Skip to content

Scaremongers, Oil Prices and Black Plague

July 21, 2008

With the oil prices that Americans have come to expect, we do have a black plague of sorts: the black and oily kind. However, globalist scaremongers and media malcontents have decided that in references to a global food shortage that only the black plague will do to get your attention. Creating the right note of panic to help a population buy into global warming politics and global governance has proved increasingly successful, so the effort continues.

Farmers burn an incredible amount of fuel to harvest their crops. They use a host of petrochemical products in both protecting and harvesting the food they grow. Costs have increased for everyone and farmers must pass the cost forward to others. Happily, because of the thriving market and higher prices, farmers are making more to assist with higher fuel costs. This isn’t nearly enough for the globally concerned. We are going to die because we can’t support the fuel to run combines and equipment. The extra labor required to substitute for modern equipment can’t support the global food need. Naturally, global thinking indicates that Americans are too lazy to make up the extra labor required anyway.

Global sustainability and human rights professors have decided that the end is near. The nation, hence the world, is totally dependent on oil, which they say will lead to food shortages and global crisis. The scaremongering doesn’t stop there. Dr. Brian Schwartz at Johns Hopkins claims, “We have an industrial model of food production that requires intense amounts of fossil fuels. Food is going to be a huge problem for us.”

That statement is short-sighted and inflammatory, if not outright incorrect. Assuming that farming is a business (it is), farmers pass on the costs of business to consumers. Oil prices are higher for everyone. As a staple, fuel will be used to power food harvesting equipment as a priority. Those costs will be passed on. America will continue to eat, although more expensively unless we are creative and ingenious solutions, like running diesel farm equipment on waste oils that restaurants generate every day. Often, the nation prefers convenience to creativity. That doesn’t sit well with globalist thinking and governance.

However, the panic that globalists aren’t discussing is the current reality of many poorer or third-world nations. They can’t afford to buy the high cost foods or grains and face starvation. The United Nations and other organization have stepped in the gap in an effort to meet the need. Wealthy economies, like the United States, pour billions of dollars yearly in feeding programs for the economically starving. However, the globalists have failed to realize that simply feeding a man is not enough. Teaching a man to be self-reliant or a nation to grow its own food is the cure for the runaway cost of the feeding panic, despite the temptation to blame the weather.

However, because of the empowerment that this bizarre relationship brings to many global organizations, a feeding frenzy is all it will be. There will always be lack because little planning for human welfare beyond the temporary need of feeding is in play. It is the perfect way to create an international guilt complex while draining the national wallets of sympathetic politicians that depend on their wealthier populations for the resources. It is a creative play to level the global playing field for all but the wealthy and powerful.

Authors like Dale Allen Pfeiffer even proclaim that high oil prices will result in food system collapses, resulting in global starvation. This man compares the fallout to the black plague of the middle ages. Doubtless, the high cost of fuel is tough on everyone, including farmers. Some small farmers will cut back on fuel consumption and certain fertilizers to make ends meet. Any resulting shortfalls will fall squarely on the poorest on the planet, largely because the global politics is chiefly concerned with meeting the immediate cause of hunger.

You won’t hear about the huge leaps made in teaching Africans to raise their own food or to learn independence in business. You won’t hear about Malaysians and Asians that are actually making a difference by providing for the local need despite the trials. You hear about the problem spots, the violence, the social panic and unrest created by the very organizations that feed upon the poorest on the planet, all in the name of human rights and better global governance. You have many of these problems because of the governments that reign over the people. The people are hungry and provisionless because their government has failed them or oppresses them. This is a problem of governance and resource management, not a problem of true global lack created by climate problems or a declining earth.

Globalists want you to feel the pain of others and respond with religious fervor. However, the problem rests with man and his willingness to deal with the politics of hunger in a real way, instead of finding a new power structure that simply continues to feed the problem of hunger in a very real way.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. coolheadedLuke permalink
    July 21, 2008 3:03 pm

    Global warming, food shortages (which never cease and never wane), pandemics like aids and bird flu — all are simply manifestations of the United Nations’ never ending bizarre of “good causes” that always, invariably, demand the same response time and again — MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.

    Man-made Global Warming = Hoax (intentional)
    Aids pandemic = Hoax (intentional since about 1995)
    DDT scare = Hoax (wreckless disregard and ego-boost for environmental NGO’s)

    Hundreds of millions in U.N Aid money = fuel for genocidal and maniacal regimes across Africa and other third world nations.

    Stop the madness.
    Stop the madness.

  2. July 21, 2008 2:36 pm

    Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday, 11/10/07. Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

    The judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It is, he ruled, a “political film”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: