Oil at $110 a barrel. Gasoline at $3.35 (or more) per gallon. Diesel fuel at $4 per gallon. Independent truckers forced off the road. Home heating oil rising to unconscionable price levels. Jet fuel so expensive that three low-cost airlines stopped flying in the past few weeks. This is just a taste of the latest energy news, signaling a profound change in how all of us, in this country and around the world, are going to live—trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will only become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the global struggle over their allocation intensifies.
Energy of all sorts was once hugely abundant, making possible the worldwide economic expansion of the past six decades. This expansion benefited the United States above all—along with its “First World” allies in Europe and the Pacific. Recently, however, a select group of former “Third World” countries—China and India in particular—have sought to participate in this energy bonanza by industrializing their economies and selling a wide range of goods to international markets. This, in turn, has led to an unprecedented spurt in global energy consumption—a 47% rise in the past 20 years alone, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE).
An increase of this sort would not be a matter of deep anxiety if the world’s primary energy suppliers were capable of producing the needed additional fuels. Instead, we face a frightening reality: a marked slowdown in the expansion of global energy supplies just as demand rises precipitously. These supplies are not exactly disappearing—though that will occur sooner or later—but they are not growing fast enough to satisfy soaring global demand.
The combination of rising demand, the emergence of powerful new energy consumers, and the contraction of the global energy supply is demolishing the energy-abundant world we are familiar with and creating in its place a new world order. Think of it as: rising powers/shrinking planet.
This new world order will be characterized by fierce international competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium, as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states like China, Japan, and the United States to energy-surplus states like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. In the process, the lives of everyone will be affected in one way or another—with poor and middle-class consumers in the energy-deficit states experiencing the harshest effects. That’s most of us and our children, in case you hadn’t quite taken it in.
Here, in a nutshell, are five key forces in this new world order which will change our planet:
1. Intense competition between older and newer economic powers for available supplies of energy: Until very recently, the mature industrial powers of Europe, Asia, and North America consumed the lion’s share of energy and left the dregs for the developing world. As recently as 1990, the members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of the world’s richest nations, consumed approximately 57% of world energy; the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact bloc, 14% percent; and only 29% was left to the developing world. But that ratio is changing: With strong economic growth in the developing countries, a greater proportion of the world’s energy is being consumed by them. By 2010, the developing world’s share of energy use is expected to reach 40% and, if current trends persist, 47% by 2030.
China plays a critical role in all this. The Chinese alone are projected to consume 17% of world energy by 2015, and 20% by 2025—by which time, if trend lines continue, it will have overtaken the United States as the world’s leading energy consumer. India, which, in 2004, accounted for 3.4% of world energy use, is projected to reach 4.4% percent by 2025, while consumption in other rapidly industrializing nations like Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Turkey is expected to grow as well.
These rising economic dynamos will have to compete with the mature economic powers for access to remaining untapped reserves of exportable energy—in many cases, bought up long ago by the private energy firms of the mature powers like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Total of France, and Royal Dutch Shell. Of necessity, the new contenders have developed a potent strategy for competing with the Western “majors”: they’ve created state-owned companies of their own and fashioned strategic alliances with the national oil companies that now control oil and gas reserves in many of the major energy-producing nations.
China’s Sinopec, for example, has established a strategic alliance with Saudi Aramco, the nationalized giant once owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, to explore for natural gas in Saudi Arabia and market Saudi crude oil in China. Likewise, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will collaborate with Gazprom, the massive state-controlled Russian natural gas monopoly, to build pipelines and deliver Russian gas to China. Several of these state-owned firms, including CNPC and India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, are now set to collaborate with Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. in developing the extra-heavy crude of the Orinoco belt once controlled by Chevron. In this new stage of energy competition, the advantages long enjoyed by Western energy majors has been eroded by vigorous, state-backed upstarts from the developing world.
2. The insufficiency of primary energy supplies: The capacity of the global energy industry to satisfy demand is shrinking. By all accounts, the global supply of oil will expand for perhaps another half-decade before reaching a peak and beginning to decline, while supplies of natural gas, coal, and uranium will probably grow for another decade or two before peaking and commencing their own inevitable declines. In the meantime, global supplies of these existing fuels will prove incapable of reaching the elevated levels demanded.
Take oil. The U.S. Department of Energy claims that world oil demand, expected to reach 117.6 million barrels per day in 2030, will be matched by a supply that—miracle of miracles—will hit exactly 117.7 million barrels (including petroleum liquids derived from allied substances like natural gas and Canadian tar sands) at the same time. Most energy professionals, however, consider this estimate highly unrealistic. “One hundred million barrels is now in my view an optimistic case,” the CEO of Total, Christophe de Margerie, typically told a London oil conference in October 2007. “It is not my view; it is the industry view, or the view of those who like to speak clearly, honestly, and [are] not just trying to please people.”
Similarly, the authors of the Medium-Term Oil Market Report, published in July 2007 by the International Energy Agency, an affiliate of the OECD, concluded that world oil output might hit 96 million barrels per day by 2012, but was unlikely to go much beyond that as a dearth of new discoveries made future growth impossible.
Daily business-page headlines point to a vortex of clashing trends: worldwide demand will continue to grow as hundred of millions of newly-affluent Chinese and Indian consumers line up to purchase their first automobile (some selling for as little as $2,500); key older “elephant” oil fields like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia and Canterell in Mexico are already in decline or expected to be so soon; and the rate of new oil-field discoveries plunges year after year. So expect global energy shortages and high prices to be a constant source of hardship.
3. The painfully slow development of energy alternatives: It has long been evident to policymakers that new sources of energy are desperately needed to compensate for the eventual disappearance of existing fuels as well as to slow the buildup of climate-changing “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. In fact, wind and solar power have gained significant footholds in some parts of the world. A number of other innovative energy solutions have already been developed and even tested out in university and corporate laboratories. But these alternatives, which now contribute only a tiny percentage of the world’s net fuel supply, are simply not being developed fast enough to avert the multifaceted global energy catastrophe that lies ahead.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, renewable fuels, including wind, solar, and hydropower (along with “traditional” fuels like firewood and dung), supplied but 7.4% of global energy in 2004; biofuels added another 0.3%. Meanwhile, fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—supplied 86% percent of world energy, nuclear power another 6%. Based on current rates of development and investment, the DoE offers the following dismal projection: In 2030, fossil fuels will still account for exactly the same share of world energy as in 2004. The expected increase in renewables and biofuels is so slight—a mere 8.1%—as to be virtually meaningless.
In global warming terms, the implications are nothing short of catastrophic: Rising reliance on coal (especially in China, India, and the United States) means that global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to rise by 59% over the next quarter-century, from 26.9 billion metric tons to 42.9 billion tons. The meaning of this is simple. If these figures hold, there is no hope of averting the worst effects of climate change.
When it comes to global energy supplies, the implications are nearly as dire. To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which would mean equally massive investment—in the trillions of dollars—to ensure that the newest possibilities move rapidly from laboratory to full-scale commercial production; but that, sad to say, is not in the cards. Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish U.S. government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting their mega-windfall profits from rising energy prices into vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes to extract oil and gas from Alaska and the Arctic, or to drill in the deep and difficult waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The result? A few more barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas at exorbitant prices (with accompanying ecological damage), while non-petroleum alternatives limp along pitifully.
4. A steady migration of power and wealth from energy-deficit to energy-surplus nations: There are few countries—perhaps a dozen altogether—with enough oil, gas, coal, and uranium (or some combination thereof) to meet their own energy needs and provide significant surpluses for export. Not surprisingly, such states will be able to extract increasingly beneficial terms from the much wider pool of energy-deficit nations dependent on them for vital supplies of energy. These terms, primarily of a financial nature, will result in growing mountains of petrodollars being accumulated by the leading oil producers, but will also include political and military concessions.
In the case of oil and natural gas, the major energy-surplus states can be counted on two hands. Ten oil-rich states possess 82.2% of the world’s proven reserves. In order of importance, they are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria. The possession of natural gas is even more concentrated. Three countries—Russia, Iran, and Qatar—harbor an astonishing 55.8% of the world supply. All of these countries are in an enviable position to cash in on the dramatic rise in global energy prices and to extract from potential customers whatever political concessions they deem important.
The transfer of wealth alone is already mind-boggling. The oil-exporting countries collected an estimated $970 billion from the importing countries in 2006, and the take for 2007, when finally calculated, is expected to be far higher. A substantial fraction of these dollars, yen, and euros have been deposited in “sovereign-wealth funds” (SWFs), giant investment accounts owned by the oil states and deployed for the acquisition of valuable assets around the world. In recent months, the Persian Gulf SWFs have been taking advantage of the financial crisis in the United States to purchase large stakes in strategic sectors of its economy. In November 2007, for example, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) acquired a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup, America’s largest bank holding company; in January, Citigroup sold an even larger share, worth $12.5 billion, to the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) and several other Middle Eastern investors, including Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The managers of ADIA and KIA insist that they do not intend to use their newly-acquired stakes in Citigroup and other U.S. banks and corporations to influence U.S. economic or foreign policy, but it is hard to imagine that a financial shift of this magnitude, which can only gain momentum in the decades ahead, will not translate into some form of political leverage.
In the case of Russia, which has risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union as the world’s first energy superpower, it already has. Russia is now the world’s leading supplier of natural gas, the second largest supplier of oil, and a major producer of coal and uranium. Though many of these assets were briefly privatized during the reign of Boris Yeltsin, President Vladimir Putin has brought most of them back under state control—in some cases, by exceedingly questionable legal means. He then used these assets in campaigns to bribe or coerce former Soviet republics on Russia’s periphery reliant on it for the bulk of their oil and gas supplies. European Union countries have sometimes expressed dismay at Putin’s tactics, but they, too, are dependent on Russian energy supplies, and so have learned to mute their protests to accommodate growing Russian power in Eurasia. Consider Russia a model for the new energy world order.
5. A Growing Risk of Conflict: Throughout history, major shifts in power have normally been accompanied by violence—in some cases, protracted violent upheavals. Either states at the pinnacle of power have struggled to prevent the loss of their privileged status, or challengers have fought to topple those at the top of the heap. Will that happen now? Will energy-deficit states launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of surplus states from their control—the Bush administration’s war in Iraq might already be thought of as one such attempt—or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals?
The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means, not military ones. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle for energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject. These endeavors could easily enough lead to unintended escalation and conflict.
One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is obviously the regular transfer of arms and military-support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the United States and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states like Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan in Africa and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The United States has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country’s oil is produced; Beijing has emphasized arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the South and Darfur.
Russia is also using arms transfers as an instrument in its efforts to gain influence in the major oil- and gas-producing regions of the Caspian Sea basin and the Persian Gulf. Its urge is not to procure energy for its own use, but to dominate the flow of energy to others. In particular, Moscow seeks a monopoly on the transportation of Central Asian gas to Europe via Gazprom’s vast pipeline network; it also wants to tap into Iran’s mammoth gas fields, further cementing Russia’s control over the trade in natural gas.
The danger, of course, is that such endeavors, multiplied over time, will provoke regional arms races, exacerbate regional tensions, and increase the danger of great-power involvement in any local conflicts that erupt. History has all too many examples of such miscalculations leading to wars that spiral out of control. Think of the years leading up to World War I. In fact, Central Asia and the Caspian today, with their multiple ethnic disorders and great-power rivalries, bear more than a glancing resemblance to the Balkans in the years leading up to 1914.
What this adds up to is simple and sobering: the end of the world as you’ve known it. In the new, energy-centric world we have all now entered, the price of oil will dominate our lives and power will reside in the hands of those who control its global distribution.
In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.
This leads to a final observation: The most pressing decision facing the next president and Congress may be how best to accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel-based energy system to a system based on climate-friendly energy alternatives.
Substitute “oil” with “rice” and you’ll get the same results:
THE price of rice will rise dramatically in the next two months. This is after the price of the staple grain more than doubled over the last three months due to export bans in India and Pakistan.
South Africa imports all of its rice supplies. The Chamber of Milling’s chief executive officer Jannie de Villiers says: “We have seen India and I think Pakistan, and some other rice supplier countries. They have put an export ban on it, to ensure that they have enough locally, so for South Africa this is bad news in terms of rice prices.
“At the moment I don’t think it’s a huge crisis. We’re not running out of stock , but I think we will definitely see huge increases coming to the consumer shelves in the next two months.”
For-profits have to be to blame. Bingo:
Meanwhile, two major US bulk retailers – Sam’s Club and Costco – have started rationing the sale of large bags of rice to consumers . Both companies insist they have plenty of rice but the measure appears aimed at preventing over- stocking among customers concerned by the surging prices of commodities worldwide.
The World Bank warned this month that the higher food prices could push 100 million people in poorer developing countries further into poverty
Instead of giving poorer developing countries, situated on burnt sand with absolutely nothing to do but mate while waiting for handouts, why not dispense condoms to control their birth rates, as it seems there are far too many people everywhere on earth? They could teach us to not irresponsibly fornicate for shits and giggles and out of boredom? Nah. That’d be racist. Holocaust disguised as goodwill.
oh yeah… and we have huge oil reserves that are now (at 100 dollars a barrel) economical to retrieve.
$3 a gallon sucks, but we have plenty of options to keep it from getting worse.
The immediate problem is a liquid fuels problem, so nukes aren’t going to help. And although you can convert coal to liquids, it is expensive and dirty. And all that unconventional oil won’t scale up to meet your demands. Building the infrastructure for these alternatives will take more than a decade.
Then you have the problem of your falling dollar. I saw on CNN that oil has risen 92% in Euros over the same period that is has risen 319% in dollars.
The US still consumes more than 21 mbd and produces only 5.5 mbd. That 5.5 is declining, and it will take a decade before any new production spurred by higher prices will come online. Meanwhile, the amount it imports from Venezuela has declined from 1.7 to 1.4 mbd, with China taking the other 0.3 mbd. China has also signed huge deals with Saudi Aramco and Gazprom for a bigger share of the oil from SA and Russia. Add to that the fact that Saudi Arabia has announced that it isn’t going to increase production, but wants to keep oil in the ground “for future generations”. Mexico’s production is in terminal decline because it was all based around one enormous field (cantarell) which is in decline.
Not only will gas at the pump get much higher, but you will probably have shortages within a year or two. None of your solutions will make any difference within the next decade, maybe more.
The immediate problem is a liquid fuels problem, so nukes aren’t going to help.
Immediate but short term. We are close to good enough batteries for electric cars and could roll out hydrogen except for it’s inefficiencies (which would be reduced by having cheaper electric power.. via nuke).
Also, as food prices spike in part because of government / ethanol, we may give up on it (re: which includes lowering our tariffs) because we can sell corn for more money and then buy foreign ethanol (made in places where sugar can grow / it’s economical)…
Not only will gas at the pump get much higher, but you will probably have shortages within a year or two. None of your solutions will make any difference within the next decade, maybe more.
I think they could… in the next decade… and shortages and much higher prices would motivate the changes.
Anyway, keep in mind Americans have to buy new cars every 3-4 years because cars are built so poorly. So… on average, it’s easy to replace old equipment… and move to new tech.
The immediate problem is a liquid fuels problem, so nukes aren’t going to help.
Immediate but short term. We are close to good enough batteries for electric cars and could roll out hydrogen except for it’s inefficiencies (which would be reduced by having cheaper electric power.. via nuke).
Also, as food prices spike in part because of government / ethanol, we may give up on it (re: which includes lowering our tariffs) because we can sell corn for more money and then buy foreign ethanol (made in places where sugar can grow / it’s economical)…
Not only will gas at the pump get much higher, but you will probably have shortages within a year or two. None of your solutions will make any difference within the next decade, maybe more.
I think they could… in the next decade… and shortages and much higher prices would motivate the changes.
Anyway, keep in mind Americans have to buy new cars every 3-4 years because cars are built so poorly. So… on average, it’s easy to replace old equipment… and move to new tech.
Yeah, piece of cake. When I say immediate crisis, I mean really bad economic crisis lasting for a decade which could have been mitigated with a little foresight, rather than just saying, “let the market redirect capital to new energy technology”. As I’ve said before, the oil market isn’t and never has been anything like a real market.
As for the US lowering tariffs, you seem to have a strange faith that the US can adjust it’s way out of its problems. So if food goes up you can make more money selling it, or if the dollar drops you can export more. Never mind that no country has ever devalued itself to prosperity. These factors are little more than somewhat mitigating feedbacks that will do little to stem the tide which is wrecking the US economy - ie the collapse of the dollar, the mountain of debt, the massive transfer of wealth from the US to Asia and the Middle East, and the spiralling problem of inflation.
In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.
None of this is new information. Since fire was discovered, energy has governed our (and our ancestors) lives. But I see what you’re saying r.j., it’s so utterly hopeless that Americans should just have a lemming-like mass suicide right now because we’ll never be able to handle change. Half of the population isn’t progressive enough…
And that’s just the point. I heard a guvment energy official on NPR last night and he said that we won’t be able to make the necessary changes until the guvment “engineers” us into those changes that they deem necessary. You gotta love totalitarianism.
In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.
None of this is new information. Since fire was discovered, energy has governed our (and our ancestors) lives. But I see what you’re saying r.j., it’s so utterly hopeless that Americans should just have a lemming-like mass suicide right now because we’ll never be able to handle change. Half of the population isn’t progressive enough…
And that’s just the point. I heard a guvment energy official on NPR last night and he said that we won’t be able to make the necessary changes until the guvment “engineers” us into those changes that they deem necessary. You gotta love totalitarianism.
So you’re not in favour of increasing America’s refining capacity, building new nuclear plants, reducing environmental blockages on energy development schemes. I think not. The point is, the government already is engineering the energy sector and the price of energy, it’s just doing a really lousy job. The government engineered low oil prices for a generation, and so consequently the investment in new technologies haven’t been made. More recently, the government subsidised biofuels, but blocked nuclear… and so new investment has been poorly allocated. Then there is the fact that the energy market is determined by international factors, such as the very large national oil companies like Saudi Aramco, who also aren’t market driven.
There’s no getting away from the fact that energy is a political issue. A geopolitical issue. And America has dropped the ball big time. It has put all it’s eggs in the oil liquids basket, gambled on reshaping the Middle East and failed miserably, and then hoped that one of the least open markets on the planet (the energy market) will magically direct new investment where it is needed.
Yeah, piece of cake. When I say immediate crisis, I mean really bad economic crisis lasting for a decade which could have been mitigated with a little foresight, rather than just saying, “let the market redirect capital to new energy technology”. As I’ve said before, the oil market isn’t and never has been anything like a real market.
Tell me about it (on all levels, I get it).....
As for the US lowering tariffs, you seem to have a strange faith that the US can adjust it’s way out of its problems. So if food goes up you can make more money selling it, or if the dollar drops you can export more. Never mind that no country has ever devalued itself to prosperity.
Ah, but we are already prosperous… but overspending....
The goal in these contractions is not to create prosperity… simply restrain spending....
I agree, overall it is not a win situation. But the situation is a form of correction that helps it from getting worse.
The American Dream = Bad stuff won’t happen to us.
define bad stuff....
I could loose 50% of my purchasing power and hardly notice.
Anyway, I’ve seen American wealth increase from the 70’s to today (I could go on and on about the things we can afford today that were out of bounds in the 70s), and nothing (that I value) changed IMO (actually, in some ways I’ve noticed, it’s worse… entitlement has grown along with wealth.. creating a dangerous situation). Ergo… if it reverts…
Yeah, piece of cake. When I say immediate crisis, I mean really bad economic crisis lasting for a decade which could have been mitigated with a little foresight, rather than just saying, “let the market redirect capital to new energy technology”. As I’ve said before, the oil market isn’t and never has been anything like a real market.
Tell me about it (on all levels, I get it).....
As for the US lowering tariffs, you seem to have a strange faith that the US can adjust it’s way out of its problems. So if food goes up you can make more money selling it, or if the dollar drops you can export more. Never mind that no country has ever devalued itself to prosperity.
Ah, but we are already prosperous… but overspending....
The goal in these contractions is not to create prosperity… simply restrain spending....
I agree, overall it is not a win situation. But the situation is a form of correction that helps it from getting worse.
Yes, that would be wonderful if the guvment was actually doing that, but they aren’t. They aren’t devaluing the dollar to correct the economy, they are selling the dollar down the river to prevent a correction in the economy. They should be preserving the strength of the dollar and letting the correction happen in the asset bubbles that have been bouncing around the economy from Tech stocks to housing and now to commodities.
It’s what Bush should have done in 2001 instead of inflating the recession away. Now, unfortunately, the process of contracting and reorganising the US economy is going to be very painful. I just don’t think the politicians have any plan about how they are going to deal with social security, the falling dollar, energy, etc. They are reacting in a kneejerk way. Take the subprime crisis bailout and the tax rebates - a kneejerk reaction to a problem they should’ve seen coming earlier. Not only that but it is a problem largely of their own making because of lax lending standards, a Fed led housing bubble, etc.
It’s what Bush should have done in 2001 instead of inflating the recession away. Now, unfortunately, the process of contracting and reorganising the US economy is going to be very painful. I just don’t think the politicians have any plan about how they are going to deal with social security, the falling dollar, energy, etc. They are reacting in a kneejerk way. Take the subprime crisis bailout and the tax rebates - a kneejerk reaction to a problem they should’ve seen coming earlier. Not only that but it is a problem largely of their own making because of lax lending standards, a Fed led housing bubble, etc.
All true… but we never have recessions right before elections (imagine that)… so, maybe a plan exists. We’ll see it after the election.
AmeriKKa, AmeriKKa, AmeriKKa, it always comes back down to whats wrong with AmeriKKa, which is everything.
Lets check our watches. In 1965 Barry McGuire had a hit with “Eve of Destruction” which I heard almost daily on German radio from 1977 on.
The eastern world it tis explodin’,
violence flarin’, bullets loadin’,
you’re old enough to kill but not for votin’,
you don’t believe in war, what’s that gun you’re totin’,
and even the Jordan river has bodies floatin’,
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
Don’t you understand, what I’m trying to say?
Can’t you see the fear that I’m feeling today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no running away,
There’ll be noone to save with the world in a grave,
take a look around you, boy, it’s bound to scare you, boy,
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
Yeah, my blood’s so mad, feels like coagulatin’,
I’m sittin’ here, just contemplatin’,
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation,
handful of Senators don’t pass legislation,
and marches alone can’t bring integration,
when human respect is disintegratin’,
this whole crazy world is just too frustratin’,
and you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
Think of all the hate there is in Red China!
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama!
Ah, you may leave here, for four days in space,
but when you return, it’s the same old place,
the poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace,
you can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace,
hate your next-door-neighbour, but don’t forget to say grace,
and you tell me over and over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
Hmmm. Some Euro wrote a song by the same name in ‘80.
It’s now the end of the time,
the judgement-age.
Know man, know man, know man.
It’s the eve of desrtuction man.
It’s the eve of desrtuction man.
It’s the eve of desrtuction man.
It’s the end. It’s the end. It’s the end.
Yeah all the fish are dying in the ocean all around.
The sun is burning like a fire all over the world.
It’s the time when Jesus comes.
That’s the time when Jesus comes down now.
But you don’t know what it really means man,
you don’t know how it’s going on,
you don’t know.
Oh you don’t know how it’s going on,
you don’t know.
You are waiting for a hero,
but there is no hero man.
The hero is the spirit of truth inside you man.
But if you don’t have the spirit of truth,
you can not be released, you can not come into
- to be one with God, man.
It’s impossible, it’s impossible to be one with God without truth.
It’s the eve of destruction now.
It’s the eve of destruction now.
It’s the eve of destruction now all over the world,
all over the world, all over the world, man.
It’s all over now Baby-Blue.
It’s all over now Sunny-Boy.
It’s all over now, it’s all over now.
It’s the end of an age,
It’s the turn of a page.
It’s the eve of destruction all over the world.
It’s the end my friend, it’s the end hey man.
It’s the eve of destruction all over the world,
all over the world man, all over the world.
Earth-quake all around.
Hey man earth-quakes all aroud.
Earth-quake all around.
It’s the end.
It’s the eve of destruction man.
It’s the eve of destruction man,
but you can not pay for a liberty-way,
you don’t know how to pay to come out of this pain.
You are sitting in the train of destruction man,
you are sitting in the train to hell.
It’s all over now, it’s all over now.
It’s all over now, it’s all over now.
It’s the eve of destruction man.
It’s the eve of destruction man.
And you don’t have enough money to pay
the ticket out of this world.
You don’t have the right money to pay
the ticket for the out-of-way, out of your pain.
With your guilty money you can not get
on the ferry-boat to heaven a place.
The price the ferry-man demanded long before to pay
was your whole life to get on board a place.
It’s all over now, it’s all over now.
It’s all over now to get on board a place.
Occupied, all over now, occupied all over now.
Rien ne va plus, totale finale, nichts geht mehr, fini.
It’s all over now, it’s all over now.
It’s all over now……
!!!. - WITHOUT TRUTH YOU ARE THE LOSER - FOREVER - .!!!
!!!. - THE HOLY DIVINE JUSTICE-MACHINE IS ROLLING. -
THE ONE WHO HATES THE TRUTH IS CURSED
AND WILL BE ELIMINATED - .!!!
