Francis Parker Yockey observed that natural resources will be the PRETEXTS for war, and not their principal causes. Engdahl's "A Century of War" points out the use of oil as the main lever of political and economic power by the successors of The British Empire, including the U.S.A., which never left what is actually The Judeo-British Empire, alias The New World Order. This empire gains profit and power through its manipulation and control of oil supplies and the related bankster activities, hence the Wreckafellers' banking enterprises.

Let us assume that North America actually faced an oil shortage. Oil is merely one source of energy, although its use has been exaggerated by the promotional efforts of the petroleum and automotive interests, and the dumb sheeple have stampeded into their corral. The writer of the 1950s book, "The Insolent Chariots", whose name escapes me at this moment (Keats?) was at least as critical and thorough as Ralph Nader, in regard to the economic and demographic distortions created by our addiction to the automobile. At his time of writing, at least one out of seven workers in the U.S.A. depended upon the automotive industry, directly, for his employment. Keats also mentioned that the U.S. auto makers were not primarily in the car manufacturing business, but money-lending, for the real profits were not made when someone paid cash up front for his "jukebox on wheels", but when he began installment payments, with interest. Such a deal!

Keats also mentioned that Americans no longer make grocery lists. If a shopper forgets to buy that little box of tacks, he or she thinks nothing of firing up their respective gas guzzlers and driving that ton of metal to the store and back. In other words, automobile use has substituted in large part for thinking. Perhaps the biggest fear that Americans have about an oil shortage is that it may force them to THINK, and to behave in a more efficient and disciplined manner in their daily lives. Scarcity has that effect in White or Asian peoples, but not the others, I have observed.

Let's say the automotive industry were to get a divorce from the petroleum industry, on behalf of maximizing automobile sales and use: they could run cars on alcohol, but if they insisted on using gasoline, oil could be made from coal, which is abundant, according to the German "formula". This was tried during one of the Eisenhower administrations and it resulted in oil that was slightly more expensive than the current petrobandit price per barrel. The pilot plant was scrapped and its existence consigned to The Memory Hole. South Africa made their oil from coal, using the same process, so it really isn't a big secret. I'm sure that any organic chemist could come up with something similar, off the top of his or her head. Another writer said that we could pay more for gasoline if we insisted on using so much of it.

Other writers have questioned the 'necessity' for living so far from one's workplace, unless one is a traveling salesman. I have noted the L.A. rush hour: the traffic is as dense in all directions, whereas the San Francisco rush hour is mainly inbound mornings and outbound at 5:00 p.m. This pattern indicates that most people who work in San Francisco cannot afford to live there. Los Angeles has no such sane excuse. What that traffic pattern indicates is that people who work in the west live in the east; people who work in the south live in the north, and vice versa. This is true from all points of the compass. It would seem more practical for everyone to exchange residences and/or jobs so this noxious and time-wasting swarming could be avoided to a great extent. If residence must be decentralized for some inscrutable reason, then retailers and employers might locate closer to the people and vice versa. I have avoided car ownership for decades because I arrange to live close to my workplace. We North Americans are nomads, because of our employment conditions, which require even top executives to relocate, not just us peons and wage-slaves.

Let's imagine that we had a serious and long term oil shortage. We lived quite well before oil became 'the opiate of the masses', so we could examine the past for our key to the future. We have become accustomed to lavish expenditures of all forms of energy and resources, such as oil, water and electricity. I note that people do not wear a jacket, but turn up the heat when they feel a chill. I have found body heat to be self-regulating, and I prefer to heat or cool myself, rather than an entire room or building. Maybe I'm too lazy to run around adjusting thermostats. The 'ideal temperature' depends on what one is doing. Our ancestors wore more clothing than we do in winter, for they rarely had central heating, that was enjoyed by previous civilizations, such as the Romans and their predecessors.

If we were serious about energy-efficiency, we might consider that a ton of cargo can go the same distance on one third the energy by rail, instead of road. Cars use oil and roads use oil, too, in the form of asphalt. Such a deal! This accounts for the automotive petrobanksters' relentless war against rail transport. Only the inherent efficiency of rail transport has allowed for its continued existence. If we were serious about transportation efficiency, we might consider what was done in the past: intercity rail transport of cargo, and intra-city transport of same by truck. This mode of transport has become even more efficient with the use of containers, which can go from ship to rail to truck and back, as necessary, with no time lost for loading, off-loading and reloading, along with damaged and 'lost' items from shipments. Oh, yes, tires also use oil. We also know that the use of roads for cargo-hauling causes them to deteriorate, whereas, railroads can easily handle load-stress, exactly as they were designed to do, when mine owners saw the wagon wheels sink into the mud with their heavy loads, which required extra teams of horses, &c. Paving of roads was tried, with similar results: ruts and potholes, caused by heavy axle loads. Rails made such things irrelevant. As a means of hauling people, railroads still function efficiently as a mode of public transportation. Their limits are obvious: If everyone wants to go everywhere all the time, then trains are incapable of satisfying such demand, but most people need to go to and from limited destinations, such as work and residence, with possible side trips for school and shopping, so this perpetual swarm of people in transit is mainly theoretical. I noted that the L.A. "freeways" follow the old interurban streetcar routes in most cases, so roads do not equate with freedom in terms of random and possibly demented travel-styles. I have also noted that trucks carrying heavy loads use streets with streetcar tracks in cities which still have such things, or their paved-over remains, to avoid pavement damage. It's called "spreading the load" and it reduces destructive stress on roads and road-users. Yes, we can make transportation more efficient, and we can make our lives more efficient by reducing our need for transportation. This means planning and planning means thinking, so this will be the LAST thing we ever do. Once people learn that cars are not really 'personal possessions', but onerous obligations and encumbrances which consume our time and earnings like vampires, will we start that painful process known as thinking. So far, most sheeple think (sic) that driving 2-4 hours every day and paying ad infinitum for this 'privilege' is part of "The American Dream". In fact, it is more of a nightmare to sane people who know that their lives and their incomes are finite.

I do drive on occasion, and I do so with competence, consideration for others and caution. I have driven daily as a commuter, when I could not avoid it, and I have driven across the North American continent, as well as in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia with no accident nor traffic violation. But driving is not a recreation for me. How can it be, when my eyes and attention must be on the road and not on the scenery which flashes by. For me, walking is my favorite form of recreation and transportation. Not only is it cheap, but it is a subtle form of staying well and fit. Why drive, if I can walk?

Of course, "saving oil/energy" is irrelevant if we see it in the capitalist context of infinite production for infinite consumption for an infinitely-increasing population of infinitely consuming creatures, on behalf of infinite profit. Production = resource depletion and pollution. If we do not manage to limit our production and consumption to sustainable levels, we shall poison and impoverish ourselves, similar to the results achieved by the bacteria which produce alcohol as the waste product of their consumption. As I understand, the bacteria kill themselves off around the 12% or 24 proof level of alcohol production. I guess we will learn when our waste products have reached their maximum, along with our resource depletion. Such a deal! Planned obsolescence and disposability make for lots of pollution, whereas production includes pollution and resource depletion. Plastics are largely made of oil, I might mention.

The simple rule is that everything has a price. The price for infinite 'growth' is absolute extinction, but since we can never achieve the infinite nor the absolute, we most likely will achieve an 'optimum' level of misery, with a greatly reduced population, similar to the alcohol-producing bacteria. Those who call me pessimistic are mistaken, for human quality is the important factor in times of scarcity and abundance. If man can think his way into problems, he can also think his way out, whenever he chooses to do so. Since Nature is Nazi, man should learn from Her and conform to Her rules. Obviously, the problems are simple to solve, but the solutions are difficult for those who lack both will and ability.

My experience of the mindless materialism of the 1950s and the scary prospect of a really Big Depression in the present teach me that Plenty and Scarcity are not good nor evil in themselves, for man is the keeper of good or evil, and he can perform wonders or mischief in both extreme conditions. We can look around us and see that I am stating the obvious. From time to time, I do state the obvious, and I am surprised to discover that it is not obvious to others, because they have never looked around themselves with any awareness. My job is similar to a sentry who attempts to waken sleepers and inform them of occurrences which require their immediate attention. At this time I can do no more than this. Evidently, I should do no more than warn and try to inform, for it is anti-Nature to save people from themselves. Salvation can only come from within. If not, Natural Justice will take effect in due course. A religious correspondent asked me if I had been "saved". I said, yes, for salvation is not a destination, but a course of action, a combination of being and doing. Those of us who've been there and done that know what I mean.

A correspondent sent me a copy of my little essay, "We Anglos", with its chilling quote from Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual." A man who can say that is not human, for identity must determine interests, not the reverse. He clearly reveals his lack of loyalty to the people he purported to represent. As DeGaulle said, "Nations do not have friends. They have interests." That is true, as long as there is a national identity by which to identify its interests. If we do not know who we are, we do not know what is good or bad for us. Lack of national identity is our foremost problem in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Without a firm concept of who we are, the greatest efforts will accomplish disaster. Biopolitics must come before geopolitics in the White man's thinking, just as it does for non Whites. Meanwhile They Live. We Sleep. Nationstates are derived from the loins, not from the intellect.

All the best. DOWZ! & ORION!

P.S.: Another 'dog that did not bark in the night' is our suburban lifestyle which pollutes and consumes lots of water for that bane of suburban existence called the lawn. Thorstein Veblen mentioned "the lawn" in his "The Theory of the Leisure Class", as one more item of conspicuous consumption. The lawn began as a meadow around a castle, upon which sheep and other livestock grazed. When a bandit warlord became very rich, he could flaunt his wealth by getting rid of the livestock and hiring gardeners to mow the meadow. Such a deal! The nasty reality is that lawns consume lots of water and the pesticides and fertilizers they seem to require pollute and poison the water table. That's a double-whammy in water-scarce, over-populated Southern California, where our monthly water bill exceeded our electric bill on a normal 3 to 1 ratio. The water went to grow the grass, so we could mow it more often and pay to have the clippings hauled away. It was a pay-as-you-go form of perpetual motion, which lack of water will surely eliminate. At that time, I envisioned high rise apartment buildings in a parkland setting, rather than sprawling suburbs with closely-packed houses and postage stamp sized lawns. That would still be my ideal of suburban living. Park maintenance would be part of the rent, and it would be more lawn for less output of time and money. The parkland would be native plants, rather than artificially maintained golf lawns, and the eco-freaks would have a say, so that water use and pollution could be avoided as much as possible. If one wants green grass all year 'round, he can always buy Astroturf, the alternative to greenpainted stone 'lawns' now appearing in California. People think of suburbs as a source of 'privacy', but many houses I have visited, or lived in, are so flimsy and so close together that one hears coughing and other sound effects from the neighbors' bedrooms and toilets flushing, just as one hears in flimsy apartment buildings. Why pay more for such annoyances?