Category Archives: Politics

A realistic view of the Democratic presidential race

On 7-11-19, Glen Ford, executive editor of the Black Agenda Report, posted an article entitled “Sanders vs. the Endless Austerity Regime,” in which he cast many doubts on real change occurring as a result of the current election cycle. Let me pick it up somewhere near the middle…

“If you think this column is supportive of the Sanders candidacy, then you haven’t been reading BAR all these years,” Ford wrote. “We are socialists and Black liberationists who do commentary and analysis, and have never backed corporate parties or candidates. The Democratic Party serves its ruling class financiers, and, as one of the two parties of capitalist governance in the U.S., it will self-destruct before it bucks its corporate bosses. That’s why purported ‘socialists’ like Sanders, or the Democratic Socialists that always wind up supporting Democrats, are delusional if they think they can usurp control of the devil’s machine – or they’re trying to fool the rest of us. The ruling class isn’t scared of” Bernie’s purportedly socialist agenda, but it “will viciously resist New Deal-type reforms that threaten its austerity regime, a global Race to the Bottom that ruthlessly diminishes the living standards and economic security of the masses of people, so that they’ll accept any job, under any conditions of employment. Capitalist austerity is designed to provide working people with no options but to take what the bosses offer. Austerity regimes gut the social safety nets not to save money, but to impose abject desperation on working people, so that they’ll accept the ‘shit jobs’ that are now the norm even in the most developed capitalist countries.”

Ford says the Republican Party only has to satisfy its “rank and file whites’ only desire – that their government affirm white supremacy.” He speculates that “it would have been a great political lesson if Sanders’ momentum was such that corporate Democrats had to steal the nomination from him in broad daylight, hopefully prompting a mass exit from the party and creation of a new social democratic formation (or a much bigger Green Party).” Isn’t that what happened in 2016? “Or, if somehow Sanders won the nomination, we could all watch the corporate players pick up their marbles to form a new ‘centrist’ party, leaving leftish Democrats encamped in the hollow shell. As things stand at this early stage in the process, Sanders may simply wind up an also-ran, mobbed and co-opted by the biggest, most multi-colored crowd of Democratic politicians ever assembled for a presidential race. Dollar-drenched corporate hacks like Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have claimed to endorse Sanders’ signature Medicare for All legislation, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, once considered anathema by corporatists, is suddenly a darling of party leaders and media. The corporate strategy is to ensure that the super-majorities of Democrats that support Sanders’ issues are split among the ‘progressive’ pretenders, while Joe Biden soaks up the nervous-nellie voters that desperate to beat Trump with someone – anyone – ‘electable.’ The corporatists’ nightmare scenario, that Sanders might rev up his highly energized and youthful 2016 machine, funded by tens of millions in small-contributions, and smash his way to a first ballot victory at the convention, now seems unlikely. The corporate media have acted in near-unison to alternatively ignore or malign Sanders, often pretending he’s just not there as they fawn over his mimics, who can be counted on to retreat from corporate-opposed issues once the Bernie-bear has been contained.”

Elsewhere on the BAR website are articles detailing how Kamala Harris served the status quo and hurt black people as California’s attorney general and describing Elizabeth Warren as “decidedly to the right of Bernie Sanders on the issue of war and peace. Warren supports U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, for example, estimated to have killed over 40,000 Venezuelans  between the years of 2017 to 2018. When Trump agreed to negotiate directly with Kim Jong-un in Singapore, Warren called for a more aggressive posture toward the DPRK. The Massachusetts Senator proclaimed that Israel possessed the ‘right to defend itself’ during its invasion of Gaza in 2014, which killed thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of children. Warren prides herself in fighting for a kinder capitalism but has no problem with a nasty, murderous imperialism.” Danny Haiphong, author of the article on Warren, concludes by saying that the only hope “is that the political crisis engendered by the struggle between the oligarchs and Sanders, with some help from the likes of Tulsi Gabbard and even Elizabeth Warren, will lead to the splintering of the Democratic Party and more room for independent, left political forces to breath and grow.” In another article, Haiphong says, “We should expect that Gabbard and Sanders will eventually concede to the Democrats once they’re driven from the race. Since we can’t rely on them to lead a struggle for revolutionary change from within the Democratic Party machinery, we’ll need to develop independent political organizations capable of harnessing the anger and rebellion that will surely emerge once their demise at the hands of their own party is assured.”

The corporate two-party system and its mass media don’t serve our needs, and the longer we remain focused on the dog-and-pony show of excessively long presidential campaign seasons, the longer it will take for a critical mass of us to recognize this. Like Russiagate and Mueller investigation, the presidential campaign is nothing but a distraction from the mass revolutionary movement we need to be mounting — not from the top-down, following political candidates within an unreformable system, but from the bottom up. We need to declare that the whole fake, oppressive system that now bamboozles us is illegitimate and create shadow governments and regimes we can respect and give our allegiance to.

 

Who really cares about suffering and dying migrants at the US-Mexican border?

The World Socialist website (wsws.org) can be doctrinaire, but it often gives excellent analysis of current events, as in today’s article by Barry Grey, “Image of drowned father and daughter sparks global outrage against US anti-immigrant rampage,” 6-27-19. Here’s my edited/shortened/and-added-to version of it:

The photo of a young Salvadoran worker and his 23-month-old daughter washed up on the shore of the Rio Grande has gone viral on social media and sparked world-wide outrage against the sadistic assault on immigrants being carried out by Trump, with the full assistance of the Democratic Party. The photo of Óscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his daughter Angie Valeria, taken Monday by journalist Julia Le Duc, encapsulates the human toll of the fascistic and dictatorial policies being carried out by the Trump administration. The two victims succumbed to the powerful currents of the swollen river one day after having sought to apply for asylum, along with Oscar’s wife Tania Vanessa Avalos, at the legal port of entry between Matamoros, Mexico and Brownsville, Texas.

The father and his daughter were among the many thousands of Central American workers fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries, the legacy of a century of US imperialist subversion and exploitation. The young family was prevented from applying for asylum as a result of Trump’s “metering” policy, which effectively strips immigrants of their internationally guaranteed asylum rights by forcing them to wait in Mexico for weeks or months in sordid, prison-like camps. This is why the family decided to risk the dangerous river crossing. Vanessa Avalos could only watch in helpless horror from the Mexican side as her husband and daughter drowned.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued a denunciation of the Trump administration, comparing the photo to the picture of the three-year-old Syrian refugee child, Aylan Kurdi, who drowned in the Mediterranean and whose body washed up on a beach in Turkey in 2015. The comparison underscored the international character of the attack on immigrants being carried out by capitalist governments across Europe and elsewhere. This includes Mexico, where Mexican President Lopez Obrador has mobilized 20,000 national guardsmen to serve as Trump’s anti-immigrant enforcers on the Mexican side of the border. Commissioner Filippo Grandi said, “The deaths of Oscar and Valeria represent a failure to address the violence and desperation pushing people to take journeys of danger for the prospect of a life in safety and dignity.”

Also on the weekend, US Border Patrol agents found four bodies along the Rio Grande in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, about 55 miles west of Brownsville: one toddler, two infants, and a 20-year-old woman.

In the most recent fiscal year, there were 283 deaths across the US southern border, according to US authorities. The real toll is much higher. US border patrol agents have apprehended 664,000 people along the southern border so far this year, a 144% increase from last year. Some 14,000 unaccompanied immigrant children remain in US concentration camps.

The Democratic Party has responded to the escalating war on immigrants by voting overwhelmingly to grant Trump another $4.5 billion dollars to build more detention facilities, shore up the US military presence on the border and otherwise strengthen Gestapo-like anti-immigrant agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On the same day the photo of Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his daughter was published, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a $4.5 billion funding bill that allocates $788 million for new CBP facilities to hold asylum-seeking families and children. It provides $866 million for facilities run by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) where unaccompanied children are sent after they are released from CBP jails. It also includes $128 million for ICE.

In the vote on the House bill, all but four voting Democrats voted “yes” (the four who voted “no” were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib). Of the four House members who didn’t vote, three were Democratic presidential candidates – Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Eric Swalwell (California) and Tim Ryan (Ohio), in Florida preparing for the debates. The Senate passed its $4.59 billion version of the bill on Wednesday by a bipartisan vote of 84 to 8, with eight senators not voting, and Democrats giving overwhelming support to the Trump administration. Only six Democrats voted against the bill. Seven of the eight non-voters were Democratic presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand. The “nay” voters were Hirono D-Hawaii, Lee R-UT, Markey D-MA, Menendez D-NJ, Merkley D-OR, Paul R-KY, Van Hollen D-MD, and Wyden D-OR. The Senate bill is even more overtly repressive than the House version, including fewer restrictions on the brutalization of immigrants and an additional $145 million for US military operations on the border, a tacit legitimization of Trump’s illegal and indefinite deployment of active duty troops to aid police actions within the borders of the US.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi telephoned Trump to assure him that the House Democrats were prepared to accept most, if not all, of the Senate bill’s provisions in order to avoid a threatened presidential veto. The Democrats are eager to secure a deal before the week-long Fourth of July recess, which begins on Thursday. As the Senate was passing its bipartisan version, Pelosi told reporters, “There are some improvements that we think can be reconciled.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said, “We could quickly have a conference, talk about those four changes, try to get them in the bill, finish this quickly and I hope that’s what will happen.”

The Democrats are rushing to give Trump his blood money under the absurd pretext that the measure is a “humanitarian” effort to help the children and families caught up in his anti-immigrant campaign. Last Friday, Pelosi telephoned Trump to plead with him to delay his plan to carry out deportation raids against 2,000 immigrants in cities across the US, assuring him that she would push through a border funding bill in the House. She and the rest of the Democratic Party are petrified at the prospect that such military-style raids in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities will spark mass protests and resistance that could spiral out of control. Trump agreed to wait two weeks while Pelosi and Schumer did his bidding in Congress. He also wasted no time shattering the lying pretexts about defending human rights, making clear what millions around the world already know: that he has no intention of using a penny of the money allocated by Congress to back off from his brutalization of immigrants. On the contrary, he intends to escalate the attack as a central part of his reelection campaign and the axis of his efforts to mobilize his fascistic base of support.

On Tuesday, CBP announced that it had returned 100 children to the holding facility in Clint, Texas it had evacuated the previous day after reports of squalid conditions and rampant disease aroused mass indignation. The same day, while the House Democrats were preparing to vote for the administration’s border war money, acting CBP Commissioner John Sanders resigned and Trump officials let it be known that the White House had selected acting ICE Director Mark Morgan to replace him. Morgan, who served as assistant commissioner of CBP under Obama, has made no bones about his hatred for undocumented immigrants and desire to drive them out of the country. As acting head of ICE, Morgan authored the plan for mass raids in US cities that Trump’s postponed. He spent 11 years in the Marine Corps and 20 years in the FBI, and while out of government appeared regularly on Fox News. He’s also boasted of looking into detained children’s eyes and seeing that they are “soon-to-be MS-13 gang members,” and defended far-right border vigilantes who’ve illegally detained hundreds of immigrants points and removed emergency supplies, including water, left for migrants by humanitarian groups.

According to Wikipedia, Mara Salvatrucha, popularly known as MS-13, is an international criminal gang that originated in Los Angeles, California, in the 1970s and 1980s. Originally set up to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other gangs in the Los Angeles area, over time, the gang grew into a more traditional criminal organization. The US government deported many MS-13 members to El Salvador after the close of the Salvadoran Civil War in 1992, and the gang is currently active in many parts of the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America. Most members are Central American, Salvadorans in particular. In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1% (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million), and a similar share of gang murders.The gang is often referenced by the Republican Party to advocate for anti-immigrant policies…This is how US policies, including propping up dictatorships in Latin America to the detriment of democratic movements, lead to suffering in those countries, resulting in increased efforts at migration. It’s called “blowback,” the classic case of which was US support for the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet Union during the 1980s, which led directly to the formation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We should pay reparations to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala and encourage democratic governments in the area, not only for moral reasons, but so that people will be content to remain in the countries of their birth.

 

Racism and the census, then and now

What are the implications of the Trump administration’s efforts to ask whether respondents to the U.S. census are citizens? Here’s an article posted on the OneZero website by Yasha Levine on 4-30-19 that might answer that question. (Short answer: great, racist, undemocratic.) Levine titled his article “The racist origins of America’s tech industry: how the tools built to conduct the U.S. census fueled Nazi genocide, internment, and state-sanctioned racism  and helped usher in the digital age.” Here’s my edited version — still long, but shorter, and an essential read, I think:

The U.S. census ,  specifically mandated by the Constitution to take place every 10 years , is back in the news not only because the next count kicks off in 2020 but because, as it’s often been in the past, the census is a political flashpoint with inevitable racial undertones. The current controversy revolves around a plan devised by Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form. On the surface, it seems like an inconsequential detail. But there’s wide agreement that adding it will have profound political implications for a decade.

Aggregated population data provided by the census is a critical component in our democratic system. Its most important function is to apportion Congressional representation for the coming decade, but it also determines the structure of the Electoral College and guides the distribution of hundreds of billions in federal spending. Objections to the addition of a citizenship question are based on concerns about undercounting. The fear, widely shared by former census officials, is that asking people for their citizenship status will push some immigrants and Latinos to avoid taking part in the census, and that large enough undercount of a specific minority or socio-economic group will skew how seats are apportioned in the House of Representatives, shifting political power and federal resources away from districts where these groups reside. The Trump administration has claimed that the citizenship question is being added for a good cause: to help the federal government enforce the Voting Rights Act and protect minorities from voter discrimination. But many immigrant advocates see the citizenship question as part of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, put it this way: “The decision by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to force the last-minute addition of an untested question on citizenship will result in an undercount of Latinos. While we don’t know the true motivation behind these actions, we know the impact: as a consequence of these actions, Census 2020 is on track to significantly undercount the Latino population in the United States.” Others are more direct. “Our president, the face of our federal government, which oversees the census, has based his candidacy on a deeply anti-immigrant platform,” says Betsy Plum, vice president of policy at the New York Immigration Coalition, one of the organizations trying to stop the Trump administration from adding the question. “What the citizenship question did was take a much broader fear and focus it onto the census. The risk to a place like New York’s congressional representation can’t be understated. I think the intent is to weaponize the census against immigrant communities. Places like New York and places like California are the target.”

There’s another, less discussed dimension to the issue. Based on a close reading of internal Department of Commerce documents tied to the census citizen question proposal, it appears the Trump administration wants to use the census to construct a first-of-its-kind citizenship registry for the entire U.S. population, something that arguably exceeds the census’s legal authority. “It was deep in the documentation that was released,” Robert Groves, a former Census Bureau director who headed the National Academies committee convened to investigate the 2020 census, told me. “No one picked up on it much. But the term ‘registry’ in our world means not a collection of data for statistical purposes but rather to know the identity of particular people in order to use that knowledge to affect their lives.” Given the administration’s posture toward immigration, the fact that it wants to build a comprehensive citizenship database is highly concerning. To Groves, it clearly signals “a line being crossed.”

Multiple states have challenged the Trump administration’s plans, and their lawsuits are headed to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the case in April. Meanwhile, at an oversight hearing in March, Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dug into Wilbur Ross, Trump’s multi-millionaire Secretary of Commerce, who oversees the U.S Census Bureau. She accused him of conspiring with nativists and white supremacists to add the citizenship question   and of overstepping his authority. “Why,” she wanted to know, “are we violating law to include this question?”

Whatever the courts decide, the latest debate over the census is hardly new. For most of its history, the census , and the constitutionally mandated government bureaucracy that carries it out , has been intertwined with nativism, bigotry, and fear of “the other.” The dark and ugly history of the census makes it a uniquely telling weathervane of race politics in America. That development of technology to conduct the census simultaneously played a central role in the history of the computer age more than 130 years ago makes it doubly relevant, offering a glimpse into how computers, surveillance, and racist government policies have been linked from the very beginning.

Governments have been counting their people since the beginning of recorded history. You can find descriptions of censuses in the Old Testament, on Sumerian cuneiform tablets, and in the writings of the ancient Greeks. There were censuses in pre-modern Europe, and most American colonies kept population records. Governments counted people for two main reasons: raising state revenue and waging war. They needed to know who and what to tax, and they needed to know how many fighting-age men could be mobilized. It was the U.S. Constitution that added a third and novel reason for counting people: representational democracy.

When the drafters of the U.S. government’s founding set of principles met in Philadelphia in 1787, one of the first things they hammered out was a clause mandating that the population be counted every 10 years. This directive for a decennial census appears up at the top of the Constitution, long before the document gets around to laying out the structure of the government. To the framers of the Constitution, the census came first because it determined taxation and the balance of congressional political power. Under the Constitution, the number of seats in the House of Representatives apportioned to each state would be based on population, which meant the government needed to know the precise number of people living in each state.

The first census took place in 1790 and was overseen by Thomas Jefferson, then serving as Secretary of State. Mostly a straightforward head count designed to meet the constitutional mandate, it was expected to take no more than nine months to complete. But despite its simplicity and our nation’s tiny population, it took nearly two years to fully tabulate. And it only got worse from there. With every passing decade, the census took longer to complete. It was filled with errors and undercounts, which led to accusations that the data was being manipulated for political ends. By the end of the 1800s, the bureaucratic problem had become untenable: The census was taking nearly 10 years to complete, meaning the results were outdated well before they came in.

When the first census was carried out, there were 3.9 million people living in 13 states. By 1890, the U.S. encompassed 42 states and had a population of 63 million , having increased by more than 16 times over a century. Never before had a country grown so fast. Still doing their work the old-fashioned way , with pen and paper ,  census workers struggled to keep up. Meanwhile, on top of having to enumerate a rapidly growing population, government officials began to cram the census with more and more questions: about occupations, literacy levels, criminal histories, medical conditions, home ownership, economic trends, and a whole lot of probing about people’s race and immigration status. As the 19th century drew to a close, census officials had started transforming what should have been a simple head count into a system of racial surveillance. Slavery had been abolished, allowing millions of blacks to move, attempt to take charge of their own destinies, and play a role in the country’s political life. Immigration was also making itself felt. Well into the 19th century, free immigration into the U.S. had been largely dominated by English settlers. But starting in the 1850s, that pattern began changing drastically. Millions of Irish peasants streamed into the country to escape the potato famine that killed over one million people. Millions more were fleeing the crushing poverty of southern Italy and the eastern territories of the Russian Empire. Chinese laborers were arriving on the West Coast en masseto build U.S. railroads. This influx was a boon to an emerging industrial oligarchy, a source of never-ending cheap labor. But it was also a source of political instability. Widespread inequality and exploitation led to massively popular movements for change. There were labor protests and strikes, a populist movement, and a nationwide self-help organization created by poor farmers. Socialist and anarchist ideas achieved broad adherence. Black civil rights activism emerged. America’s political establishment looked on this instability, social unrest, and change with horror. They saw the masses of free blacks and Chinese, Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants , with their tattered clothes, alien languages, unnatural religions, and demands for better treatment and political rights , as a threat.

Grasping for solutions, many settled on various strains of race science quackery. So-called social Darwinists relied on a twisted version of the theory of evolution to explain why the poor and marginalized should remain that way while the wealthy and successful should rule unchallenged. Taking this notion a step further, adherents of eugenics fervently believed that naturally superior Anglo-Americans were on the verge of being wiped out due to the high birth rates of “degenerate” and immigrant stock. To head off this threat, they advocated strict controls on reproduction ,  breeding humans for quality in the same way that farmers did cows and horses. These weren’t fringe ideas; they were firmly embraced by the American cultural and political mainstream. From future presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and Calvin Coolidge to robber barons like J.P. Morgan and Leland Stanford to writers like H.G. Wells and progressive activists like Margaret Sanger, eugenics was all the rage. In the first decades of the 20th century, 32 states passed sterilization laws to deal with the threat of genetic degradation ,  laws that were upheld by the Supreme Court. And few worried more about the threat of genetic degradation than the officials at the U.S. Census Bureau.

Born into a wealthy Boston family, Francis A. Walker served in the Civil War as a general, dabbled in journalism, and ultimately made a name for himself as an influential Progressive Era economist and statistician who would later become president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As a professional economist, Walker had a keen interest in the nation’s changing demographics ,  and he was horrified by what he saw. Like most upper-class Americans at the time, Walker believed that the country’s original English colonists had evolved to be the most superior race on the planet , superior even to the original English race from which they sprang. To him, Anglo-Americans stood on the pinnacle of the world’s race pyramid. He and his people were “as far ahead of the English as the English were ahead of any other branch of the Teutonic race, which was in turn far ahead of the Slavs or the Celts,” he wrote. He believed that the influx of poor immigrants from Ireland and Italy as well as Jews and Slavs from Eastern Europe was diluting the United States’ superior racial stock and threatening to drag American genetic superiority back into a cesspool of degradation and decline. He blamed these immigrants , “vast hordes of brutalized peasants,”  for the social and political unrest happening around him. He not only pushed to restrict immigration in order to prevent what he viewed as Anglo-American “race suicide,” he also advocated forced sterilization. “We must strain out of the blood of the race more of the taint inherited from a bad and vicious past,” he wrote. “The scientific treatment which is applied to physical diseases must be extended to mental and moral disease, and a wholesome surgery and cautery must be enforced by the whole power of the state for the good of all.” In addition to his other contributions to U.S. life, Walker served as superintendent of both the 1870 and 1880 U.S. Census.

The census had been a racial instrument from its inception, beginning with the original constitutional clause that instructed census officials to count black slaves separately from whites and to assign them a value of three-fifths of a person. With each decade, new “racial” categories were invented and added to the mix: “free colored males and females” and “mulatto” were counted, including subdivisions like “quadroon” and “octoroon.” Categories for Chinese, “Hindoo,” and Japanese were added, as were “foreign” and “native born” designations for whites. The census slowly expanded to collect other demographic data, including literacy levels, unemployment statistics, and medical ailments, such as those who were “deaf, dumb, and blind” and the “insane and idiotic.” All of it was broken down by race. Most of these questions, included in a haphazard fashion, were overtly political, added in response to whatever racial fear gripped the national ruling elite at the time. A racial category for Chinese was added after railroad companies began importing cheap, exploitable laborers from China, for example; and categories for “mulatto” came after the abolition of slavery caused a panic about racial mixing.

To Walker, these early efforts didn’t go far enough. As an economist and statistician, he wanted to collect and process more data and to professionalize and standardize the effort. He wanted it to be a proper, scientific “national inventory,”  not a haphazard collection of facts. But his dreams kept running up against a hard limit: technology. The census was still counted and analyzed by hand, and the work was slow and limited, with sophisticated analysis next to impossible. What it needed was a talented inventor, someone young and ambitious who’d be able to come up with a method to automate tabulation and data analysis. Someone like Herman Hollerith. In 1879, when he graduated from the Columbia School of Mines with a degree in engineering, he was recruited to help compile economic statistics for the 1880 census, being run by Walker. Having invented the punch card system, he kept tinkering with it, and before long, he came up with a design that separated the enumeration process into parts. The first involved converting data into a format that could be read by a machine. This he accomplished by punching holes on a piece of paper. The second step involved processing the data. This was accomplished by feeding the paper through a machine that, through a combination of pins and dials, read the number and position of the holes. At first, Hollerith experimented with using a continuous strip of paper   like the recent invention of ticker tape, which was widely used to transmit stock prices via telegraph. But he wasn’t happy with the results. “The trouble was that if, for example, you wanted statistics regarding Chinamen, you’d have to run miles of paper to count a few Chinamen,” Hollerith explained in a letter. Race was never far from his mind when working on his contraption. He eventually hit upon a better idea: Each person would be represented by their own punch card , an idea he picked up while taking a train. “I was traveling in the West and I had a ticket with what I think was called a punch photograph. The conductor punched out a description of the individual, as light hair, dark eyes, large nose, etc.,” he explained, noting that he’d simply done the same thing.

In March 1890, Hollerith’s machines were installed in a building not far from the White House that became the bustling headquarters of the 11thcensus. Hundreds of clerks worked around the clock in shifts, taking raw census data collected in the field and transferring it onto cards using specially designed hole punch machines, then passing the cards to another set of clerks who worked the tabulators and sorters. Hollerith’s machines clanked away day and night, with clerks crammed together like sweatshop workers. It took four years to finish and release the reports, an amazing improvement over the previous census, which took nearly a decade.

The 1890 census contained 35 questions, 10 more than the previous census, on a whole range of data: literacy levels, sizes of household, professions, the value of a family’s property, and whether they rented or owned. Perhaps most important was the racial dimension. The census collected stats on native and foreign-born Americans and broke them into multiple racial categories: white, colored, Chinese, Japanese, and “civilized Indian” (i.e., a Native American no longer living in a tribal society). It was the first census to include a complete count of Native Americans living on tribal lands. It asked for data on unemployment history, fertility rates, citizenship status, criminal history, literacy, and English language proficiency.

It wasn’t just the speed that set Hollerith’s invention apart. It was its ability to mine and sift through data and even combine multiple data points. Such fine-grained analysis on a mass scale was completely unprecedented, and it made Hollerith’s machines an immediate hit with the United States’ race-obsessed political class.

Robert Porter, head of the 1890 census, who’d overseen the adoption of Hollerith’s tabulator machines, was deeply impressed by their power to sort immigrant and non-white populations based on numerous demographic variables. He was particularly pleased about being able to analyze the three things most feared by the “race suicide” crowd: immigration rates, immigrant fertility rates, and mixed race marriages (or what the census called the “conjugal condition”), all of which could be broken down by age, race, literacy levels, and naturalization status. Overnight, Hollerith’s tabulator technology had transformed census taking from a simple head count into something that looked very much like a crude form of mass surveillance. The data seemed to confirm the nativists’ worst fears: Poor, illiterate immigrants were swarming America’s cities, and outstripping native Anglo-American birth rates.

Immediately following the census, the states and the federal government passed a flurry of laws that heavily restricted immigration. It started with the Immigration Act of 1891, which set up the first federal agency to oversee immigration and border control and turned an unused island on the southern tip of Manhattan into an elaborate screening center for immigrants. It continued through the passage of a half-dozen major immigration bills, including one that stripped women of U.S. citizenship if they married non-naturalized foreigners. The culmination was the Immigration Act of 1924  that introduced race immigration quotas. This suite of laws gave immigration officials the power to ban just about anyone, including mental and physical ‘defectives,’ anarchists and socialists, most of Asians, and many Middle Easterners and eastern Russians. Immigration rates plunged.

Venture capitalist Charles Flint bought out Hollerith, combined his company with several other businesses that made precision mechanical contraptions  ( clocks, cash registers, coffee grinders, and butcher scales )  to create a computational monopoly and handed this new conglomerate over to  Thomas J. Watson, an ambitious young executive. Watson then ruthlessly leveraged the Hollerith’s’s computer technology to crush competition and establish a global monopoly in the early computation market. The result was International Business Machines (IBM), founded in 1911. Installed in factories, corporate offices, and city and military bureaucracies, IBM’s tabulator computers not only sped up accounting but greatly reduced labor costs. Businesses and local and federal government agencies ordered Hollerith machines by the truckload. Insurance companies relied on them for accounting and calculating actuary tables. Railroads used them to route freight and work out schedules. At one railroad company, a single Hollerith machine operated by two people replaced the full time work of 20 clerks.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, creating America’s first old-age pension program. The Social Security Act brought about a massive need for accounting and data processing for both businesses and the federal government. Businesses suddenly had to keep meticulous records on their employees. They needed to track salaries and Social Security contributions and file that information with the federal government. The government, in turn, had to process all that data. It needed to monitor contributions to each individual Social Security account over the lifetime of each individual. And then, when they hit retirement age, it had to cut monthly checks to millions of Americans. As soon as the legislation passed, businesses queued up at IBM to get the proper tabulator payroll systems to meet federal accounting requirements. IBM also won the contract to oversee accounting for the Social Security Administration, beating out competitors like Remington Rand. It was the only computer company at the time that had the experience and production capacity to undertake a project of that size. As one official IBM history put it, “the Social Security project catapulted IBM from a midsize corporation to the global leader in information technology.”

Naturally, the military was a big fan of the technology. In peacetime, the Department of War used the machines to keep track of enlistment data and track military pensions. When the U.S. entered the war, IBM’s Hollerith tech became a vital part of the Allied military effort. Hollerith machines were involved in almost every part of the war, from designing the atomic bomb to managing troop deployment. Special “portable” IBM machines installed on trucks landed with U.S. troops in Normandy, Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy. They were used on the home front as well. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S Census Bureau hauled out the punch cards from the 1940 census and reprocessed them to produce block-by-block population lists on Japanese-Americans in a half-dozen states, including California. Ultimately 130,000 Japanese-Americans were forced to move to concentration camps.

Hollerith tabulators were a big hit all over the world. But one country was particularly enamored with them: Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler came to power on the back of the economic devastation following Germany’s defeat in World War I. To Hitler, however, the problem plaguing Germany wasn’t economic or political. It was racial. The reason Germany had fallen so far, he argued, was its failure to tend to its racial purity. There were only about a half-million Jews in Germany in 1933 , less than 1% of the population , but he singled them out as the root cause of all of the nation’s problems. Hitler and the Nazis drew much of their inspiration from the U.S. eugenics movement and the system of institutional racism that had arisen in slavery’s wake. Their solution was to isolate the so-called mongrels, then continuously monitor the racial purity of the German people to keep the volkfree of further contamination.

IBM’s German subsidiary landed its first major contract the same year Hitler became chancellor. The 1933 Nazi census was pushed through by Hitler as an emergency genetic stock-taking of the German people. Along with numerous other data points, the census focused on collecting fertility data for German women ,  particularly women of good Aryan stock. Also included in the census was a special count of religiously observant Jews. Nazi officials wanted the entire count, estimated to be about 65 million people, to be done in just four months. It was a monumental task, and German IBM officials worked around the clock to finish it. Hundreds of female clerks worked in rotating seven-hour shifts 24 hours a day in a giant Berlin warehouse.

As Hitler’s Nazi Party tightened its grip on Germany, it launched all sorts of additional data-gathering programs to purify the German nation. And IBM helped them do it. “The precondition for every deportation was accurate knowledge of how many Jews in a particular district fitted the racial and demographic descriptions in Berlin’s quotas,” write David Martin Luebke and Sybil Milton in Locating the Victim, a study of Nazi use of the tabulator machines. “Armed with these data,” they said, “the Gestapo often proved able to anticipate with remarkable accuracy the total number of deportees for each racial, status, and age category.”

Germany’s vast state bureaucracy and its military and rearmament programs, including the country’s growing concentration camp/slave labor system, also required data processing services. By the time the U.S. officially entered the war in 1941, IBM’s German subsidiary had grown to employ 10,000 people and served 300 different German government agencies, including the Nazi Party Treasury; the SS; the War Ministry; the Reichsbank; the Reichspost; the Armaments Ministry; the Navy, Army and Air Force; and the Reich Statistical Office.

This history reveals an uncomfortable and fundamental truth about computer technology. “The Third Reich opened startling statistical venues for Hollerith machines, perhaps never before imagined,” wrote Edwin Black in IBM and the Holocaust, his pioneering 2001 exposé of the forgotten business ties between IBM and Nazi Germany. “In Hitler’s Germany, the statistical and census community, overrun with doctrinaire Nazis, publicly boasted about the new demographic breakthroughs their equipment would achieve.” (IBM has criticized Black’s reporting methods, and has said that its German subsidiary largely came under Nazi control before and during the war.)

Demand for Hollerith tabulators was so robust that IBM was forced to open a new factory in Berlin to crank out all the new machines. At the facility’s christening ceremony, which was attended by a top U.S. IBM executive and the elite of the Nazi Party, the head of IBM’s German subsidiary gave a rousing speech about the important role that Hollerith tabulators played in Hitler’s drive to purify Germany and cleanse it of inferior racial stock.

On the surface, it may seem like the story of Herman Hollerith and the U.S. census are historical relics, an echo from a bygone era. But this history reveals an uncomfortable and fundamental truth about computer technology. We can thank nativism and the census for helping to bring the computer age into existence. And as the battle over the 2020 census makes clear, the drive to tally up our neighbors, to sort them into categories and turn them into statistics, still carries the seed of our own dehumanization.

 

Wild Mercy

I’ve always felt that there’s a deep connection between spirituality and politics in a wide sense. It’s all just life. The other day I listened to a podcast expressing this. “Insights at the Edge” podcaster Tami Simon of Sounds True was speaking with spiritual teacher and author Mirabai Starr about her latest book: Wild Mercy: Living the Fierce and Tender Wisdom of the Women Mystics. What Starr had to say inspired and impressed me, and I wanted to share the highlights of it with you, based on a transcript of the podcast (released 4-1-19).

Because Starr believes that “ultimately, truth, reality is the boundless, non-dualistic field of love,” she’s shied away from comparing the wisdom of masculine and feminine mystics. Not long ago, however, she “began to realize that the feminine is rising everywhere, and that the spiritual community needs to be involved in that discourse.” Feminine wisdom, she added, often “requires excavation, because these feminine wisdom jewels are hidden in the patriarchal overlay, since all of the world’s spiritual traditions were designed and built by men, for men.”

When Simon asked which of these jewels Starr wanted to highlight, she answered, “One is the inter-relationality of the feminine; the value of cooperation and relationship, but also the core-level, cell-level, physical way I think women and some men get that everything’s interconnected. It’s not a philosophical treatise about dependent co-arising. It’s a felt experience of inter-being that I think women have in general, and that’s emphasized in the feminine wisdom teachings. Another is care for the earth. Not that men don’t also adore our mother, the earth, and want to tend her, but there’s a way in which the feminine responds to the pain of the world that’s spontaneous and generous and non-intellectual, rooted in the body.”

TS: Yes. I thought one of the things you emphasized in Wild Mercy that I really appreciated was that our actual spiritual life is connected to the fate of the earth.

MS: That’s right.

TS: I wonder if you can talk about that, because I think sometimes people think, “Well, whatever happens politically, whatever happens with climate change, that’s not really part of my spiritual agenda. My spiritual agenda is to align with the moment and be at peace, regardless of what’s happening.”

Starr had “a couple of responses. One is that the way that we treat women is directly related to the way we tend the planet. I don’t think there’s any accident that this masculine-driven model of spirituality and society and politics has left the earth in the dust and done great damage. The male-driven model of doing things has caused great detriment not only to women, humans, but to the earth herself. The feminine emphasizes relationship, that we have a real living relationship with the earth. It’s not just an idea about climate change based on science, though I think it’s important to track the science. The feminine has a relationship with Earth as mother, lover, and sister. Feminine wisdom cultivates relationship and intimacy in all spheres, which leads me to the third kind of strong value of these teachings: inclusivity. There’s a way in which, when women come together, we include each other. I’m not saying all women are inclusive and cooperative and relational. Many women have divorced themselves from those kind of values. And many men, including the men that we all know and love, are deeply relational. But there’s a way that the feminine is now emphasizing inclusive, horizontal leadership.

The spiritual traditions that many of us were trained in, even when they’ve ordained women, are still patriarchal, still hierarchical. Even if the woman is the roshi or the rabbi, she’s still the boss, standing or sitting there dispensing goodies to the hungry people. There’s something that I really tapped into with this book that the more I said it, the more true it became, for me – that this is the time for leadership to be a communal experience. Almost everyone I know carries this seed of wisdom, and all you have to do is water it with your loving attention, and it germinates and flowers. I’m seeing that in all the groups and all the communities where I’m invited to speak or teach, the minute I make it about all of us, an incredible flourishing of wisdom happens. To me, this is deeply feminine – very much about relationship and loving kindness, and developing community by acknowledging that everyone has something to bring to the table.”

TS: This brings me to the question about the future of the patriarchal religious forms we’re currently seeing crumble. We’re in this interesting transitional phase. And when I read a book like Wild Mercy and permission is given to the individual to find their way among all of these different spiritual texts; to express their spirituality in activism, caring for their families, and loving whomever they love. It’s beautiful. But what are our future forms?

MS: The crumbling you refer to is really happening. The world’s institutionalized religious structures are dissolving and disintegrating before our eyes. And there’s a fundamentalist response to prop these carcasses up. But if you tap into the deep wellspring of feminine wisdom, the women are the ones who’ve always been the midwives and the death doulas. We’re comfortable with the messy margins of things, okay with ambiguity and not knowing. So we’re present for these death throes that are happening in society and religion and the emerging of a new kind of wild, unpredictable, radically authentic…I don’t even want to call it a paradigm, but reality. It’s an exciting time if you’re not looking for easy answers and fill-in-the-blanks.

Starr and Simon then agreed that patriarchal religious leaders want their followers to be loyal to a particular spiritual path; they criticize “spiritual dilettantism.” But, Starr said, she realized that “maybe we have a faculty of discernment implanted in our being that enables us to know what the life-giving truth is and what divisive, dualistic, separating teachings are, and that we can, in fact, make honey from gathering the nectar from various traditions. We can have a deep and profound and transformational encounter within multiple sacred spaces. From these transformational encounters we can find a way that’s deep and profound and has social relevance, as well as a path to personal awakening and personal development. That’s another thing about the feminine – the whole idea of individual awakening feels kind of irrelevant, because it’s truly about all of us. The bodhisattva vow of sticking around on the wheel of samsara, of births and deaths and rebirths, until all beings are free.  Individual liberation is a meaningless concept to the feminine, as are practices like purification and perfection. Those words are alien, I think, to the feminine experience, which is much more organic and sensual.”

TS: So, at some point you decided to trust your own powers of discernment. “I can discern. I can be a bee and I can pick the flowers. I don’t have to sign on with one patriarchal proposition.” I think a lot of people don’t have that level of confidence. What would you say to someone who’s like, “I’m a beginner. How do I know?”

MS: It’s interesting, because I don’t just trust my own faculty of discernment, I trust yours. I trust everyone’s, as well as everyone’s ability to take what they find, that cup of water, with them out into the world.

Simon then asked Starr about the word “mercy” in the title of her book.

MS: It’s interesting. A white man, a well-known spiritual teacher said, “I don’t think you should call it ‘Wild Mercy,’ Mirabai.” He thought the term “mercy” was sappy, that it implied meekness. But this is how Mother Mary is being rescued and resuscitated, I feel, in the current inter-spiritual landscape. The term “mercy” no longer means meek. It carries this powerful energy that’s different from compassion. Compassion, to me, carries a quality of equanimity, that the feminine not only doesn’t necessarily have, but isn’t particularly interested in cultivating. The feminine is about the outpouring of the heart. And mercy, to me, carries that quality of aliveness. It’s compassion that’s been lit on fire and that melts. There’s a melting quality to mercy. There’s a warmth. I think that feminine quality of out-flowing of the heart partnered with the wildness of the feminine that’s willing to not know what’s going on, or what’s going to happen next, but is showing up for it are the core message of the book.

TS: One of my favorite sentences is “What breaks our heart is also what connects us.” I know that you’ve had that experience, and I want to hear what you have to say about the relationship between knowing the depth of loss in our lives and our capacity for mercy, our capacity to feel a loving, alive connection with others who suffer.

MS: I know a lot of people who’ve experienced great and transformational losses, and each of them has become a more open, boundless container of love and compassion. Their losses have broken them open. I’m not worried that people are going to calcify and constrict around their losses. Maybe for a time, but 100% of the people I encounter who’ve experienced loss have become more loving, more compassionate eventually. And sometimes right away, and sometimes in moments. We open and close like an accordion, in the power, the bellows of loss. Again, I believe in us. I believe in the capacity of the human heart to enlarge in the presence of unbearable experiences. And through that enlargement of the heart, serve the world in a spontaneous way.

TS: What makes a loss a transformational loss?

MS: Entering into the experience as fully as possible, even if it feels like it’s going to kill you — a feminine yielding, like yielding to the contractions of childbirth. There’s nowhere to go but to open and surrender to the experience, though you may protest along the way. When we show up for the experience of shattering loss, it becomes transformational. It’s not about transcendence; it’s about full presence. And you know, one of the things about grief and loss that I’ve found, and I think this is a truly feminine perspective, is that when we experience a really profound, transformational loss, it’s not only about us. It doesn’t make us special. I lost a child. And there were moments, in the beginning, especially, where I felt like an alien creature. No one could understand me. And then it was like, “Wait a minute, women have been losing children backwards in time and across the planet forever. So not only am I not special, but guess what? Those women, on a soul level, are my family. They’re my sisters, we’re in this together, and they’re holding me now, as I navigate this mysterious, brutal landscape of loss.” So, rather than becoming some kind of rarefied, special creature because I’d lost a child, I  took my place in the human family for the first time, in a way, when my daughter died. And it was the family of women, especially, that I felt were holding me, and that I’m holding now. That’s my job going forward.

Simon then asked Starr to introduce and read the beginning of a chapter called “Laying Down Our Burden.”

MS: This is a chapter on cultivating a sabbath practice. “Here. Come here. Take a moment to set aside that list you’ve been writing in fluorescent ink, the list that converts ordinary tasks into emergencies, where ‘Feed the orchids,’ becomes ‘If I don’t accomplish this by 11:00 tomorrow morning, the rainforests are going to dry up, and it will all be my fault.’ Gather your burdens in a basket in your heart and set them at the feet of the Mother. Say, ‘Take this, Great Mama, because I can’t carry this shit another minute.’ Then crawl into her broad lap, nestle against her ample bosom, and take a nap. When you wake, the basket will still be there, but half its contents will be gone, and the other half will have resumed their proper shapes and sizes, no longer masquerading as catastrophic, epic, and toxic. The Mother will clear things out and tidy up. She’ll take your compulsions and transmute them, if you offer them to her.’ A sabbath is a revolutionary, subversive act in our consumerist achievement-driven world.

When Simon asked Starr about imagining God as the Mother, she said, “This kind of comes back to the question we opened with, where you asked about the feminine, and I felt it as a dualistic distinction I wouldn’t normally make. Philosophically, I’m more of a Buddhist or non-theist than a theist. It takes an effort for me to picture God as anything. As even God. But I feel that at this moment emphasizing the feminine in all spheres of human activity, maybe especially religion, is going to create a needed paradigm shift reflecting the feminine values of wildness and mercy, compassion and connection to the earth, relationship and horizontal leadership that can’t help but heal and mend the torn fabric of the world.

TS: One of the things you say in the book that I thought was important is that devotion isn’t an immature inclination. Because in the kind of more militaristic spiritual traditions in which I was brought up and trained, devotion was for sissies. Kind of like, “You don’t need to prostrate yourself or make offerings. That’s superstitious mumbo jumbo.” But in Wild Mercy you reclaim the power of devotion. Tell me why that’s important to you.

MS: I’m glad you used the word reclaim, because as you were speaking, that’s what was rising in my mind: To reclaim devotion, reclaim passion, reclaim the feminine landscape of the heart. I, too, was trained in these vertical traditions, where we still our minds and leave our bodies behind. All of our bodies are feminine, incarnational, part of the earth. And if we don’t respond to the impulses of the heart residing in our bodies, we’re going to be cutting ourselves off from an entire range of spiritual experience. Devotion, for me, is the impulse of the heart that cries out to the beloved who we may not believe in in our rational minds. We may call that magical thinking, envisioning Krishna or Kuan Yin as the object of our heart’s impulse to love, but it can a placeholder for the real, holy part of ourselves that calls out for love and allows us to dissolve into those non-dual spaces.

I’m devoted to Neem Karoli Baba, the great 20thcentury saint Ram Dass wrote about in Be Here Now and all his books. Maharaj-ji’s been my guru since I was 14 years old, so philosophically it doesn’t matter what I think – I have this devotional relationship with him. When I experience Maharaj-ji, there’s something in my heart that melts. It’s like he’s a warmth, a fire, a flame. And when I come into proximity, my heart softens and the boundaries dissolve. I enter this non-dual state that other people cultivate through more cool practices that aren’t necessarily heart-centered. They’re more about mindfulness.

When I chant (I also love sacred music in all languages; in Hebrew and Arabic, especially in Sanskrit, especially kirtan), my heart softens and opens and yields, and there’s a devotional quality that’s quite ecstatic. It also has an element of pain; the pain of longing. But ultimately what happens when I allow myself to fully enter that devotional space is that I almost always taste non-dual states of undifferentiated awareness that are empty in the most delicious sense of that word. I like how Roshi Joan Halifax translates sunyata, the Buddhist term for emptiness, which is the true quality of all that is, not as emptiness, but as boundlessness. Devotional practices bring me to those non-dual states. And there’s a reciprocity when I return to individuated consciousness from those fleeting moments of resting in suchness. I have an urge to praise. Praise what? Praise who? I don’t know, but it bubbles up from my heart and my body. I experienced this terrifying sweetness of being nobody for a minute.

TS: It’s interesting that you brought up the deep pain or ache of longing, because that was also one of the sections of Wild Mercy that I appreciated. At one point, someone asked me, “Do you have longing?” And I was like, “Yes, I have all kinds of longing,” but I also felt like I’d given the person the wrong answer, that I’d failed my spirituality exam. Yet in Wild Mercy you make owning our longing part of the landscape of the heart, part of our spiritual path.

MS: And in fact, the portal. Longing is a portal.

TS: At the end of one chapter, you wrote, “What do you want from the holy one? Write a letter to your beloved stating your demands and your longings.” I thought that was a great exercise, even though it doesn’t fit with people’s conventional view of what a spiritual path should be like. I’m writing my demands to the holy one. What? My demands don’t count. Do they?

MS: You’re right – we’re not supposed to want stuff. Desire is supposed to be the problem. A more sophisticated version of that teaching is to just become aware of our desires, but either way there’s a kind of cool detachment that’s expected of us in most spiritual traditions, in which we understand that it’s okay to have desires, but it’s going to cause trouble, and ultimately you’ll be a lot happier if you can detach from them. I’m advocating that we actually connect with our desires on all levels, without making a distinction between physical and spiritual. And that we stand up for ourselves in the presence of the holy and say, “This is what I want.” Teresa of Avila, the great 16thcentury renegade nun who I’ve had the good fortune of translating, was famous for shaking her fist at God and saying, “What a minute, dude. This is not OK with me.” Or, “Why do you become present with me, enter me, inflame my heart, hold me close, and then leave me? This is not OK.” Many of the great scriptures, from the Song of Songs to the Gita Govinda to Layla and Majnun in the Sufi literature are based on lover and beloved coming together in ecstatic union, then separating. He leaves her behind, and she cries out with love longing, and her cry becomes the impetus for reunification. That reunion, I believe, is the reunification of the masculine and feminine in each of us. The love longing that our hearts cry out with is a longing for the balancing of the masculine and feminine, the godhead reforming and restoring wholeness. And our beings become a microcosm for the restoration of balance of masculine and feminine in the world.

TS: I imagine that some listeners were surprised when you said that Neem Karoli Baba, this Indian male figure, has been a guru, a teacher for you, living in your heart, and then here you are, writing about the women mystics. But at the very beginning of the book, there’s this great section where you invite men into the dialogue. And I’m wondering if you can read that for us.

MS: Sure. “You don’t have to be female yourself to walk through these gates. Men are welcome here. You just don’t get to boss us around or grab our breasts or solve our problems. You may sample our cooking and wash it down with our champagne. You may ask us to dance, and you may not pout if we decline. You may study our texts, ponder our most provocative questions. You may fall in our laps and weep if you feel the urge. We will soothe you, as we always have. And then, we’ll send you back to the city with your pockets full of seeds to plant.

The secret is out. The celebration is overflowing its banks. The joy is becoming too great to contain. The pain has grown too urgent to ignore. The earth is cracking open, and the women are rising from our hiding places and spilling onto the streets, lifting the suffering into our arms, demanding justice from the tyrants, pushing on the patriarchy and activating a paradigm shift such as the world has never seen.”

There’s a call now to step up in service of our fellow human beings, other creatures, and the earth herself, and anyone listening is going to hear it. And the feminine wisdom teachings, past and present, give us radically new ways to show up at a time when everything’s on fire. The only way we can meaningfully address the conflagration is together. Feminine teachings have always been singing that song: that we cannot, should not, and must not try to be lone saviors in the crazy reality in which find ourselves. It’s only by looking around and paying attention, and listening to each other and holding each other, and pulling each other in and lifting each other up, that we can possibly hope to mend the torn fabric.

The wisdom of the feminine lies hidden in all kinds of places and spaces, and we have to be paying attention to find it. That’s why I want to call out the younger women and the transgendered people, and people who fall all over the spectrum of the feminine experience, and are drawing on these deep values of heart, of relationship, of feeling, of tending, of nurturance, of wild, radical, fierce truth telling that’s required of us right now. Is a kind of ferocity that hasn’t always been associated with the feminine.

TS: Let’s end with you reading the piece that opens the chapter on connecting and community.

MS: “You feel special. Sometimes this feels like a curse, like no one will ever understand you, like you’ll always be an alien pretending to blend in with regular humans. You’ve learned to live with this gulf, but you crave community. You long to belong to the human family, to Mother Earth. Participating in the human condition can be hard. It can seem so much simpler to ride solo, slaying your own dragons and singing the ballads you wrote about yourself. Collaboration can be tedious, and the prevailing masculine value system may have conditioned you to feel like you’re giving away your power when you share it with others. Give it away anyway. The time of the singular sage bestowing his unique wisdom is over. That was a method devised by the men in charge who sought to regulate wisdom. They taught us to suffer alone in the desert for 40 years, collecting our insights in a secret box labeled ‘esoteric knowledge,’ then dispensing them stingily to those who’ve proven themselves worthy. This world is filled with special beings, grappling our way through the anxiety of solitary conundrums and tasting the occasional reprieve of connection. When you realize this, your body lets out its breath and relaxes.  You come in from the cold. You hold out your cup, and some other special being fills it with sweet, milky tea, spiced with fragrant herbs. You drink.

Our way, the way of the feminine, is to find out what everyone is good at, praise them for it, and get them to teach it to others. Maybe you know something about the hidden meanings of the Hebrew letters, or how to build a sustainable home from recycled tires and rammed soil, or loving kindness meditation. You, the one who knows the Islamic call to prayer, climb that minaret and call us. You, the one who knows how to sit quietly at the bedside of the dying, show us the way to bear witness. You, the one who knows how to get us to wake up to the shadow of privilege, wake us the fuck up. It will be chaotic, all this community building, but your cooperation will save the world. Besides, it will be fun.”

 

Oil: blessing or curse?

Oil, Power, and War(2018) by Matthew Auzanneau, a history of oil from its discovery in 1859 to the present, might as well be the history of the world during that time – oil is that much of a force, that much of a driver, of everything we do. Because of its superior energy power, oil gave rise to many crucial aspects of modern capitalism, shaped the outcome of the First World War, and made the Second World War and some would say all subsequent wars necessary. It also, as you’ll see if you read on, perverted democratic politics, as countries and oil companies jostled for geopolitical and monetary advantage. If I had a dollar for every time I said to myself as I read this book, “See? I’m not a conspiracy theorist. Or if I am, my theories are valid. The rich do get together secretly, or at least privately, to plot the fates of the rest of us!” I could take you all out to lunch.

Finally, looking ahead, we need to be aware that, having pumped most of the planet’s easily obtainable crude oil, we’re on the verge of being forcibly weaned from our addiction to this master fuel and its various agricultural, medical, and other by-products (plastics, anyone?). About as much is being done about that as is being done about the other intimately related challenges hanging over our heads: climate change and economic/political collapse, since capitalism is as unsustainable as the fantasy of expecting cheap oil to flow forever.

See what you think. I’m posting these notes on Auzanneau’s book both here and in Resources/Nonfiction Books. It’s a long read, but nowhere near as long as the book itself.

The history of human use of oil is fascinating. The ancient Egyptians used it to preserve to preserve their mummies, and Greeks and Romans greased the axles of their chariots with it. And, as Auzanneau notes, “From the first steps of civilization, of agriculture and maritime trade in Mesopotamia, the drive to control hydrocarbons – like the need to control water access – was one of the major causes of war, because bitumen [asphalt, a sticky, semi-solid form of petroleum] was necessary for waterproofing irrigation canals and boats. Among all the different uses for oil, its military function became the most prominent long before the industrial era began. Greek fire, an incendiary weapon probably based on naphtha and quicklime and capable of setting the sea aflame, repelled naval and land offensives during the Arabs’ first siege of Constantinople, from 674 to 678 AD.”

Baku, on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea (presently the capital and largest city of Azerbaijan) had hundreds of bitumen quarries, and by the 1830s “small refinery workshops supplying petroleum-derived paraffin, vaseline, oils and solvents. Oil refining offered an unlimited range of lubricants – from thick fats for locomotives to the lightest oils for watches. Paraffin from petroleum was well suited to making candles, and could be used as a coating to preserve meat. Most important of all, ‘lamp oil,’ a lightweight oil that burned with a soft, strong light, appeared in drugstores in major European cities. During the 1850s, dozens of distillation workshops were set up in Pittsburgh, New York, and Boston, producing tens of thousands of liters of lamp oil a day.”

In 1859 crude oil was first pumped from wells in Pennsylvania, Ontario, and Baku. The Pennsylvania oil rush accelerated the changeover from whale oil to petroleum for lubricants and lighting. “The American Civil War, the first mechanized conflict, primed the pump for amassing the fortunes of those who refined lubricants and solvents destined for armaments factories, railways, artillery equipment, or the wheels of the first armored warships. As early as 1865, congressman James Garfield, future 20thpresident of the United States, said, ‘Oil, not cotton, is king now in the world of commerce.’”

John D. Rockefeller, a trader of various commodities in Cleveland, first invested in oil refining in 1863. Three years later, understanding that the greatest profits were in marketing oil and reducing transport costs as much as possible, he entered into a secret agreement with railway magnate Jay Gould to finance the first pipeline system. “Railway owners became Rockefeller’s constant allies in his ascension toward the quasi-monopoly of oil sales in the US. The Standard Oil Company, registered in the state of Ohio on January 10, 1870, soon became the leading privately owned company on the planet, without owning a single oil well.” By fair means and foul, Rockefeller edged out competitors and fixed prices till he had the world’s largest refining company and controlled 90% of the industry in the US.

“Oil had physical properties capable of providing a staggering number of services. Incandescence came first. Lantern oil was the first cheap, efficient, abundant light source available to mankind. Thanks to the merchant marine and steam trains, it – along with sugar, tea, and coffee – penetrated the most isolated markets, increasing labor productivity and intensifying lifestyles. Petroleum was also a good source of heat, and fuel tanks quickly became commonplace in the cellars of homes and other buildings. It was also quickly adopted in a large number of industrial processes, in particular cement-making. The fluid property of oil was no less important. Unlike coal, laboriously mined from underground, crude oil springs out from its own pressure when oil fields are in their prime. And, like any liquid, it flows from tanks to reservoirs thanks to gravity, without having to be broken up and carried.

The distillation of crude oil made it possible to produce an infinite range of greases, oils, solvents, and detergents. Steam engines were improved, and paints, dyes, inks, cleaning supplies, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics created. From the outset, Rockefeller and his competitors sold Vaseline (petroleum jelly) and benzine, an excellent solvent. The refinement of crude oil also became the most economical production source for glycerin, an ingredient in soaps, syrups, moisturizing creams, suppositories, and toothpastes. Combined with nitrates, it also accelerated the production of nitroglycerin for dynamite.” Fuel and fertilizer were soon to come.

“Hydrocarbons haven’t taken the place of coal, nor has coal replaced wood. The consumption of all three of humankind’s primary energy sources has grown, up to today. With the addition of oil, they form an intertwining spiral, multiplying their effects.” Coal began to be used when wood was in short supply, and its use exploded after the steam engine was invented to pump water from coal mines. Steam power and the mechanized manufacture of cotton cloth then created the Industrial Revolution, centered in England, because it had the most coal. After the petroleum industry was born, the United States had more horsepower than England, which had no oil. “The bottom line is that technical progress gives access to more energy, and this energy can meet more needs, including finding new sources of energy. More energy yields more complexity, which in turn calls for more energy, and so on. Capable of solving innumerable problems, the energy complexity spiral tends toward its own great problem – its physical limit.”

The Swedish Nobel family was made famous when Alfred invented dynamite in 1867. His brother Ludvig, one of the main suppliers of the Russian army, manufactured steam engines, cars, gun carriages, shells, mines, and rifles in St. Petersburg. Robert Nobel, involved in the oil industry in Baku, built a pipeline and ordered the company’s first tanker in the late 1870s, allowing the black gold market to become global. By the beginning of the 1880s, the Nobels and the Parisian Rothschilds had established themselves as the two biggest oil producers worldwide.

John D. Rockefeller engaged in a fierce price war in Europe that included corruption and sabotage to try to contain their advance.

In the 1890s, Londoner Marcus Samuel founded the Shell Oil company, and the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was launched to drill for oil in Sumatra. In January 1901, “on Spindletop Hill, near Port Arthur and Houston – two small, isolated cotton markets on the Gulf coast – a formidable new source of crude oil was discovered. Shell’s emissaries signed a contract with the biggest producer.” Oil was also discovered in Oklahoma. “By investing heavily there and in Texas, the Mellons of Pittsburgh made their company, Gulf Oil, a small giant sitting at the foot of Standard Oil. The Texas Company, or Texaco, founded in 1901, was the second major company to mature in the Texas oil fields.

During the early years of the 20thcentury, Baku was the world’s leading oil producer and exporter. In 1901, Russia produced 233,000 barrels a day, compared with 190,000 from the United States and 11,000 from the Dutch East Indies. By the early 1880s, Standard Oil and Royal Dutch Shell had become the worldwide champion and the runner-up, respectively, of the global market, remaining secure in their leadership roles until the creation of OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) half a century later.”

In the fourth chapter of his book, “The Automobile: American Oil Regenerates Capitalism,” Auzanneau says that “at the dawn of the 20th century, it was as a source of mechanical power – fuel – that oil began to release its full energy. The production of gas-powered vehicles grew the fastest in the US, the land of abundant oil. In 1901, Henry Ford, a 38-year-old engineer helped create the Cadillac brand. The following year, the first assembly line was set up in Michigan by Ransom Olds, the founder of Oldsmobile. The Ford Motor Company was created in 1903. In mid-December of that year, the 12-horsepower gasoline engine the Wright brothers had installed in their plane inaugurated the aviation era. And in that same year, in Iowa, Charles Hart and Charles Parr made one of the first motorized vehicles to be called a ‘tractor.’ General Motors was founded in September 1908 in Flint, Michigan. The birth of the world’s largest automaker was greatly facilitated by a $6 million loan from John D. Rockefeller, to be reimbursed in shares. Two weeks later, Ford’s Model T, the first car to be manufactured in the millions, began production in Detroit. In 1914, in the United States, gasoline sales almost equaled those of kerosene, which was still surpassed by heating oil.”

In 1911 the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act was invoked to force Standard Oil to separate into supposedly separate companies, including Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of New York, and Standard Oil of Indiana. The 33 companies didn’t compete with one another, and John D. retained a quarter of their shares, becoming the world’s first billionaire in 1916. “British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1834, ‘Two men have been supreme in creating the modern world: Rockefeller and Bismarck. One in economics, the other in politics, refuted the liberal dream of universal happiness through individual competition, substituting monopoly and the corporate state, or at least movements toward them.’”

In Chapter 5, “The Tank: American Oil Feeds the Victorious Fighting Machines of the Great War,” Auzanneau discusses World War I in relation to oil. “It had become obvious that if the British Empire wanted to retain its supremacy – particularly that of its fleet – finding its own oil was imperative. In 1911 the Royal Navy had several dozen oil-powered destroyers and submarines, but its key assets, the battleships, still relied on coal. In 1912, it decided to launch the construction of super-battleships, equipped with 24 oil-fired steam boilers.”

In 1901 a German exploration team found what appeared to be a huge amount of oil in northern Iraq. Two years later, German industrialists joined in the construction of a Berlin-Istanbul-Baghdad railway across the Ottoman Empire. In 1908 another rich oil field was discovered in Persia, leading to the founding the next year of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. British oil extracted in Persia was marketed by a company baptized British Petroleum (BP) beginning in 1916. “Still, not a single Middle Eastern drill site existed on June 28, 1914 when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo,” kicking off World War I.

Tanks or armored cars, first developed by the French and the British, “played a decisive role in ending trench warfare, beginning in 1916 in the Battle of the Somme. The United States, which entered the war in 1917, manufactured more than 900 tanks under a license agreement with Renault. It wasn’t until March 1918 that the Germans brought their slow, massive, 30-ton tank to the battlefield. Besides the tanks, by then, the Allies had hundreds of thousands of trucks, cars, and motorcycles. Reconnaissance planes and bombers were also being used by both sides by the end of the war. Fuel for all these vehicles became as necessary as blood, but as early as 1915, Germany saw its industry hampered by a shortage of lubricants, and beginning in 1916, it was no longer able to secure access to oil. After peace was established with Bolshevik Russia on March 3, 1918, it hoped to access to Baku oil, but Britain sent an expeditionary force through Persia and expelled the Germans’ Turkish allies from the area. Thanks to Indian troops, the Brits also dominated Mesopotamia, advancing as far as Mosul by November 1918. Still, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company only met a meager part of the British army’s needs. As for France, in 1914 it was cut off from its supply sources in Russia and Romania. In sum, about 80% of the oil fueling the Allied war machine was American.”

Auzanneau then describes how the horror of the fighting led to mutinies and desertions, especially on the German side, as well as worker demonstrations. This, in combination with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia “placed the bourgeois social order of the Industrial Revolution at the edge of the precipice in Europe. “On November 5, 1918, the German emperor, Wilhelm II, called members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) to meet with government authorities to negotiate an armistice. On November 7th, in Munich, the revolutionary council of soldiers and workers took the SPD reformists off guard and proclaimed the People’s State of Bavaria. Other labor councils took control of Berlin and several other large German cities when Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9th, the day after the armistice. On the same day, Friedrich Ebert, the SPD leader, who’d never stopped supporting the war, leaned on the military, police, and judges to put the Communist revolution in check. In January 1919, the German Social Democratic governments used the Friekorps, German volunteer units foreshadowing the Nazi militias, to crush the Spartacist revolution in Berlin, and the following spring the Bavarian Council Republic.

With profits from the war, Wall Street became the world’s foremost financial center, as two Republican presidents, Warren Harding (1921-23) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) lowered taxes on the rich and defended the private sector from government interference. The Federal Reserve opened the floodgates of cheap credit by setting low interest rates and allowing banks to loan money not backed by their own reserves. Millions of newly consumerist Americans went into debt, and skyscrapers were erected in Chicago, Detroit, and New York. The US was now a net oil importer, but the rapid exploitation of new oil fields off the coast of California allowed its economy to continue to accelerate. In the years of its oil boom, Los Angeles jumped from the tenth largest city in America to the fifth, rising from 500,000 in 1920 to 1.2 million in 1930. The 20thcentury’s first megalopolis was designed for the automobile, and as early as 1925, southern California had a car for every 1.6 inhabitants, a ratio not reached in the rest of the country till the end of the 1950s. Oil money funded the pipes needed to bring water to the city and to create Hollywood, the American ‘dream factory,’ and the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) in Pasadena. Half of California’s oil production was under the control of East Coast capital. Principal among these companies was Standard Oil of California (SoCal), created in 1900, when Rockefeller’s tankers still rounded Cape Horn to reach San Francisco.”

The Middle East’s post-World War I status was secretly agreed upon in December 1915 by Georges Picot, a French diplomat, and his British counterpart, Sir Mark Sykes. Britain was to get Palestine and Mesopotamia and France Syria and Lebanon. The Brits wanted Palestine as a buffer zone blocking access to the Suez Canal, and to that end supported Zionist immigration. When Hussein, the sharifof Mecca, began inciting the Holy City’s Arab population against its Turkish occupiers, the British sent T.E. Lawrence, a young intelligence officer, to enlist Arabs to the Allied cause by promising them independence and a throne in Damascus. When, after the war, these things didn’t happen, and there was an Iraqi insurgency, Winston Churchill, the British aviation secretary, “authorized the Royal Air Force to use mustard gas against the ‘recalcitrant natives.’ In the end, without the proper equipment in place, the British army couldn’t use chemical weapons, but rather its usual tactics – aerial bombardment and the torching of villages. After the deaths of 8,400, a less wasteful solution was adopted: creating a country and giving it a king – Faisal, chased from his throne in Damascus by the French. By design, Iraq was a divided nation, almost an illusion of a nation, invented in order to allow the British to reign over what lay under the ground within its borders.”

The heads of the three largest oil companies in the world, meanwhile, were negotiating the organization of a worldwide oil cartel that would make sure over-production didn’t cause the price per barrel to fall too low. “In August 1928, Henri Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell, Walter Teagle of Jersey Standard, and Sir John Cadman of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company met at Achnacarry Castle in the Scottish Highlands and agreed to freeze ‘the present volume of their business and their proportion of any future increase.’ They set production quotas and arranged it so that oil from Venezuela, Iran, and other countries could never be sold at a price lower than US oil.

The terrifying economic and financial crisis that broke out in October 1929 was, essentially a crisis of overproduction. In the United States, rapid productivity gains thanks to the abundance of oil and electrification, as well as the organization of mass production, caused a 33% increase in industrial production between January 1920 and January 1929. Avid confidence in a bright future encouraged the US to achieve a global level of debt that climbed to 300% of GDP, a level that wouldn’t be attained again until the 2000s. The banks loaned ten times more than what they had in their coffers, and people borrowed to invest in an overinflated stock market. The house of cards collapsed on October 24, 1929,” with full recovery only coming with the armaments manufacturing of World War II and the Cold War.

Auzanneau goes on to describe “the persistent alliance of ‘big oil’ and other corporate entities with Nazi Germany. Henry Ford signed many anti-Semitic pamphlets widely disseminated in the US and Germany, and in July 1938 received the highest Nazi distinction for a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle.

Because of its stance against Bolshevism, Henry Deterding, head of Royal Dutch Shell, was also an ardent supporter of the National Socialist Party. In 1936, just prior to his retirement, he made the Nazi regime a gift of livestock and other agricultural products worth a million pounds. Torkild Rieber, president of Texaco, also advanced the cause of national socialism, secretly refueling Franco’s army during the Spanish Civil War and helping emissaries from Germany to the US. Finally, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and Standard Oil consistently supplied Mussolini’s navy.

Many alliances were also forged between Anglo-Saxon oil companies and German industry. Lacking in capital, Germany’s chemical industry had a lot to offer the American petroleum industry, particularly in the development of petrochemicals. I.G. Farben, the conglomerate formed in 1925 by the merger of the largest German chemistry companies, was able produce large quantities of nitric acid, needed for the preparation of gunpowder and nitroglycerin. The synthesis of ammonia also provided modern agriculture with artificial nitrogen fertilizers and aided in the production of various pharmaceuticals. Confidential agreements established between Standard Oil of New Jersey and I.G. Farben continued under the Nazi regime.” I.G. Farben cooperated 100% with Hitler, facilitating his rise to power and providing his military with synthetic rubber, explosives, and synthetic fuel made from hydrogenated coal. Jersey Standard defended itself from charges of collusion with the enemy in 1942 by claiming that patents obtained from I.G. Farben had also benefited the American war industry.

“The First World War had killed 18 million people,” Auzanneau says, and the Second was responsible for the deaths of four times as many, because of the “energy power” now available to the belligerents. The Axis powers, he believes, lost the war because they lacked sufficient access to oil. Italy, for example, “saw half its fleet stranded in port as early as February 1941. The Allies, on the other hand, were able to count on the United States, the dominant producer of black gold. Blitzkrieg (“lightning war”) was a necessary tactic for an army with limited fuel. When Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, it had only six months of gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil in reserve.” Receiving some fuel from its Soviet ally and taking over oil installations in Romania in December 1939, enabled the Germans to enter Paris in June 1940.

Auzanneau says that the air Battle of Britain was won largely because of the “superior quality of American gasoline, higher octane and resistant to catching on fire. Thanks to better fuel, British fighter pilots could fly faster and longer.”

Historians agree that Japanese imperialism and its attack on the US were motivated by the need to obtain petroleum. Japan advanced into northern China not only to obtain coal, but hoping to extract shale oil in Manchuria, Auzanneau says. “Between 1931 and 1939, its oil consumption doubled, reaching 100,000 barrels a day. But 80% of this oil was imported from California. Japan could only survive without American petroleum if it gained control of Sumatra, Borneo, and Java – the Dutch East Indies. Roosevelt held off on an oil embargo for fear of driving the Japanese in this direction. Finally, on June 24, 1941, after confirmation that Japan was about to invade French Indochina, Washington froze its US assets. There was no official embargo on fuel, but shipments were authorized on a case-by-case basis, and Japanese tankers were no longer permitted to fill their tanks in California. After Pearl Harbor, Japan seized the Dutch East Indies, and thanks to the 70,000 barrels of crude oil that its wells supplied each day, enjoyed an uninterrupted succession of victories during the following months.”

In July 1940, Hitler decided it was necessary to capture the Soviet Union’s petroleum fields and take control of crops in the Ukraine. The invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, bogged down, however, the longer the supply lines grew. In order to conserve gasoline, the Wehrmacht increasingly used horses. On June 23, 1942, having been unable to take Moscow, Hitler ordered the capture of Stalingrad, a thousand kilometers north of Baku. But, again, the advance halted in the face of numerous Russian forces and lack of fuel. Even had the Nazis been able to take Baku, it would still have been necessary to route the oil by the Black Sea, under the control of the Soviet fleet.

“The Nazis also dreamed of capturing the oil fields of the Middle East. In April 1941, Erwin Rommel and the Afrikakorps marched across the deserts of Cyrenaica with the goal of taking the Suez Canal. On April 1st, Iraqi generals in Baghdad took power in a coup, blocked the carotid artery of the British Empire, the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline, and requested German assistance. Reza Shah of Iran also asked for German advisors. The Vichy government offered the Nazis free access to its Syrian bases, and Germany had an air base on the Greek island of Rhodes.” Britain was able to block the Nazis on all important fronts, however, including a joint invasion of Iran with the US that forced the shah to abdicate in favor of his 21-year-old son. Beginning in 1942, the US used Iran to supply the Soviet Union with planes, trucks, and other war materiel.

The Mediterranean Sea route between Naples and Tripoli for Rommel’s supplies of fuel and spare parts was “relentlessly harassed by British naval forces, forcing German armored divisions to depend more and more on scavenged British oil deposits and captured vehicles. Won by the British in early November, the Battle of El Alamein, along with the Battle of Stalingrad, turned the tide for the Allies. The ultimate blow began on May 12, 1944, a month before the invasion of Normandy, when after years of unsuccessful attempts, the Allied air forces were finally able to efficiently bomb German synthetic fuel factories. At the end of the year, in a desperate attempt to repair them and create new ones, the Nazis tried to mobilize 120,000 workers in mines, quarries, and caves throughout Germany and Austria. Half of them were slaves – deportees and prisoners. During the June 1944 Normandy landings, superior Allied aviation crushed a German army frequently short of oil and trying to use men and horses except in battle. The German retreat took place mostly on foot or by bicycle.

In the Pacific, Japanese tankers were a priority target for the US navy. By 1944, the Rising Sun’s fuel resources had fallen by half. Missing, in particular, fuel for aviation, the imperial army had to reduce the training hours of young pilots, and order many of them to fly kamikaze suicide missions. Japanese fighter pilots were effectively grounded when, on March 9, 1945, having realized that Japanese cities were mostly built of wood, the Americans began to bomb them with incendiary weapons. More than 100,000 residents of Tokyo died in fire in probably the most lethal air raid in history. The new B-29 long-distance bombers also dropped phosphorous and napalm bombs. The US air force then launched similar attacks on more than 60 Japanese cities, including Yokohama, Nagoya, and Osaka in the following weeks. The long bombing campaign preceded the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and was much deadlier.

The war revealed the manner in which the new world would function – a world where it was the masters of technology who would govern. The ultimate masters, however, were beyond the realm of men – they were the laws and limits of physics.”

During the war, President Roosevelt had extended the Lend-Lease program, supposed to be just for allies, to Saudi Arabia, having found that its defense was “vital to the defense of the United States. An independent assessment of Saudi oil reserves had revealed unequaled resources – four times more oil than the total proven reserves American companies had controlled up to that time. When the war began, barely 5% of the crude oil produced in the world came from the Middle East – 63% was extracted in the US. But, starting in 1943, many diplomats and senior leaders were aware that everything was about to change.

On February 12, 1945, His Majesty Abdulaziz al Saud left the kingdom he’d founded 13 years earlier for the third time in his life. He was on his way to join Roosevelt on an American battleship in the Red Sea. The evening before, the American president had participated in the closing ceremonies of the Yalta conference, also attended by Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin. In six hours Roosevelt and Ibn Saud, as he was known in the West, established a strong personal bond that set the tone for decades of close relations between their two nations. Upset about Britain’s encouragement of Jewish immigration to Palestine, the king had decided to make the US his new main ally.

The Californians of SoCal had acquired the first Saudi oil concession in 1933, joined in 1936 by Texaco in the form of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). The first successful drilling occurred in March 1938. In 1946 Aramco opened its operations to Standard Oil’s network. The oil companies entrusted the construction of the Trans-Arabian pipeline to Bechtel, the California firm that had built the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River in the 1930s and grown considerably thanks to army contracts during the war. The pipeline ran on an east to northwest diagonal from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean port of Sidon, Lebanon.

Europe was reconstructed under the auspices of General George C. Marshall, US army chief of staff throughout the war. The objective of the Marshall Plan (1948-52) objective was to raise a wall of capitalist wealth capable of curbing Soviet expansion, with oil as the cement in the dike. The countries involved used a fifth of the loans they received from Washington to buy petroleum products, half of which were produced by American companies. As a 1945 White House memo stated, ‘The Navy wants Arabian oil developed to supply European commercial demand, replacing Western hemisphere oil and thus conserving supplies under US military control.’ Only 6% of the oil required to run US motors, electric turbines, and factories was extracted outside US territory, and even this percentage (most of it from Saudi Arabia) was extracted by American companies.”

When the Saudi king asked for the same 50-50 profit sharing deal Venezuela had negotiated during the war, “the compromise to which Washington and Aramco agreed in December 1950, the ‘golden gimmick,’ rested on the back of the American taxpayer and extended well beyond the petroleum industry. The revenue Aramco paid to Saudi Arabia was exempted from taxation in the United States. By this means, Washington provided continuous financial support to a country with an indispensable resource without having to ask permission every year from Congress and its pro-Israeli legislators. The arrangement ended up being extended to all US companies abroad, and was also adopted by European countries, spurring Western firms to expand operations in developing countries whose elites they could easily corrupt to avoid taxation there as well.

After India won independence in 1947, the sole extractor of Iranian crude oil, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 51% controlled by Britain, was that country’s primary source of income and energetic power. The Americans were drilling in Iraq, held half of Kuwait’s oil and all of Bahrain’s, and, especially, had taken from right under the noses of their English cousins the incredible treasure in Saudi Arabia. Iranian oil still provided 40% of Middle Eastern extractions, but Iranians resented the British and the Americans for controlling events in their country, including allowing Stalin to requisition crops grown in the northern part of their country, causing famine. In 1950, Mohammad Mossadegh, leader of the opposition to the shah and his British patrons, persuaded the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, to nationalize the country’s oil. London immediately levied an embargo on Iran, threatening prosecution of any cargo-ship owner loading oil ‘stolen’ by the Iranians. The oil wells and the Abadan refinery closed.”

Britain wanted to invade Iran, but could do nothing without US support, and President Harry Truman was taking a neutral position on the conflict. “The US attitude shifted radically, however, with General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s arrival in the White House in January 1953. ‘Ike’’s more aggressive foreign policy was entrusted to two New York lawyer brothers, John Foster (secretary of state) and Allen (CIA director) Dulles, associates in a New York law firm representing companies related to the Rockefeller empire. In July 1953, Allen Dulles launched Operation Ajax, a plan jointly developed by the CIA and Britain’s MI6 to ‘bring about the fall of Mossadegh’ by any means in the name of anti-communism. On August 17thand 18th, Iranian men paid by American agents bribed police officers, elected representatives, and religious leaders while others staged a riot. Claiming allegiance to Mossadegh and communism, they struck passers-by and fired shots at mosques. The next morning the shah surrounded Mossadegh’s neighborhood with American tanks, and took the prime minister’s residence by force. After three years in solitary confinement in a military prison, Mossadegh, the father of Iranian democracy aborted by the CIA, spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The shah was thus enabled to begin a bloody dictatorship that ended only with the Islamic revolution of 1979, and American oil companies grabbed the largest share of Iranian oil. A consortium of Western companies were the only ones empowered to buy and sell the product, and the British (via British Petroleum – BP) had to be satisfied with only 40% of its shares.

Next came the 1956 Suez crisis, from which the US was the only country to emerge victorious, even though it was Washington’s refusal to allow the World Bank to lend Nasser the funds to build the Aswan Dam that led the Egyptian dictator to nationalize the canal. Britain and France’s decision to take control of the Canal (with Israel’s secret support), of course, had to do with oil. Oil tankers comprised two-third of the vessels that passed through the canal. On October 26, 1956, Israeli troops invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Desert, and turned in the direction of the canal. As previously agreed, London and Paris issued an ultimatum demanding that both the Israelis and the Egyptians withdraw from the canal zone. When Nasser refused, the UK and France bombed his airfields and dropped paratroopers, taking control of the canal. London and Paris had counted on Washington’s support, which wasn’t forthcoming. On December 15th, they began to withdraw their troops. The role of the US in the Suez crisis – and by extension, American oil companies – greatly increased their prestige with the governments of the Arab world, in particular the Gulf countries.”

In the next section of this chapter, headed “How Kennedy and the CIA Helped Saddam Hussein” Come to Power, Auzanneau says that “in 1963 the leader of the Iraqi government, General Abdul Karim Kassem, was executed during a coup by the Baath Party. Kassem himself had seized power five years earlier with the support of Communist allies, executing or turning a blind eye to the execution of the young king, Faisal II. In 2003, it was revealed that the coup against Kassem had the support of the CIA, which had previously tried to assassinate him with a poisoned scarf. Among Baath Party members colluding with the CIA in 1963 was 26-year-old Saddam Hussein. In the weeks following the Baath Party’s power grab, the CIA supplied the Baathists with lists of intellectuals suspected of being Communists: doctors, professors, engineers, and lawyers, who were assassinated by the hundreds. The US had originally supported Kassem as a counterweight to Nasser, but in 1961 he’d made the fatal decision to sign a law nationalizing territories where the Western oil consortium hadn’t yet drilled, 99% of their concession. After the Baath Party came to power in 1963, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel, and BP were able to conduct business with Baghdad – for American firms, their first involvement in Iraq.

In Indonesia, where the oil industry that appeared at the end of the 19thcentury was the creation of Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, American petroleum giants also gained considerable ground. As early as 1957 and 1958, the CIA armed secessionist movements and paramilitary rebellions from the extreme right in the petroleum zones of Sumatra and Sulawesi, where American companies possessed enormous interests. American rubber and oil investments had to be defended in the face of Mao’s China, which was financing its own insurrectional movements. In 1965, the CIA strongly supported General Suharto’s ouster Sukarno, who’d tried to remain neutral in the Cold War. As in Iraq, the CIA supplied Suharto with a list of thousands of people suspected of Communism, leading to the murders of between 250,000 and 500,000.

Oil wasn’t the only or the most obvious aim of American interventionism during this time, but it was a constant motivator, necessary for the optimal functioning of the war and peace machine. American political power deployed its empire thanks to the control of sources and flows of oil far greater than that of other nations. For this reason, the oil establishment was able, time and time again, to put its interests above the political sovereignty of the American people.

In December 1949, a Federal Trade Commission investigation concluded that the world’s seven most powerful oil companies (the five American majors, Shell, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) shared patents maintained artificially high crude oil prices. President Truman was reluctant to allow the report to go public or to allow the Justice Department’s antitrust division to go after the oil companies. The argument supported by the Departments of Defense and the Interior held that ‘American oil operations are, for all practical purposes, instruments of our foreign policy.’ It argued that, in the midst of the Cold War, an antitrust trial against the oil companies might foster the belief that ‘capitalism is synonymous with predatory exploitation.’ London and Paris lent their support to this argument.

On January 14, 1954, under the Eisenhower administration, American oil companies obtained the National Security Council’s explicit guarantee that they would never face antitrust litigation. On the other hand, at the end of his second term, during his farewell speech on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower surprised US citizens by warning: ‘In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.’

In 1973, on the eve of the first oil crisis, the major Anglo-Saxon oil companies controlled at least 91% of Middle Eastern petroleum production, and 77% of the production of the ‘free world’ outside the US. This uncompromising leadership, remarkably stable from 1954 to 1970, earned Jersey Standard, Mobil, SoCal, Texaco, Gulf Oil, BP, and Shell the nickname the Seven Sisters. The five Yankee Sisters alone ruled almost half of world production. The corporate oil world was headed by a close coterie, almost exclusively composed of WASPS, with families often intermarrying. The Rockefellers remained the principal shareholders and retained operational control of the four main offspring of John D.’s empire: Standard Oil of New Jersey, which became Exxon (20.2%); Standard Oil of New York, which became Mobil (16.3%); Standard Oil of California, which became Chevron (11.3%), and Standard Oil of Indiana, which became Amoco (12.3%), for a total of 60.1%.

From 1945 to the early 1970s, the five major American oil firms and Shell never ceased to increase the interlinking of their capital through cross-shareholdings held by New York’s most powerful banks – Morgan Guaranty, Chemical Bank, Bank of America, First National City Bank, and Chase Manhattan. The last two were the most important commercial banks in the US and the keystones of the Rockefeller empire. Beginning in 1960, Chase Manhattan Bank was chaired by its number one shareholder, David Rockefeller, the grandson of John D. Its principal rival, First National City Bank, had been founded with capital from John D.’s brother William, and was chaired from 1952 to 1967 by James Stillman Rockefeller, William’s grandson. Both banks were heavily focused on oil.

The neoclassical economist Friedrich Hayek spent most of his career in two bastions of academia funded by the Rockefeller Foundation: the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago. The ‘Chicago School of Economics’ that emerged from Hayek’s teaching was championed by Milton Friedman, hero of neoliberalism. Proudly biting the hand that fed him in a 1967 article in Newsweekmagazine, Professor Friedman exposed the duplicity with which Big Oil exerted its influence on the political affairs of America and the world: ‘Few US industries sing the praises of free enterprise more loudly than the oil industry. Yet few industries rely so heavily on special government favors.’ Thanks to the golden gimmick and the influence the petroleum industry exerted on both the Democratic and Republican Parties during the 1960s, the average tax levied on the five major American oil companies wasn’t even 5% of their income.

When, in 1946, the United Nations announced its intention to establish headquarters in New York City, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. tasked his son Nelson, David’s older brother, with purchasing the land on which it would be erected. But the Rockefeller family’s influence on the UN was greater than that. In 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington’s geopolitical think tank, had collaborated secretly with the State Department to create a commission on postwar studies funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Several members of this War and Peace Commission attended the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference that had outlined the provisions of the Bretton Woods agreements that set up the post-World War II financial order; others participated in the June 1945 international conference that established the UN. The Dulles brothers were eminent members of the War and Peace Commission. During the war, John Foster had helped conceive the State Department proposals that led to the UN’s creation. Allen was at the heart of the industrial and financial establishment that helped develop the intelligence network that became the the CIA, of which he was the first head. The Dulles brothers had close social ties with the Rockefeller heirs. American diplomacy’s financial arm, the World Bank, created in 1945 by the Bretton Woods agreements and situated one block away from the White House, was  chaired for two decades by senior leaders of Chase Manhattan Bank.

The Council on Foreign Relations, mentioned above, was one of the main crucibles of the Rockefeller network. Important figures like Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, and Alan Greenspan spent time there. The CFR was, par excellence, the institution where the American political, financial, and media establishments met, and where they dreamed up their self-serving vision for the world. Founded in 1922, it had been conceived in the image of Chatham House, created in London a year earlier as a prestigious forum supporting the British Empire. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. had financially supported the CFR since its inception, and in 1944 the widow of Harold Pratt, a former director of Standard Oil of New Jersey, donated the New York residence where the CFR still meets. As early as 1946, David Rockefeller participated in a CFR study group on the reconstruction of Western Europe that strongly influenced the development of the Marshall Plan. In 1949, he became one of the CFR’s directors, and in 1970 he assumed its presidency, taking the place of John McCloy, whom he had succeeded as the head of Chase Manhattan Bank ten years earlier.

Another prestigious sanctum of the Rockefeller sphere, this time secret, was the Bilderberg Group. Whether it was a place where – as David Rockefeller himself said, ‘omnipotent international bankers plotted with unscrupulous government officials,’ or simply the most select forum for North America’s and Western Europe’s economic, political, and media elite, the Bilderberg Group met each year in strict confidentiality. Its dozens of members were hand-picked by a committee whose essential pillar was, for decades, David Rockefeller.

During the 1950s and ‘60s, through an intense game of revolving doors, in which powerful figures rotated between business and political leadership, the American oil industry deployed an influence as omnipresent as it was discreet. John McCloy, a powerful New York lawyer, was the epitome of this. Secretary of War during World War II, he was president of the World Bank from 1947 to 1949, then high commissioner for Germany from 1950 to 1953. In the latter position, he granted forgiveness to many German industrial commanders for their roles in the Nazi regime, among them several directors of IG Farben, including Fritz ter Meer, who’d supervised the construction of a chemical plant at the Auschwitz extermination camp. At the beginning of 1950, McCloy approved the CIA recruitment of Reinhard Gehlen, a former Nazi general, to serve as the head of West German espionage. Gehlen was involved in Germany’s refusal to extradite SS criminal Klaus Barbie to France, whose escape to Bolivia in 1951 was organized by American counterespionage. Ten years later, while providing legal counsel to each of the Seven Sisters, McCloy became an important advisor to President Kennedy on both security and oil policy.

Rockefeller influence also appears in Henry Kissinger’s ascension. He entered the United States just before the war, and graduated from Harvard University in 1955. After directing a nuclear weapons study group at the Council on Foreign Relations, he was recruited to head another on American geopolitical strategies. It published a report in December 1957, two months after Sputnik’s launch, calling for a massive intensification of military spending, including nuclear weapons, to counter the Soviet threat. Nelson Rockefeller, now governor of New York, called on Kissinger the same year to serve as his personal adviser on foreign affairs. Kissinger played a similar role in Rockefeller’s three unsuccessful runs for the Republican nomination for the US presidency. When Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, he appointed Kissinger to head the National Security Council.

Independent Texas oil companies, which first promoted Lyndon Johnson to protect their interests, also supported Nixon, politically rooted in California oil money, as they would later support Texas oilman George H.W. Bush. From the time he became Senate majority leader in 1955, Johnson was an unwavering defender of the oil depletion allowance. Instituted in 1913, this tax deduction was designed to protect the oil companies from the ebb and flow of capital ‘depletion’ – the exhaustion of their oil reserves. Maintained at 27.5% of revenue, it favored oil more than any other American industry, and by the end of the 1960s represented $160 billion lost to the US Treasury. [According to Wikipedia, it’s still in existence.]

George Herbert Walker Bush stood at the exact confluence of American financial, political, and intelligence powers, via the oil industry that became its nexus in 1945. At that time, the future 41stpresident of the United States was a novice oilman supported by powerful familial interests. Between the First and Second World Wars, Prescott Bush, H.W.’s father, like his friend Allen Dulles and John McCloy, was one of the brightest agents of the global Wall Street financial empire, on which the American intelligence machine relied at the beginning of the Cold War. Prescott played an essential role in his son’s emerging career in petroleum, politically, and in helping the secret service. In 1924, before the age of 30, he’d become a powerful New York business banker, five years after his return from the First World War, in which he’d served as an intelligence officer. He belonged to Yale’s exclusively WASP secret society, Skull and Bones, as did his son and grandson, George W. Prescott’s father, Samuel Bush, was an influential Ohio steel producer, counting among his main clients the railway networks controlled by the Morgans and Rockefellers.

In 1926, Prescott Bush was named vice president of a prestigious Wall Street bank, W.A. Harriman & Co., directed by his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker. Renamed Brown Brothers Harriman in 1931, by the end of the 1930s it was one of the biggest investment banks in the world. Prescott oversaw the bank’s German clientele, in particular the Thyssen family, which played a key role on financing Hitler’s rise to power and arming the Reich, and remained the director of Thyssen’s American front company, the Union Banking Corporation, after the US entered the war. The company’s assets were seized in 1942, but there was no further investigation. After the war, when the American army found documents showing that Brown Brothers Harriman and Prescott Bush had helped the Nazis, John McCloy and Allen Dulles stifled the scandal and recruited Bush to help with ongoing intelligence. Continuing his international banking activities after the war, Bush helped manage the investments of the House of Saud and the House of Sabah, the ruling family of Kuwait. With the Rockefeller and Dulles brothers, Prescott Bush was among the Republican Party leaders who fared better than the Democrats in courting General Eisenhower to run for president in 1952. Bush also played a key role in Richard Nixon’s fledgling political career, opening the doors to the East Coast establishment, providing unwavering support during the slush fund scandal of 1952, and conducting Nixon’s unsuccessful campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In 1948, at age 24, with his Yale diploma in hand, George H.W. Bush renounced the aristocratic comfort of New England and migrated to west Texas, accompanied by his wife Barbara and 2-year-old son, George W. In 1953 he founded Zapata Petroleum with capital from his father and maternal grandfather, George Herbert Walker, a powerful banker who died the same year. In 1954 H.W. became president of Zapata Offshore, an offshoot of Zapata Petroleum that specialized in offshore drilling. The company, which never made any profits, may have been a cover for undercover CIA activities related to Cuba, whose government was taken over by Fidel Castro in 1958. In particular, Zapata Offshore seems to have been involved in the US maneuvers that culminated, on April 17, 1961, in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by anti-Castro forces trained by the CIA and supported by the US army. Testifying 30 years later, John Sherwood, a former CIA officer involved in the operation, said that Bush ‘was no spy. What guys like him helped us with was giving a place to park people that was discreet’ – a drilling platform 40 miles north of Cuba. US Army general Russell Bowen later said that Bush had ‘worked directly with anti-Castro Cuban groups in Miami before and after the Bay of Pigs invasion, using his company as a corporate cover for his activities on behalf of the agency.’ Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush’s prestigious investment bank, sustained tremendous losses as a result of Castro’s takeover of Cuba, as did a number of oil companies prospecting around the island.

Another link between H.W. and CIA operations at the juncture of petroleum, financial, political, and military influence, is his relationship with George de Mohrenschildt, a Russian petrogeologist linked with Lee Harvey Oswald. In 1976, de Mohrenschildt complained to his longtime friend, then CIA director, that the FBI was following him. On March 29, 1977, two months after Bush left the CIA, de Mohrenschildt was found dead, shot in the mouth with a hunting rifle, an apparent suicide. A Russian aristocrat, he’d come to the United States in 1938. During World War II, while his elder brother Dmitri served in the OSS, George worked with a French intelligence officer in an operation aimed at preventing the Third Reich from procuring petroleum products from the United States. He then traveled to Venezuela to work for an oil company involved in many of the CIA’s operations in Latin America. In 1950, he started a small petroleum investment firm in Abilene, Texas with Eddy Hooker, his nephew by marriage and a close friend of George H.W. Bush. He also worked for a company that later acquired prospecting rights in over half of Cuba.

George de Mohrenschildt was the person in closest contact with Lee Harvey Oswald between June 1962 and the tragic day of November 22, 1963, and he was the witness interrogated the longest by the Warren Commission, on which sat Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA fired abruptly by Kennedy following the Bay of Pigs. In a report others deemed insufficient, the commission drew no firm conclusions about the role de Mohrenschildt had played regarding Oswald. George H.W. Bush was in Dallas on the eve of President Kennedy’s assassination, speaking at a meeting of the American Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors. Never in the course of his long public service career did the future 41stpresident mention this fact. American journalist Russ Baker reported that, among other coincidences, on April 26, 1963, five months before Kennedy’s death, de Mohrenschildt met, on the New York premises of the Train, Cabot, and Associates investment bank, a CIA agent who was very likely Thomas Devine, George H.W. Bush’s close collaborator in Zapata Offshore.

H.W. had begun his political career in 1962, when he took charge of Republican Party finances in Houston, then in the process of becoming the planet’s petroleum capital. That same year, his father, Prescott, decided not to run for reelection as a Connecticut senator, ending his own political career. In 1964, still inexperienced, but ambitious and confident, H.W. lost a race for senator from Texas, while Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater for the presidency. Goldwater, supported by the Bush family, had won the Republican nomination over Nelson Rockefeller. The Bushes, having gravitated around the oil majors and Wall Street, were in the process of switching political alliances toward independent oilmen and the cluster of new industrial powers emerging alongside what some called the ‘Texas Raj.’ Resigning the Zapata Offshore presidency in 1966, H.W. was elected to the House of Representatives the following year. In 1968, Prescott Bush and others moved heaven and earth to persuade Nixon to name H.W. as his vice presidential candidate, but, in his first betrayal of the oil interests, the future president went with Spiro Agnew, governor of Maryland. By the time the Watergate scandal exploded in 1973, Big Oil’s support had been handed off to H.W.

The end of the 1960s saw two opposing factions in the Republican Party: the ‘traders,’ representing the traditional industrial establishment, and the ‘warriors,’ politically more to the right, from the conservative Southern states, in particular, Texas. These factions were personified by two oilmen with drastically different perspectives. Nelson Rockefeller represented the internationalist ethic of the oil majors and their Wall Street banks, whose strategies, global by necessity, could never be unilaterally pro-American. George H.W. Bush, the embodiment of East Coast high society transformed into a Southerner, was the custodian of independent American oil interests and other US industries revolving around oil. His ethics rested on a deliberately jingoistic viewpoint.

In 1960, the Saudi royal family and inner circles of Saudi Arabian power were divided over the question of whether or not the regime should evolve into a constitutional monarchy with a modern parliament. The reformers had the ear of King Saud, while the partisans of absolute monarchy aligned with Prince Faisal, the king’s half-brother and future successor. Prince Talal, a younger half-brother, had created a national council to draft a constitution in 1958. That summer, American intelligence alerted Aramco’s Government Relations Office that Saudi officers were preparing a coup, intending to impose democratic reform on the country and planning to assassinate Prince Faisal. Even though the officers let Aramco know that their republic would ally with the US rather than with Nasser, Aramco exposed the plot. In 1962, Prince Talal was forced into exile, and in 1964 Prince Faisal surrounded King Saud’s palace and dethroned him. Neither Aramco nor American president Lyndon Johnson had the slightest objection, and Faisal remained Washington’s ally until a mentally unbalanced nephew assassinated him in 1975.

OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, came into being in September 1960. Founded by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, its goal was to regain control of the petroleum that had been dominated by Western companies. The five oil-producing countries held, but didn’t control 80% of the planet’s known crude oil reserves, and as Venezuelan oil minister Pérez Alfonso noted, since world oil reserves wouldn’t continue to expand forever, ‘our people can’t let their only possibility to pass from poverty to well-being, from ignorance, to culture, and from instability and fear to security and confidence’ go by. Pérez Alfonso intended to make OPEC an ecological organization, limiting the production of oil not only to maintain its price, but to curb pollution and allow the resource to benefit many generations. He reigned from his position in January 1963, profoundly disillusioned.

China, meanwhile, had found a source of oil in a giant field named Daqing, and remained petroleum-self-sufficient until its economic liftoff in 1992. Oil was also discovered in the Algerian and Libyan deserts, and in Nigeria at the mouth of the Niger River. At the end of the 1960, Libyan crude oil production rivaled Saudi Arabia’s, providing western Europe with a quarter of its fuel.

On May 16, 1967, Nasser sent Egyptian troops into the Sinai Peninsula and demanding the departure of the UN troops that had controlled the canal zone for ten years. On the night of May 22ndto 23rd, Egyptian ships also blockaded the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, which received most of Israel’s essential petroleum shipments from the Persian Gulf. Israeli forces retaliated on June 5th, and the next day at dawn, bombed the Egyptian and Syrian air forces out of existence. By June 10th, following one of the most intense armored offensives in history, Israel had tripled the size of its territory. Egypt had lost Sinai and the Gaza Strip in this Six-Day War, Syria the Golan Heights, and Jordan the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 1970 the United States was by far the largest crude oil producer in the world, providing almost a fourth of world production. In 1956, however, geologist Marion King Hubbert had introduced the concept of peak oil, stating that between the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s, American oil production would peak, then enter an irreversible decline, due to lack of easily obtainable reserves. Before a mystified assembly of Texas oilmen, the unemotional geologist drove home the message that humanity’s petroleum endeavor was a ‘unique event in human and biological history – non-repetitive, a blip in the span of time.’ In 1971, as Hubbert had predicted, US oil production stopped growing. The principal oil fields on which US industrial power depended were half-spent, and one after another their strength eroded. President Nixon proposed a series of measures to accelerate the development of offshore oil, produce nuclear as well as ‘clean’ energy, and revive the exploitation of shale oil, but his message to Congress was largely ignored.

In April 1971, for the first time since the Second World War, the American trade balance was in the red, crude oil imports weighing heavily. Four months later, Nixon announced that the United States was suspending the trade of dollars for gold, effectively eliminating the gold standard. It’s difficult to conclude,” Auzanneau says, “that the timing of the onset of American crude oil production decline, the end of the Bretton Woods monetary system, and the 1973 oil crisis (blamed on OPEC) were coincidental. Throughout the 1960s, while inflation ran rampant in the rich countries, provoked by the heat of growth, crude oil costs had remained relatively unchanged, around $1.80 a barrel, due to abundant supply. Now Persian Gulf producers raised the price, and some of them – Algeria, Venezuela, Iraq, and Libya  nationalized at least part of their production. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi increased the percentage of profits due them.

On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Saudi Arabia launched a surprise attack against the territories Israel had occupied since the Six Day War. The massive military supply replenishments provided almost immediately by the Soviet Union to Egypt and Syria and the United States to Israel made the Yom Kippur War one of the hottest episodes in the Cold War. Israeli general Ariel Sharon made a decisive breakthrough on October 19th, passing through the Suez Canal, with nearly 300 tanks. On October 16th, the Gulf’s six oil-exporting countries convened in Kuwait to impose a price of $5.12 for a barrel of Arabian light crude. The following day, as the Yom Kippur War turned in Israel’s favor, they agreed to reduce their production by 5% a month until Israel withdrew. On October 18th, King Faisal announced an immediate 10% reduction until the US stopped helping the Israelis. Three days later, while Israeli troops had Cairo in their sights, Israel accepted a cease-fire negotiated by the US and the USSR. The true oil crisis began in December when the shah of Iran again doubled the price of oil. When he obtained the support of the most radical Arab exporters – Iraq, Algeria, and Libya, the Saudis had no alternative but to go along. Later, it came out that American oil interests, represented by Henry Kissinger, had asked for the shah’s price increase, so that they could finance such new projects.

Oil now provided almost half the energy produced by humankind, having usurped coal as the primary energy source ten years earlier. The industrial powers still used three-quarters of the oil produced. The Arab oil embargo and the shah’s price increase caused two years of violent recession throughout the capitalist world. OPEC was blamed, even though it was the depletion of the United States’ principal oil zones that was responsible.

The oil crisis created two long-lasting effects that the world economy never got rid of: debt and mass unemployment. It also fanned the flames of inflation.  Growth was more sparing and selective, and there was more competition. Many governments resorted to borrowing for the first time since the war, and massive public debt entrenched itself. There was an explosion of debt in developing countries, where the Green Revolution had created a strong need for petroleum products, leading the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to impose drastic structural adjustment programs. Big Oil’s profits soared, however, as new oil sources were explored in Alaska and the North Sea.

The decline of the Alaska fields began in 1988, and North Sea production peaked in 1999 off the coast of the United Kingdom and 2001 for Norway. Meanwhile, the formidable Saudi fortune, which increased dramatically after 1973, was mostly redirected to the United States, in the form of US treasury bills or certificates of deposit in private banks. As early as 1974, the money that flowed from Saudi Arabia to the US, through financial organizations such as Chase Manhattan and Citibank, was at least twice what America had paid for Saudi oil. As a key part of this phenomenon, the US became the primary arms supplier for the Middle East, starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

After Nixon was forced to resign on August 9, 1974, Gerald Ford, his vice president, took over. Ford’s cabinet chief, Donald Rumsfeld, became secretary of defense, and his assistant and protégé Dick Cheney took the position of primary adviser to the president. George H.W. Bush was appointed head of the CIA. At the same time, in Texas, Jim Bath, an aircraft merchant close to the Bush family, was connecting with a son of Mohammed bin Laden, a multibillonaire and intimate friend of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Bath, who was perfectly integrated into the petroleum network, and went duck hunting with George H.W. Bush’s friend and business partner, James Baker, a business lawyer, ending up managing the American interests of both Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz, the heir of the Saudi bank in charge of managing the royal fortune.

Whatever we may think of the synchronicity between George H.W.’s becoming head of the CIA and Jim Bath’s business links, early 1976 marked a turning point in the relations between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and American espionage. This was marked by the creation of the Safari Club, a secret group of intelligence services united in the fight against Communism, that outsourced to Riyadh and wealthy Middle Eastern princes a share in financing the Cold War. Saudi Arabia especially served as a covert funding source for American and French counterinsurgency operations. An embarrassing gap, obviously tolerated, soon appeared, however, between Saudi secret aid to American allies in the developing world and aid the princes gave to anti-Zionist groups that Washington considered terrorists, beginning with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

In 1979, during the Carter administration, Iran was taken over by Islamic revolutionaries who vowed to make America pay for having murdered Iranian democracy 25 years earlier and then arming and training Savak, the shah’s barbaric political police. At the same time, in Saudi Arabia’s Holy City of Mecca, Sunni terrorists took hundreds of pilgrims hostage and demanded the immediate removal of the Saudi royal family, who they accused of selling themselves to America. Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, fighting Muslim rebels undermining the Communist government. Funding Afghan resistance with the United States’ blessing, the House of Saud believed this was an opportunity to reinstate its honor in the eyes of a new generation of Muslim radicals, headed by Osama bin Laden. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq attacked Khomeini’s Iran, beginning an 8-year war. The American strategy for its global energy structure had just birthed its three worst monsters: Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Salafi jihadism, and the military adventurism of Saddam Hussein.

The Iranian Revolution triggered a diplomatic and political crisis in the United States, which was a deciding factor in Ronald Reagan’s overwhelming victory in the November 1980 presidential election. Fearing that the Carter administration would rescue the hostages before the election, Reagan’s campaign team initiated parallel negotiations with Khomeini’s regime. Iran agreed to hold the hostages captive until after the election in exchange for spare parts (delivered by Israel) needed for the war against Iraq. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, five minutes after Reagan was sworn into office.

Many believe the long Iran-Iraq war was a lose-lose game orchestrated by the Reagan administration to keep both countries in check. The war began in September 1980, when Saddam Hussein attacked on a 650-kilometer front. The two countries attacked each other’s oil industries, and in a few weeks Iraqi production collapsed and Iranian extractions, already harmed by the revolution and the departure of foreign engineers, slowed down even more. The US delivered arms to Iran via Israel between 1980 and 1983, and in 1986 sold anti-tank and ground-to-air missiles directly.” This led to the Iran-Contra scandal, since a portion of the proceeds from these heavy weapons sales was used to illegally fund forces trying to topple the Nicaraguan Sandinista government. The US also helped Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons and even selling them to him.

Auzanneau makes the case that the US was instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, blocking the construction of a pipeline to provide Russian oil to Europe and flooding the oil market with Saudi Arabian crude. This caused the Soviet Union’s main source of foreign currency to fall by two thirds. The US had also led the USSR into Afghanistan and, with the help of Saudi Arabia, contributed to its defeat there. “The clandestine cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia, initiated at the end of the 1970s with the creation of the Safari Club, radically intensified during the Reagan administration.” The Saudi emissary coordinating all this, a close friend of George H.W. Bush, was King Fahd’s nephew, Prince Bandar. “To transfer the funds necessary for its secret war to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the various guerillas in Afghanistan, the CIA used accounts in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani well connected to the largest fortunes in the Persian Gulf. On July 5, 1991, it was closed by authority of the Bank of England because of its suspect accounting measures, Ponzi schemes, and involvement in laundering hundred of millions of dollars from all forms of organized crime, including arms trafficking, drug trafficking, prostitution, and corruption, as well as financing terrorist groups. BCCI had counted powerful Saudi businessmen among its major shareholders, beginning with Kamal Adham, Turki al Saud’s predecessor as the director of Saudi intelligence. William Casey, US CIA director and friend of Ronald Reagan, frequently met Hasan Abedi at Washington’s Madison Hotel in order to use the BCCI’s services for clandestine operations, and BCCI’s accounts were also used to transfer funds from the White House to the Nicaraguan contras.

The Senate investigation report published in December 1992 on all this was a terrible source of embarrassment for the CIA and the H.W. Bush Justice Department, which had turned a blind eye as evidence of the scandal’s enormity accumulated. Among other things, the American secret services were accused of using a series of BCCI accounts to finance the war in Afghanistan by laundering opium money. According to historian Alfred McCoy, ‘the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60% of US demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979 to 1.2 million by 1985. As the mujahedeen guerillas seized territory in Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug dealing, the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.’ In 1995, Charles Cogan, the CIA’s former head of operations in Afghanistan, admitted that the United States had knowingly overlooked this heroin trafficking, but justified it by the results – ‘The Soviets left Afghanistan.’

H.W.’s eldest son, George W., was able to work nearly full-time on his father’s 1988 presidential campaign because his small, debt-ridden oil company, Spectrum 7, had been purchased by Dallas-based Harken Energy two years earlier for $2.25 million. By the terms of the transaction, W. received $600,000, a seat on Harken’s board of directors, and a consulting post paying more than $50,000 a year. The main shareholders in Harken included Alan Quasha, son of an influential friend of Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines’ corrupt pro-American dictator, and Harvard University’s investment funds, directed by Robert G. Stone, Jr., son-in-law of a cousin of Nelson and David Rockefeller and a friend of the Bush family. In spite of its powerful partners, Harken was in bad shape, like Spectrum 7 having dug mostly dry wells. Yet in January 1990, a year after George H.W. Bush arrived in the White House, the small company, which had never drilled either abroad or at sea, astounded the petroleum world by winning, at Amoco’s expense, a contract for prospecting off the coast of Bahrain. The three key characters in Harken’s successful bid – a Houston oil consultant, the American ambassador to Bahrain, and the prime minister of Bahrain – were all connected to the BCCI. All this enabled George W. to buy the Dallas baseball team, the Texas Rangers, his first step in a dazzling political ascension that would make him the governor of Texas in 1995.

The collaboration between Exxon and JP Morgan during the Reagan years led to the invention of ‘credit default swaps,’ a financial derivative that became famous during the 2008 financial crisis. JP Morgan invented credit default swaps to allow Exxon to raise the funds necessary to pay  a record $5 billion fine levied by the state of Alaska after the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill. In 2000, JP Morgan merged with the historic Rockefeller enterprise, the Chase Manhattan Bank. During the 1980s, multinational corporations, in particular the oil majors, had grown to such tremendous proportions that they were clamoring for colossal investments beyond the capacities of wealthy capitalist families. Capitalism needed to access the savings of ‘everyman.’ Expedited by computers, this involuntary ‘democratization’ of financial investment led to the Black Monday crash on October 19, 1987, the culmination of a fevered period of leveraged buyouts and mergers. The largest mergers were in the American oil industry. In March 1984, Gulf Oil, the company the Mellon family had created at the turn of the century, was swallowed by Chevron, the former SoCal. And on December 31, 1984, Texaco acquired Getty Oil, the company created by J. Paul Getty, the richest man in the world since John D. Rockefeller. Exxon, meanwhile, spent billions of dollars purchasing its own shares to protect itself against takeover. American oil companies were discovering that it was easier to buy competitors and take over their oil reserves than it was to acquire new ones.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which had largely financed the Iraqi army so that it would put down Shiite rebellions against Sunni Arab princes, now refused to erase any portion of the debt Iraq had incurred ($90 billion by the end of the Iran-Iraq war). Baghdad began its revenge by accusing Kuwait of having used slant drilling to steal $2.4 billion of crude oil from Iraqi oil fields. Then, on August 2, 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait, allowing Saddam to control a fifth of the world’s petroleum, nearly as much as Saudi Arabia. On August 5th, George H.W. Bush announced that this Iraqi ‘aggression…would not stand.’ Saddam had offered to negotiate a withdrawal, but Washington warned its allies and Arab clients not to meet with him and tried to convince everyone that the Iraqi leader intended to invade the Saudi kingdom. The Saudis, in return, agreed to host American armed forces, which they hoped would destroy Saddam’s regime.

From August 1990 to the end of what would become the Gulf War, the Bush administration rejected 11 peace proposals put forward not only by Iraq, but also by Jordan, Libya, Morocco, and the two main suppliers of Saddam Hussein’s army – the Soviet Union and France. From August to December of 1990, Washington assembled the largest military coalition since the Second World War: 31 nations, dominated by the American military, which supplied more than half of the nearly one million troops. In early October 1990, while hundreds of thousands of American soldiers participated in Operation Desert Shield, which aimed to protect Saudi Arabia against an Iraqi threat that appeared increasingly illusory, 70% of Americans favored negotiations and rejected recourse to a military option. On August 11, 1990, Kuwait’s exiled ruling family hired the largest PR firm in the world, however, and their campaign began with the shocking testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl before the US Congress. Nayirah, who didn’t give her family name or speak under oath, told the sub-committee on human rights that she’d seen Iraqi soldiers in a maternity ward in Kuwait City pluck newborns from incubators and throw them ‘on the floor to die.’ H.W. referred to the story many times, invoking the Holocaust and comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. After the war,it was revealed to be pure fiction, purveyed by the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, to reverse American public opinion, which favored a war against Saddam Hussein in early January 1991.

On January 17, 1991, the war opened with a 46-day bombing campaign of colossal intensity. Beyond its goal of destroying Saddam Hussein’s war machine, this was aimed at destroying infrastructure vital to the Iraqi population – electric power plants and refineries. Iraq was deprived of 92% of its electricity production capacity and 80% of its fuel production capacity. American bombs also targeted petrochemical plants, cement factories, aluminum, textile, electric cable, medical equipment facilities, and radio and television stations. Considered a model of development in the Middle East, the country was set back more than half a century, unable, among other things, to filter drinking water or operate the sewers. Not only did the destruction of the Iraqi electrical system greatly overstep the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the war, it violated the Geneva Conventions, which made it illegal to interfere with or deprive civilians of vital resources.

On February 15th, when Baghdad announced that it would comply with the UN resolution and withdraw from Kuwait, Bush shunned the offer, calling it a ‘hoax.’ A few days later, a land offensive, Desert Storm, was launched from Saudi Arabia. Iraqi troops fled from Kuwait City toward Basra any way they could, but between 25 and 50 thousand were killed during a period of 48 hours. The carnage passed almost unnoticed in the Western media, since journalists had no other way to access the front than to be embedded in units chosen for them by the military. Encouraged by American leaflets, Iraqi rebels – Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south – rose up. They not only received no help from the American coalition, but General Schwarzkopf authorized the defeated Iraqi army to use attack helicopters against them. Iraqi repression of the rebellions caused between 20 and 100 thousand deaths. In the middle of winter, nearly a million Kurds took refuge in the mountains of Turkey and Iran. Between 15 and 30 thousand of them died on their escape route or in the refugee camps. Brent Scowcroft, adviser to the Bush administration, later said, ‘The trick was to damage Saddam’s offensive capability without destroying the balance between Iraq and Iran.’

Saddam Hussein’s departure wasn’t the object of the ongoing embargo either. It was ostensibly intended to force the Iraqi leader to accept the destruction of his biological and chemical weapons, his nuclear program, and his medium- and long-range missiles. The destruction of Iraq’s famous ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ largely acquired from the US during the war against Iran, was largely accomplished by the mid-1990s, and in October 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iraq’s nuclear program no longer existed. Sanctions continued, however, lasting until the fall of the regime in May 2003 and bringing to its knees the Iraqi population. Iraq was rendered incapable of repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the coalition bombing campaign of early 1991. In 1996, all Iraqi wastewater treatment plants remained out of commission – sewage was being dumped in the rivers that were used for drinking water. In 2002, UNICEF estimated that 40% of the water consumed in the city of Basra consisted of untreated wastewater. Cholera, typhoid fever, and severe diarrhea was rampant in Iraqi cities. Hunger also wreaked havoc, as Iraqi fields suffered from a lack of irrigation, spare parts for farm equipment, fertilizer, and pesticides. The harvest was only a third of what it should have been. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that a quarter of Iraqi newborns were underweight, and that a quarter of children under five – a million kids – suffered from chronic malnutrition. Hospitals were also denied essential equipment, including vaccines and medicines. The United Nations’ two successive humanitarian coordinators in Iraq, Irish Denis Halliday and German Hans von Sponeck, resigned on October 1, 1998 and February 2, 2000, respectively, in protest against the Security Council’s sanctions, described by Halliday as ‘genocidal.’

On August 7, 1998, after two terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden ordered the massacre of more than 200 people in a double car bomb attack against the American embassies in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. The date chosen was the 8thanniversary of American soldiers’ arrival in Saudi Arabia.

The practice of ‘revolving doors,’ by which powerful American business managers switch between working in the public and private sectors, had been in place a long time when a new investment company began taking ‘access capitalism’ to a new level. The Carlyle Group was founded in 1987 by former Carter administration policy advisor David Rubenstein, who made it the leader of buying and selling companies not listed on the stock exchange, but in ‘federally regulated or impacted industries such as aerospace/defense.’ In January 1989, Frank Carlucci became Carlyle’s CEO days after having left his seat as President Reagan’s defense secretary. During his time at Princeton University, Carlucci had counted among his comrades James Baker and Donald Rumsfeld (his roommate). George W. Bush, who clearly had access to government, was also on Carlyle’s board of directors, and his father, H.W., became associated with the company soon after he left the presidency.

In 1993, when Carlyle took control of Vinnell, the security company that, among other things, trained the Saudi national guard, it was poised to become one of the biggest arms traders in the world. That same year, the company recruited a man who probably had the most charmed Washington career of anyone who hadn’t been elected: James Baker, undersecretary of commerce for Ford, cabinet chief and secretary of the treasury for Reagan, and secretary of state and cabinet chief for H.W. Bush. Carlyle landed an even greater coup in 1995 when it recruited ex-president Bush himself as an adviser, and some time later, former British prime minister John Major – both men with longtime ties to Arab oil princes. That same year, the symbiosis in the oil money crucible led several members of the bin Laden family to invest directly in Carlyle.

The idea that societal development rests essentially on economic growth – itself dependent on abundant fossil energy – was questioned for the first time during the first Earth Summit, organized by the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Many there saw ‘sustainable development’ as an oxymoron, and brought up the concept of the ecological footprint. According to researchers, the earth’s capacity had been exceeded during the 1970s, mainly because of the developed world’s over-use of resources. The industrial nations’ lifestyle, the focal point of economic development, to these folks, had proven to be a fatal lure, its promotion an irresponsible and untenable promise.

Already identified as a potential risk by the Club of Rome report 20 years earlier, the greenhouse effect of burning hydrocarbons and coal appeared on the radar of major media for the first time on June 24, 1988 when scientist James Hansen testified before a US congressional committee. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, submitted that there was a 99% probability that the warming observed in recent years was the result of the combustion of carbon energy. On December 6, 1988, the UN General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide ‘internationally coordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing, and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies.’ A year and a half later, in May 1990, the IPCC released its first report, immediately challenged by the oil industry. Eighty-three countries signed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change on December 11, 1997. The Clinton administration was one of the signatories, but on July 25thof that year the senators of the number-one world industrial power – the oil country where the two largest companies were General Motors and Exxon – had already voted for a resolution prohibiting ratification of the protocol because of the harm it would do to the US economy. A New York Timessurvey conducted on the eve of the Kyoto summit indicated that 65% of Americans wanted their country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, however, ‘regardless of what other countries do.’

On December 1, 1998, Exxon, Standard Oil’s eldest daughter, announced that it was absorbing its little sister, Mobil. The deal, at $80 billion in shares, recreated the largest private enterprise in the world. The megamerger was in part a response to the merger of BP and Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) announced four months earlier. At the dawn of the new millennium, after many vicissitudes, the Western oil industry found itself once again dominated by three companies almost identical to the behemoths that prevailed on the eve of the First World War: ExxonMobil, BP-Amoco, and Shell, direct descendants of Standard Oil, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and the apparently unalterable Royal Dutch Shell. In 1999, Total absorbed the Belgian Petrofina and the formerly public French company, Elf Aquitaine. Finally, after purchasing Gulf Oil in 1984, in October 2000, Chevron consumed the other great Texas company, Texaco. In September 2000, Chase Manhattan Bank bought JP Morgan for $33 billion in shares, giving birth to JP Morgan Chase. This united two banks that for many years had served Big Oil, acting both as financiers and tributaries for the profits of the largest and richest of all industries. JP Morgan Chase competed successfully with Citigroup, another Wall Street superheavyweight created two years earlier.

When George H.W. Bush left the White House in 1993, the United States for the first time imported more oil than it produced. Five years later, in 1998, US production continued to decline, supplying no more than 40% of American consumption. This reached the unprecedented level of 20 million barrels a day in 2003, no les than a quarter of the world’s production.

On January 26, 1998, a neoconservative think tank called Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sent President Bill Clinton an open letter calling for the ‘removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power’ in Iraq. A rising force within the Republican Party, the neoconservatives wanted the United States to dominate the world for another century. Among the signatories were three ‘hawks’ of earlier Republican administrations: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. Dick Cheney, Halliburton’s CEO since 1995, belonged to the group, consisting mainly of Pentagon alumni like himself, that had founded the PNAC in 1997. Probably more than any of the signatories of the 1998 letter to President Clinton, he was aware of the Persian Gulf’s vital role for the future of the world’s petroleum reserves. In 1992, as secretary of defense, he’d supervised Paul Wolfowitz’s draft of a ‘defense planning’ policy statement stating that ‘in the Middle East and southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.’ (The world’s largest petroleum service company, Halliburton’s primary business was to design, sell, and install the equipment used to delay the decline of oil fields as they reached maturity.)

On July 25, 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush surprised the political world by announcing Dick Cheney as his vice-presidential running mate. No US government, not even Warren Harding’s in the early 1920s, had been as close to Big Oil as the one Bush and Cheney established in the aftermath of their controversial victory in the presidential election of November 7, 2000. Donald Evans, Bush’s crony and the CEO of a Midland, Texas oil company, was appointed secretary of commerce, and Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice as head of the National Security Council. She was formerly a part of George H.W. Bush’s administration and had served on Chevron’s board of directors. Also in the first ranks of the Bush administration was Thomas White, secretary to the army and former senior officer of Enron, a Houston firm that traded natural gas and produced electricity. Kenneth Lay, Enron’s CEO, was close to the Bush clan, and one of George W.’s most generous campaign donors. The stunning revelation of his firm’s fraudulent accounting practices – which implicated the highest executives of Wall Street’s finest jewels, beginning with JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup – led Enron stocks to collapse that summer.

In the first days of the new administration, Cheney established the Energy Task Force to seek advice from the masters of the American energy industry. After a long legal battle, certain documents that had circulated within the task force were made public. The nation’s main environmental organizations, some of which had brought the lawsuit to release the documents, had been kept out of the task force’s secret consultations. Among the documents, dating back to March 2001, were maps of the Middle East and  in particular of Iraqi oil resources – fields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and areas of exploration, as well as a table analyzing Saddam Hussein’s relationships with European and Chinese oil companies.”

The 28thchapter of Auzanneau’s book is entitled “September 11, 2001: A Rogue Pearl Harbor. Nearly 3,000 people died in the September 11thattacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. It was the deadliest foreign attack ever perpetrated on American soil. In the days following the attacks, Richard Clarke, the White House director of counterterrorism, authorized the departure from American territory of at least 160 Saudi nationals, including many members of the royal family and several members of the bin Laden family. None were interrogated before leaving, and some of their planes took off during a period when the FAA was prohibiting all plane travel.

Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, captured in March 2002 by Pakistani commandos and American special forces, told investigators that in the late 1990s, Osama bin Laden had made a pact with the House of Saud in order to obtain its support, in exchange for the assurance that Al Qaeda would spare it. The contact Zubaydah provided was Prince Ahmed bin Salman al Saud, son of Salman al Saud, who ascended the throne in January 2015. The prince, age 43, died unexpectedly in his sleep a year after 9-11. In the days that followed, two other Saudi princes named by Zubaydah also died, one in a car accident on the way to Prince Ahmed bin Salman’s funeral, and the other of dehydration in the desert.

For several months after 9-11, the White House tried to restrict its investigation to secret congressional committees with limited power, until, pressured by lawmakers and the victims’ families, an ad hoc national commission was established on November 27, 2002. President Bush announced that Henry Kissinger would chair the commission, but he resigned from the position after a group of the victims’ widows visited him and asked if his international relations company had any Saudi clients. The chairmanship of the 9-11 Commission was finally given to a friend of Bush’s father, former Republican governor of New Jersey Tom Kean, who by his own admission was ignorant of intelligence and national security issues. To analyze the circumstances of the worst crime ever committed in the US, the commission had a budget of $3 million, thirteen times less than was allotted for the investigation of the space shuttle Challengerexplosion and half as much as had been spent on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In January 2003, the key position of executive director of the commission was given to Philip Zelikow, a professor of history and political science from the University of Virginia, a Texan from the world oil capital, Houston, who’d worked with Condoleeza Rice on George H.W. Bush’s National Security Council. The conclusions of the commission, published in July 2004, were very lenient toward Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration, even though they’d ignored numerous specific warning signs in the months preceding the attacks. Various potentially problematic aspects of the attacks were also left out of the report, including any mention of tower #7 in the World Trade Center complex, the third building that collapsed on September 11th, and the discovery of melted steel at ground zero. These were elements that might have indicated that there had been a controlled demolition of the towers from ground level.

The press was also wondering about the swiftness with which the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime had harbored Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization. It had also been negotiating with Unocal for a northern pipeline project to bring natural gas from the Caspian Sea to Turkmenistan through Afghan territory. Once the Taliban were driven out of Kabul in December 2001, the Bush administration supported the rise to power of future Afghan president Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal consultant. Zalmay Khalilzad, an American strategist of Afghan origin, sent to assist Karzai, was also an endorser of the Project for the New American Century and had been employed as a consultant by Unocal. The pipeline project briefly resurfaced in 2005, with President Karzai’s blessing, but the seemingly perpetual war that ravaged Afghanistan blocked the path to its construction. Finally, a report published by the PNAC in September 2000, analyzing the situation in the Persian Gulf, bemoaned the fact that the process of dominating the area would take a lot of time and resources, then evoked a possible alternative: ‘The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.’ On the evening of September 11, 2001, President Bush noted in his diary, ‘The Pearl Harbor of the 21stcentury took place today.’”

Having raised these suspicions, Auzanneau then demonstrates that the Iraq War was “a war for oil. The country sat on what constituted by far the most important reserves of known un- and under-exploited crude oil reserves on earth, and Saddam Hussein had announced his intention of selling it in euros rather than dollars. On June 29, 2009, in the heart of the protected ‘Green Zone,’ the new Iraqi government opened the bidding on the exploitation of Iraqi oil. After months of bidding, China had gained control of almost a quarter of the petroleum projects in Iraq and soon received nearly half of the oil extracted.

The price of crude oil shot up as never before from 2005 to 2008, rising from $50 to $100 a barrel. In 2008, barrel prices began by transcending the $100 mark. Then, after a record barrel price of $147 on July 11th, the value collapsed, precipitated by recession and the implosion of speculative capital. By December, prices had fallen to $45.” Auzanneau says its “quite possible” that there was “a cause-and-effect link between the continuing rise in oil prices and the subprime crisis. The rise in the cost of gas and heating oil broke the budgets of many modest, indebted American households, some of which may have been forced to miss their mortgage payments. The rise in the price of oil also caused the price of many other commodities, including food – there were food riots in developing countries where people could no longer afford to buy it.

In November 2010, the International Energy Agency announced that the peak of conventional, classic crude oil production (still four-fifths of the world’s production) had been reached. Any future increase in production would have to come from new, extreme, and unconventional sources. That same year, Canadian oil sands were the number one source of petroleum imports for the United States. The boom of shale or ‘tight’ oil had also begun, and, thanks to hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), US natural gas extraction was increasing. The economic viability of fracking tight hydrocarbons, like its ecological impact, is the source of much debate, especially since to provide a high extraction rate, it’s necessary to continuously drill new wells.

Despite the spectacular initial takeoff of unconventional petroleum in 2011, conventional oil continues to provide approximately 80% of the world’s liquid fuel supply. According to Olivier Rech, who was responsible for oil forecasts during the drafting of the IEA’s 2008 report, world production will probably enter decline before 2020.

The laws of nature appear to be on the brink of imposing a radical change in the course of the brief history of human technology. Humanity will have to realize that only solar energy will assure its long-term survival. Preserving the climate also means leaving the majority of remaining fossil fuel reserves underground.”