Repeating the Shell quote for others to judge for themselves …
– "“People have the right to the truth. Unvarnished. Even uncomfortable. But never subjugated to a cause, however noble or well-meaning. They have the right to clear thinking. Slogans, boycotts and protests don’t offer answers… (I)t has been suggested that Shell should pull out of developing nations altogether. The oil would certainly continue flowing. The business would continue operating. The vast majority of the employees would remain in place. But the sound and ethical business practices synonymous with Shell, the environmental investment, and the tens of millions of dollars spent on community programs would all be lost. Again, it’s the people of developing nations that you would hurt. It’s easy enough to sit in your comfortable homes in the West, calling for sanctions and boycotts against a developing country. But you have to be sure that knee-jerk reactions won’t do more harm than good. Some campaigning groups say that we should intervene in the political process in developing nations. But even if we could, we must never do so. Politics is the business of governments and politicians. The world where companies use their economic influence to prop up or bring down governments would be a frightening and bleak one indeed.” (Chiquita Banana’s paying terrorists is a good example)
That quote is very similar to Ad-editorials that ExxonMobil used to run in the NY Times on their Op-Ed pages. And Shell was part of the conspiracy to propagandize the public in regard to Global Warming.
If I recall this correctly the oil industry has known since at least the late 1940’s of the dangers of the GW
model. They spent $50 billion over 50 years for this propaganda of lies.
I can’t really address the issue of what the world would be without ExxonMobilShell, but I don’t think the
natives of these nations see it the same way Shell does. And WHAT “environmental investment”?
And why are “community programs” necessary in the area? This seems to mimic the same overall iies
that Nature requires our help? That animals need us to doctor them. And from what I can see, when we
study animals we are study all the wrong subject – rather we should be interested in what animal-life can
teach us about our own lives. How could Shell be taking Oil from a “developing country” and not be
intervening in the political process there? We might ask Shell when they last discussed the issue of
nationalizing OIL for the benefit of the developing nation, or for the benefit of our own nation. PLUS, we
have known since the revelations of Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler (See: War is a Racket!!) that the
US has always been involved in protecting Capitalism at home and internationally with US military.
Thank you for your info on Petro $$ – and connection to Bretton Woods Accords. To my knowledge
Bretton Wood also worked to PREVENT capital from jumping borders to insure protection for labor in each
nation – labor which itself couldn’t also jump those same borders to seek greener pastures as corporations could. But here’s a search page with some further info if anyone else wants to look into it – 1944 is certainly an important era. And have no idea what actual involvement of Federal Reserve Bank may be.
Yes – for every $10 a bank has they can lend out $9 – which also suggests they’re highly dependent on
everyone not knocking on their door at the same time to withdraw their money. Citizens create economies, which are then manipulated by banks and financial institutions and international financial institutions for the benefit of Elites/wealthy.
Since then, US has become world’s largest arms dealer, warmonger, and maker of wars.
And clearly dedicated to destroying democracies abroad wherever they rise – and at home.
Didn’t know that Iran and Syria don’t work sell Oil in US $$$.
What seems clear to me about Ukraine is the unbelievable amount of interference of the CIA there
which isn’t much discussed in our press, if at all. And interesting what you are saying about it, but
while I accept what you’re saying, I have no in depth knowledge of what you’re describing.
Well, the oil industry and all involved pushing gasoline driven cars have certainly stood against mass transportation and increasing MPG. Who profited from that? Not the public or our health or the health of our children. The California deal was that by 1980 10% of the cars would be electric – that happened. And presumably the production was to continue rising – from that time forward would have made an immense difference in advancing of Global Warming and would have encouraged other states to join in. PLUS would likely have been many other advances in design of the cars. By now, we might have had all electric cars on the roads.
Thom Hartmann also tells us that 80% of our oil is used by MIC.