no private property in order to save the planet. The agenda is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate billions of us ordinary humans.



The Great Zero Carbon Conspiracy and the WEFs Great Reset
F. William Engdahl                                                          

Global Research, October 24, 2022


First published with foresight o­n February 8, 2021


The globalist Davos World Economic Forum is proclaiming the necessity of reaching a worldwide goal of net zero carbon by 2050. This for most sounds far in the future and hence largely ignored. Yet transformations underway from Germany to the USA, to countless other economies, are setting the stage for creation of what in the 1970s was called the New International Economic Order. 


In reality it is a blueprint for a global technocratic totalitarian corporativism, o­ne that promises huge unemployment, deindustrialization and economic collapse by design. Consider some background. 


Klaus Schwabs World Economic Forum (WEF) is currently promoting his favorite theme, the Great Reset of the world economy. The key to it all is understanding what the globalists mean by Net Zero Carbon by 2050. 


The EU is leading the race, with a bold plan to become the worlds first carbon neutral continent by 2050 and reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030. 


In an August, 2020 post o­n his blog, self-appointed global vaccine czar Bill Gates wrote about the coming crisis in climate:


As awful as this pandemic is, climate change could be worse The relatively small decline in emissions this year makes o­ne thing clear: We cannot get to zero emissions simplyor even mostlyby flying and driving less.


With a virtual monopoly o­n mainstream media as well as social media, the Global Warming lobby has been able to lead much of the world into assuming that the best for mankind is to eliminate hydrocarbons including petroleum, natural gas, coal and even the carbon free nuclear electricity by 2050, that we hopefully might avoid a 1.5 to 2 degree Centigrade rise in average world temperature. There is o­nly o­ne problem with this. Its cover for a diabolical ulterior agenda. 


Origins of Global Warming 


Many have forgotten the original scientific thesis put forward to justify a radical shift in our energy sources. It was not climate change. Earth climate is constantly changing, correlated to changes in the emission of solar flares or sunspot cycles affecting Earth climate. 


Around the turn of the millennium as the previous solar-led warming cycle was no longer evident, Al Gore and others shifted the narrative in a linguistic sleight-of-hand to Climate Change, from Global Warming. Now the fear narrative has gotten so absurd that every freak weather event is treated as climate crisis. Every hurricane or winter storm is claimed as proof that the Climate Gods are punishing us sinful CO2 emitting humans. 


But wait. The entire reason for the transition to alternative energy sources such as solar or wind, and abandoning carbon energy sources, is their claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that somehow goes up to the atmosphere where it forms a blanket that supposedly warms the Earth belowGlobal Warming. Greenhouse gas emissions according to the US Environmental Protection Agency come mostly from CO2. Hence the focus o­n carbon footprints. 


What is almost never said is that CO2 cannot soar up into the atmosphere from car exhaust or coal plants or other manmade origins. Carbon dioxide is not carbon or soot. It is an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis and all life forms o­n earth, including us. CO2 has a molecular weight of just over 44 while air (mainly oxygen and nitrogen) has a molecular weight of o­nly 29. 


The specific gravity of CO2 is some 1.5 times greater than air. That would suggest that CO2 exhaust gases from vehicles or power plants do not rise into the atmosphere some 12 miles or more above Earth to form the feared greenhouse effect.


Why Do NATO States Commit Energy Hara Kiri? Green Zero Carbon Madness. Industrial Collapse?



Maurice Strong 


To appreciate what criminal action is unfolding today around Gates, Schwab and advocates of an alleged sustainable world economy, we must go back to 1968 when David Rockefeller and friends created a movement around the idea that human consumption and population growth were the major world problem. Rockefeller, whose wealth was based o­n oil, created the neo-Malthusian Club of Rome at the Rockefeller villa in Bellagio, Italy. Their first project was to fund a junk study at MIT called Limits to Growth in 1972. 


A key organizer of Rockefellers zero growth agenda in the early 1970s was his longtime friend, a Canadian oilman named Maurice Strong, also a Club of Rome member. In 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations and Secretary General of the June 1972 Stockholm Earth Day conference. He was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.


Maurice Strong was a key early propagator of the scientifically unfounded theory that man-made emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens civilization, so-called Global Warming. He invented the elastic term sustainable development. 


As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to save the environment. Some years later the same Strong stated


Isnt the o­nly hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?


This is the agenda today known as the Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030. Strong went o­n to create the UN Inter-governmental Panel o­n Climate Change (IPCC), a political body which advances the unproven claim that manmade CO2 emissions were about to tip our world into irreversible ecological catastrophe. 


Co-founder of the Club of Rome, Dr Alexander King, admitted the essential fraud of their environmental agenda some years later in his book, The First Global Revolution. He stated:


In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is o­nly through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. 


King admitted that the threat of global warming was merely a ploy to justify an attack o­n humanity itself. This is now is being rolled out as the Great Reset and the Net Zero Carbon ruse. 


Alternative Energy Disaster


In 2011, acting o­n the advice of Joachim Schnellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Angela Merkel and the German government imposed a total ban o­n nuclear electricity by 2022, as part of a 2001 government strategy called the Energiewende or Energy Turn, to rely o­n solar and wind and other renewables. The aim was to make Germany the first industrial nation to be carbon neutral.


The strategy has been an economic catastrophe. Going from having o­ne of the industrial worlds most stable low-cost and reliable electric generation grids, today Germany has become the worlds most expensive electric generator. According to the German energy industry association BDEW, at the latest by 2023 when the last nuclear plant closes, Germany will face electricity shortfalls. 


At the same time coal, the largest source of electric power, is being phased out to reach Net Zero Carbon. Traditional energy-intensive industries such as steel, glass production, basic chemicals, paper and cement manufacturing, are facing soaring costs and shutdowns or offshoring and loss of millions of skilled jobs. The energy inefficient wind and solar, today costs some 7 to 9 times more than gas.


Germany has little sun compared with tropical countries, so wind is seen as the major source for green power. There is a huge input of concrete and aluminum needed to produce solar or wind farms. That needs cheap energygas or coal or nuclearto produce. As that is phased out, cost becomes prohibitive, even with no added carbon taxes.


Germany already has some 30,000 wind turbines, more than anywhere else in the EU. The gigantic wind turbines have serious problems of noise or infrasound health hazards for residents nearby the huge structures and weather and bird damage. By 2025 an estimated 25% of existing German windmills will need replacement and waste disposal is a colossal problem. The companies are being sued as the citizens realize what a disaster they are. To reach targets by 2030 Deutsche Bank recently admitted the state will need to create an eco dictatorship.


At the same time the German push to end gasoline or diesel transport by 2035 in favor of e-vehicles is o­n course to destroy Germanys largest and most profitable industry, the auto sector, and take down millions of jobs. The lithium-ion battery-powered vehicles have a total carbon footprint when the effects of mining lithium and producing all parts are included, that is worse than diesel autos. 


And the amount of added electricity needed for a zero carbon Germany by 2050 would be far more than today, as millions of battery chargers will need grid electricity with reliable power. Now Germany and the EU begin to impose new carbon taxes, allegedly to finance the transition to zero carbon. The taxes will o­nly make electric power and energy even more expensive, insuring the faster collapse of German industry. 




According to those advancing the Zero Carbon agenda, it is just what they desire: the deindustrialization of the most advanced economies, a calculated decades-long strategy as Maurice Strong said, to bring about the collapse of industrialized civilizations.


To turn the present world industrial economy backward to a wood-burning, windmill turning dystopia where blackouts become the norm as now in California, is an essential part of a Great Reset transformation under the Agenda 2030: UN Global Compact for Sustainability. 


Merkel climate adviser, Joachim Schnellnhuber, in 2015 presented the radical green agenda of Pope Francis, the encyclical letter, Laudato Si, as Francis appointee to the Pontifical Academy of Science. And he advised the EU o­n its green agenda. In a 2015 interview, Schnellnhuber declared that science has now determined that the maximum carrying capacity of a sustainable human population was some six billion fewer people: 


In a very cynical way, its a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something - namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.


To do that the industrialized world must be dismantled. Christiana Figueres, a World Economic Forum Agenda Contributor and former executive secretary of the UNs Framework Convention o­n Climate Change, revealed the true aim of the UN climate agenda in a February 2015 Brussels press conference where she stated, This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.


Figueres 2015 remarks are echoed today by French President Macron at the January 2021 World Economic Forums Davos Agenda where he claimed that under the current circumstances, the capitalist model and open economy are no longer feasible. Macron, a former Rothschild banker, claimed that the only way to get out of this epidemic is to create an economy that is more focused o­n eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor. Merkel, Macron, Gates, Schwab and friends will do so by bringing living standards in Germany and the OECD down to levels of Ethiopia or Sudan. This is their zero carbon dystopia. Severely limit air travel, car travel, people movement, closing polluting industry, all to reduce CO2. Uncanny how conveniently the coronavirus pandemic sets the stage for the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030 Net Zero Carbon.



[i] Biographies of 1001 Nature Trust members, Gianni Agnelli, accessed in http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm


[ii] Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum: A Partner in Shaping History--The First 40 Years: 1971 2010,

2009, World Economic Forum, p. 15, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_First40Years_Book_2010.pdf


[iii] Quoted from Club of Rome Report, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, cited in http://www.green-agenda.com/turningpoint.html


[iv] Ibid.


[v] The Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, quoted in Brent Jessop, Mankind at the Turning Point - Part 2 - Creating A o­ne World Consciousness, accessed in http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=154


[vi] Maurice Strong, Opening Speech to UN Rio Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, 1992, accessed in http://www.infowars.com/maurice-strong-in-1972-isnt-it-our-responsibility-to-collapse-industrial-societies/


[vii] Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green: The Links between key environmental groups, government and big business, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1995, pp. 259-265.


[viii] Brian Akira, LUCIFERS UNITED NATIONS, http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/religion_cults/news.php?q=1249755048


[ix] Elaine Dewar, op cit. p. 269-271. 


[x] Ibid., p. 277.


[xi] What is Agenda 21/2030 Whos behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/


[xii] Larry Bell, Agenda 21: The U.N.'s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The Clouds, Forbes, June 14, 2011, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/14/the-u-n-s-earth-summit-has-its-head-in-the-clouds/?sh=5af856a687ca


[xiii] John Izzard, Maurice Strong , Climate Crook, 2 December, 2015, https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/


[xiv] What is Agenda 21/2030 Whos behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/


[xv] Maurice Strong An Appreciation by Klaus Schwab, 2015, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/maurice-strong-an-appreciation


[xvi] Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The UN, Maurice Strong, Crestone/Baca, CO, and the New World Religion, September 2017, https://naturalclimatechange.org/new-world-religion/part-i/


Strasse der Republik 17
Wiesbaden Hessen 65203



© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005