Click on the images for a
Whether or not to commit mass murder? That's the issue. It should also be a Presidential Election issue.
At the moment it isn't. This is why the murdering continues unabated.
The murdering of 100,000,000 people a year, globally, is presently an ongoing silent holocaust that pales the worst holocausts in the history of civilization. The driving force of the modern murder that is less visible is a policy of empire that the USA is actively supporting. It is the policy of the mass-burning of food. This adds up to murder on a gigantic scale in a world in which a billion people now live in chronic starvation.
The intention to commit mass-murde in today's world is plain. The amount of food that is burned in automobiles every year, in the form of biofuels, would normally feed upwards to 220 million people.
Since the food, having been burned, is no longer available for the nourishment of human beings, the policy of forced food-burning on a gigantic scale has unleashed a silent holocaust of death by starvation that makes every country participating, a mass murderer by intention.
Shouldn't a people have at the very least the right to determine whether their tax money should be devoted to carrying out the horrendous crime of mass murder, a crime that pales the Nazi Holocaust into insignificance?
The Nazi murdered six million people over the span of six years. That's miniscule, in comparison with the more than hundred million people a year who are murdered by imposed starvation in the biofuels' silent holocaust.
Every global problem that is in the frontlines today has an underlying purpose that is centered on killing people. All the hidden roads of intention lead to this point of purpose. The wrecking of America, Africa, China, India, and Russia too, ultimately has this one unspeakable goal. This adds up to a grand betrayal of mankind. The footsteps towards it are fraud, and the cover up is also fraud.
The global warming doctrine is one of the holocaust-crimes of betrayal.
Look at the world grain supply with a harvest of two billion tons per year. 60 percent of that used to be consumed as food, and 40 percent as animal feed. Then the biofuels travesty began by which agricultural products became burned as fuel. While the use of grain for food and feed increased in a growing world by roughly 1 percent per year, the burning of grain as fuel exploded, and is now growing by over 20 percent per year. This is big.
Converting food to Ethanol jumped in the USA from 1.6 billion gallons in 2001, to 9 billion gallons in 2008. It now stands at roughly 14 billion gallons. Most of it is distilled from corn. That's a lot of corn liquor, etc. This is huge. It eats up huge food resources. Here is where the tragedy unfolds.
It takes roughly 60 million hectares of farmland to produce the feedstock for the worldwide ethanol production. This vast acreage would normally produce food for 120 million people. This is how much food is now being burned in cars every year in the form of the ethanol biofuel. The result is mass murder. This is the intention.
The burning of food in a starving world is a holocaust of murder. Starvation used to be a form of capital punishment. It still is that, but on a gargantuan scale. If the burnt food was available, it would likely prevent the death of a large portion of the over 900 million people worldwide who are presently subjected to 'chronic' starvation. That's how the ethanol fuel-cycle spells genocide.
And what does the world get out of this food-burning process, other than a huge genocide?
It gets a fuel that is only 61% as efficient as gasoline. For this is unimaginable mass murder is committed.
Also, ethanol releases large quantities of ozone, a serious air pollutant, and also formaldehyde and so on (acetaldehyde, peroxyacyl nitrates,) plus benzene and more (butadiene,) which are all carcinogens. Ethanol is not clean burning. It is a serious polluter.
The ethanol also causes internal stress-corrosion cracking in metals. Industrial failures are known to have occurred in as little as 50 hours on pumps processing ethanol, which have a rated 2000-hour life expectancy. It has evidently deteriorating effects on the delicate fuel system of cars.
And worst of all, it takes more energy input to produce the Ethanol than it gives back.
While an energy-gain of 30% is claimed by the proponents, this claim is widely disputed as too many energy-input items are typically not accounted for, including the energy loss due to general inefficiencies in the combustion process in automobiles that are not specifically tuned or manufactured for ethanol use. Researchers claim that an overall 30% energy loss is occurring, covering the entire energy cycle, which is more likely the case.
Whatever the case may be, biofuels can hardly be called an energy resource. It is at the very best only an extremely marginal one if it provides an energy gain at all. Also, there are large hidden costs involved that cannot be easily calculated.
The massive water requirements for the ethanol production process impose an enormous stress on the water-supply infrastructure in many areas where the supply is scarce and is energy costly to augment.
Estimates of water usage during ethanol production range from 3 to 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced. Thus, a 50-million-gallon per year ethanol facility can expect to use 150 to 200 million gallons of water per year, or over 400,000 gallons per day (1.2 acre-feet day, or 440 acre-feet per year). This is a huge demand, even in comparison with large-scale irrigation, especially considering that over 100 ethanol facilities are now in operation in the USA all by itself.
In the corn belt, the source that supplies the big ethanol plants is often groundwater.
This does not include feedstock irrigation, and stands in competition with irrigation needs. The worldwide ethanol production requires roughly 100 trillion gallons of water per year, which in many areas is becoming a 'rare' commodity.
And what is it all for? There is no energy gain realized, or at the very best, only extremely little, nor does it reduce CO2 emissions, which is supposedly one of the main reasons, but instead more than doubles the CO2 emissions instead.
The full combustion of ethanol results in CO2 and water vapor. The ratio is 40% C02 molecules and 60% water vapor molecules.
The full combustion of gasoline is similar. It yields 47% CO2 molecules and 53% water molecules.
However, ethanol is only 61% as efficient, so that 39% more ethanol needs to be burned for the same energy output. The result is that ethanol yields in total the equivalent of 55.6% of CO2. This means that ethanol actually produces 8.6% more CO2 than gasoline, and all this in addition to the CO2 emitted for producing the input energy for producing.
This means that the entire global warming hoopla about ethanol being a carbon-saving clean fuel is not true.
The ethanol cycle doubles the carbon emission. Not that CO2 actually matters in the climate equation, since the CO2 climate effect is essentially nil (see: Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE). The only aspect that the ethanol fuel cycle does achieve is a holocaust unequalled in history.
The story of burning food for biodiesel is similar. While the total figures are smaller, with the total world production being roughly 5 billion gallons, the underlying insanity is worse. The acreage required for the feedstock for biodiesel production is 3 to 4 times larger, per gallon, ranging from 26 gal/acre for hemp to 102 gal/acre for rapeseed, with an average of about 90 for peanut, soy, and sunflower oil. In addition to this dramatically larger land requirement, a 2005 study found that biodiesel from sunflower oil requires 118% more energy input than it gives back, or 27% more for diesel from soybeans. And when it is all done, the resulting fuel itself, is 11% less efficient than real diesel. This is hardly what one would call a renewable energy resource. It is a food-consuming energy-drain.
And it burns valuable food. Soybeans are considered a source of complete protein. A complete protein is one that contains significant amounts of all the essential amino acids that must be provided to the human body because of the body's inability to synthesize them. This makes Soybeans a valuable nutrition for people who want to reduce the amount of meat they eat.
In addition, biodiesel produces just as much CO2 as any other carbon based fuel. There is nothing clean about a bio-diesel powered buss.
Here again the biofuels cycle more than doubles the CO2 emissions, rather than reducing them. And here again, it appears that the only thing that biodiesel does well, is kill people by massively consuming valuable food that is taken away from the already insufficient food resources of the world.
The acreage required for the production of 5 billion gallons of biodiesel worldwide, considering the poor efficiency of the process, would normally nourish roughly 100 million people. This adds another 100 millions potential deaths per year to the biofuels-holocaust, considering the size of the acreage that is diverted away from food production. In a world that has close to a billion people living in chronic starvation, the diversion of agricultural resources to be burnt, which would normally nourish 220 million people, likely causes as many deaths per year by starvation.
The actual death toll may be somewhat less, though it is probably far more than the estimated 100 million deaths per year, which is an extremely conservative estimate.
We live in defeated world, in which imposed mass-starvation is just a step along the path to depopulation. No statistics are being compiled of the people who are quietly, gradually starved out of existence. In real terms the biofuels-starvation tragedy is probably far worse than what the statistics would ever be able to tell, because the long-term malnourishment of the affected populations has deep degenerative consequences that may yet come to haunt the entire world. Starvation diminishes the immune system. It undermines the human system. It opens the barn-doors to all kinds of diseases. Of course, this may be intended by those in high places who have made the depopulation of the world from the present 7 billion people to less than 1 billion a policy priority. And this is not hypothetical. The point is that when the mass-murdering of 100 to 200 million people per year no longer raises any big concerns, the ground has been soften for the absolutely unthinkable, thermonuclear war that no one can survive, to become nearer, and more easily done.
The intention to commit large scale murder is a typical high-minded one that is rooted in the system of empire where the human being is an item of little value, or no value at all. The great historic pacifist from the heart of empire, Bertrand Russell, the man who lobbied for the atomic bomb as an imperial terror weapon, illustrated what type of heart rules in the world of empire. He lamented in 1951 in a policy paper that wars, even the big wars, are disappointing in that they do not kill enough people. He suggested that if a biological holocaust like the Black Death could be unleashed once in every generation, the little people of humanity could procreate freely without making the world too full for the likes of his masters. He agreed that the prospect is, "somewhat unpleasant," as he had put it, "but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other peopleís." (ref. The Impact of Science Upon Society - New York: Simon Schuster, 1953 - pp. 102-104) As ugly as Bertrand Russell's dreaming was, his policy that guided the policy of empire, is being fulfilled. Where the 'Black Death' of AIDS has failed, the burning of food succeeds, though it is merely a part of the wider landscape of policies for the depopulation of the world from the current 7 billion world population, to less than 1 billion. Would you like to be depopulated? Actually, you are already on the target list.
It appears that the entire biofuels process was created for the purpose of committing genocide, because as an energy producing system the underlying process is about as inefficient as such a process can get. The biofuels cycle is inefficient because less than 2% of the solar energy is used to capture carbon from the air. The biological system was not designed as an energy producing engine, but as a life-supporting engine. That's where its power lies. We are destroying this power by burning it, instead of utilizing its potential to advance the power of human living with advanced nutrition.
The entire biofuels cycle is a destructive scam. This well-hidden fact becomes evident when one looks at the balance sheet.
The actual energy gain for the entire fuel cycle, which is the energy produced by the fuel, minus the energy required to produce the fuel, is typically NIL. Proponents claim that the ethanol fuel cycle produces an energy gain of upwards to 30%. While this is disputed and often the result of not counting all the input energy costs, a marginal gain may well be achieved in some ideal cases. In real terms the over-all energy gain is typically zero. The bottom line on the plus side of the ledger is ZERO.
On the negative side the ledger is heavy. The C02 emission is double in comparison with gasoline. While CO2 is not a pollutant, it is so regarded by many people. In addition, ethanol combustion emits large quantities of ozone, a serious air pollutant, and also carcinogens in the form formaldehyde and benzene and so on. The production process is also a major contributor to water pollution.
Inflation is another factor on cost side. Biofuels are a contributor to inflation as the extension of the fuel cycle nearly doubles the energy cost. It is a process that uses fossil fuel energy to produce a different form of energy with roughly the same energy output. The process is therefore merely an energy conversion process, not an energy production process, and it is a complicated and expensive process to operate with nothing to show for in the end. The process is thereby anti-economic in nature. It is comparable to travelling from San Francisco to Los Angeles via Tokyo. The process is so costly and inefficient that it can only be forced into being by government subsidies, and by legislation that forces the consumer to bear the higher cost. The biofuels cycle is an energy conversion process that adds a huge cost burden and thereby increases inflation.
The biofuels cycle is of course antihuman. It imposes a huge economic cost. Since this is a cost that the poor countries that cannot subsidize financially, they subsidize it with cheap labor, which is a form of slavery.
The biofuels process thus adds up to murder on many fronts, such as slave labor, child labor, economic theft, and of course also mass starvation.
Biofuels are also a major contributor to economic collapse. Biofuels are forced by legislation, not economics. The shortages of land resources has opened the door to international land 'thievery,' targeting the poor countries, and of course is also driving the rampant food price inflation that hurt the poor countries deeply where the food/fuel land competition for export has blocked by law, under the WTO regime, the poor countries' traditional food self-sufficiency. Whatever is green is now up for grabs to be 'stolen' by the rich to meet their biofuels quota and their own food needs, which they can no longer fulfill. In this road, for much of the world, GREEN has become to be synonymous with tragedy.
"We are not really killing the people by burning their food," say the high minded with their countless twisted arguments to justify their holocaust. "People will die anyway, all people will die," so they suggest in so many ways. "We are merely helping them to die sooner. It's good for business."
And so the wave of death keeps on rising and rising as the biofuels ratio that is mandated by law is increasing evermore. It started at E5, which means that 5% of the fuel is produced from food products. Then it became E10. In 2011 it became at E15, and some cars run on E85. In order to meet these enormously increasing volumes of biofuels, ever-larger tracts of land are taken out of food production, exacerbating landlessness everywhere in the Third World, and of course also hunger and starvation.
The biofuels cycle is anti-economic in nature as an energy producer, because biomass has extremely low energy content, giving it an extremely-low energy density. If one compares biomass with nuclear power, the energy density of biomass is so low that it is near-zero in comparison. It is this low density that prevents the biomass fuel cycle to be a net energy producer. The production and the gathering, transporting, and processing of the biofuels input, because of the large mass that is required to get anything out of the system, requires so much energy that the produced product doesn't deliver anymore energy than is required to produce it. Only under ideal condition can a marginal energy gain be realized. In comparison, the energy gain in nuclear power systems is gigantic. The use of biofuels is actually less efficient than burning wood. At least the burning of wood, as inefficient as it was, produced an actual energy gain.
ActionAid reported in 2010 that in just five African countries 1.1 million hectares have been given over to industrial biofuels for export; while 1.4 million hectares were taken over simultaneously to produce food for export, and this on a continent that has one of the largest ratio of the population starving.
As biofuels displace food from agricultural land, and as the rich countries also run out of water for agriculture since the biofuels production requires enormous amounts of water resources, the rich countries' food production is increasingly outsourced to cheap lands that are easily bought up in poor countries, while the thereby created artificial shortages that are creeping up are driving up the world food prices. This treachery hits the poor countries even harder. Food and fuel are now competing everywhere for land. By 2010 European Union companies had already acquired or requested a minimum of five million hectares of land for industrial biofuels production in developing countries. And this was just the beginning. In order to meet the EUís E10 target required another 17.5 million hectares for growing biofuels in developing countries.
The bottom line is that biofuels are one of the leading engines for genocide, though not the only ones.
The onset of increasing drought conditions, with no end in sight, is making the situation still worse.
In the shadow of the massive 2012 global drought, with harvest falling far short of what is needed of the most critical foods, many food related organizations have petitioned President Obama to allow an emergency lifting of the biofuels mandate in order that the food that has become scarce may be made more fully available to nourish the population and other people, instead of being burnt.
Their petition was denied. The President said NO! The burning of food takes precedence. President Obama said in essence: Let the people die.
With the food crisis, that is still in the beginning stage so far, expanding exponentially, the President's intention is shaping the future of America with consequences for the entire world.
Yes, you may very well become 'depopulated' as food, with prices driven sky-high by speculators profiting from scarcity, becomes evermore unaffordable to you. (see: Obama's Food Crisis and Interview with Marcia Baker on the food crisis)
So, how will you vote in the modern Roman circus of empire politics that the political scene has become in evermore countries, which has in fact become a scene of war against humanity? Would you vote for depopulation, and your own 'depopulation?' Would you like to be depopulated? This is not a hypothetical question. The burning of food as biofuels is subsidized with your tax money, so that when harvests fall short, it's good for business, is it not? There is money to be made in the markets as the evermore increasing drought conditions enable the speculators to drive prices up on the basis of increased scarcity.
The ethanol distilleries, etc., of course are not affected by the scarcity-driven price increases, as their input is subsidized. Only you, the consumer, will be forced to pay the inflated speculative rates.
Of course price isn't the only thing that will determine whether you eat or not. You won't be able to eat the food that is burnt, which then no longer exists.
Nor will you be able to eat the meat of the animals that can no longer be fed, which then no longer exist either, and so on. Thousands of feed-lot operators and dairy operators have shut their doors. The world is on the fast track towards the greatest food crisis in modern history, and this means more murders by starvation. That's the policy, the intention.
Shouldn't this be an election issue? The issue is mass murder or food. There is no need for using biofuels, which take nearly as much fossil-fuel energy to produce, if not more when all energy inputs are counted, than they give back. Nor do they reduce global warming. See: Man-made Global Warming Impossible.
Ultimately the food crisis itself cannot be solved by merely stopping the burning of food. With the global drought conditions now increasing, which one would expect to result from the ongoing Ice Age transition dynamics that are gradually beginning to unfold, compensating infrastructures are required, such as the building of a nation-wide water-supply network for irrigation and the development of new agriculture in the tropics where most of the rainfall occurs and the sunlight is the strongest. (See: NAWAPA-22)
In addition, the CO2 enrichment of the Earth's atmosphere is required, which is presently at the lowest level in the entire history of life on our planet (see illustration). In historic terms the ecological system of the Earth is presently choked by a creeping CO2 starvation that promises to become so critical in the coming Ice Age environment, to which the transition has already begun, that without a technological CO2-enrichment of the atmosphere, the entire eco-system is doomed to collapse by CO2 starvation (See: Ten-fold CO2 Needed.)
While the necessary projects are all long-term development projects that take years and decades to implement, the currently unfolding food crisis can be stopped almost immediately in the short term by simply prohibiting the burning of food instead of mandating it by law, with the addition of price controls and farm support legislation that breathes some life back into the currently struggling world agriculture, coupled with the termination of idling agricultural lands in the ecological reserve system. This would be a good first step, in conjunction with terminating the practice of worldwide financial looting of the predatory speculative monetarist system that currently demands to be fed with countless trillions in bailout funds to keep the thievery processes alive a little longer.
Has the flame been extinguished in the heart? This is the determining question. Shouldn't we answer that it has not, and choose the necessary path away from insanity and towards assured food-sufficiency and a rich and productive future for all human beings on our planet? I think this path will be chosen, and it will be chosen globally, because to live, and to live richly and productively, is the common aim of all mankind. In this context the proposed NAWAPA-22 Ice Age Alliance could become a seed-kernel to unite all nations for a single grand purpose. For this purpose war, theft, genocide, including depopulation with all that goes with it, will simply vanish as relics of a primitive age and be gone like a puff of smoke in the fresh new wind of an awakening humanity.