Saturday, January 25, 2014

Profits for "the Prophet's" Followers: Where Does It Come From?

Since Muhammad, orthodox Muslims have found methods to simultaneously weaken non-Muslims while strengthening Islam. Muhammad raided the caravans of his enemies, for example, which materially supported his army while impoverishing Islam's enemies.

With the establishment of the jizya — the tax Christians and Jews must pay in Muslim countries — the power of the Muslim state increases while simultaneously weakening competing ideologies.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are following Muhammad's example. The organizations and their operations are funded in two ways. One is by growing opium and selling it to the infidels, which of course, is a way to simultaneously strengthen their cause and weaken their enemies. The answer to this is to not buy their drugs, of course. And try to prevent it from being imported into our country. And to do whatever we can to stop funding the forces working against us.

The second way Al Qaeda and the Taliban are funded is with Saudi oil money, a source of money that also supports the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Students Association, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the OIC, the largest voting bloc in the U.N. and the largest international organization outside the U.N.).

Saudi Arabia is the most influential member of the illegal price fixing cartel, OPEC, and Saudi Arabia insists on keeping the world price of oil high — simultaneously strengthening orthodox Islam and weakening non-Muslims globally. Iran is also an influential member of OPEC. Iranian oil money funds their nuclear program, and financially supports Hezbollah and Hamas.

In other words, OPEC keeps the world price of oil high, which simultaneously strengthens their cause and weakens their enemies. The answer to this is to not buy their oil, of course. And try to prevent it from being imported into our country. And to do whatever we can to stop funding the forces working against us.

But there's a catch. We produce oil ourselves. Many people believe the answer is to keep using oil but avoid importing any. But whether we import OPEC oil or drill it at home, the world's oil price remains the same because OPEC produces such a large percentage of the world's oil supply that they can dictate the price. And if we don't import it, other infidels will, and at OPEC's inflated price. So the third jihad retains its funding whether we abstain from importing oil or not. In fact, even if we import none of their oil, we still import their price because our own oil producers sell it to us at the world oil price, not some specially discounted price for their fellow citizens.

But if we could drill enough, couldn't we lower the world's oil price? Yes, if we could drill the equivalent of what all twelve OPEC nations produce, we might do it. But the oil produced in infidel nations is more expensive to produce, so if our domestic oil producers drilled enough oil to drop the global price, it would likely stop being profitable for most of them. Saudi Arabia has the advantage because theirs is the cheapest-to-produce oil in the world.

So they have us over a barrel. But only as long as oil retains its monopoly. As soon as the fuel market has competition, the monopoly will be broken, fuel prices will drop drastically, new businesses will boom in our country because the new competing fuels will be produced domestically, and the regimes running the OPEC nations will collapse because they won't be able to sustain their spending. Funds now promoting jihad around the world will dry up. And the economies of the free world will thrive.

This is entirely possible. And this year we could see the oil monopoly go the way of AT&T's long-distance monopoly. Two developments in the United States show a great deal of promise: The Fuel Freedom Foundation will be initiating several pilot projects in U.S. cities in 2014, and a bill has already been introduced into the U.S. Congress that would instantly create fuel competition in America. It's called the Open Fuel Standard Act and several powerful organizations have endorsed it, including ACT for America and the U.S. Energy Security Council.

The end of oil's monopoly is the most effective way to end the third jihad. Breaking oil's monopoly on transportation would simultaneously weaken the global jihad and strengthen non-Muslim nations around the world. Please throw your weight behind this movement and help your fellow non-Muslims see the wisdom and urgency in opening transportation fuel to a free market. The way to win this war is to concentrate our forces at the decisive point. Oil's monopoly is the decisive point.


Citizen Warrior said...

When you mention the danger of Islamic doctrine, it often feels like you've done something rude or shocking in polite company.

When I mention breaking oil's monopoly among counterjihadists, I often feel the same way. But it needs to be said, it needs to be heard, and we need to do something about it.

Pastorius said...

I don't object to marginalizing OPEC. I object to your emphasis on solutions that are out of the mainstream. I've never once heard you speak up for Fracking, or against those who oppose Fracking. Nor have I heard you speak up for expanded oil drilling permits. Or Natural gas, or anything that has actually been proven to work.

I know you believe in Ethanol. And that's fine, but it is not nearly as powerful as the simple fact that America is now a net exporter of oil, and on our way to being the number one oil-producing nation in the world.

Citizen Warrior said...

Okay, my bad. I'm much more of a fan of natural-gas-derived methanol than ethanol. The U.S. is rich in natural gas. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. And right now, methanol, which burns quite well in regular internal combustion engines, can sell for half the price of gasoline per mile. A million cars in China are already using methanol, so this is not exactly out of the mainstream.

About fracking, here are a few interesting takes on it. It is possible the bad press on fracking is being promoted by the oil industry.

And check this out. Follow the links embedded in this article. The article details the bullshit that has been spread about fracking:

Here's what I think about expanded drilling: More drilling is fine AS LONG AS OIL HAS COMPETITION. So competition comes first, for the reasons outlined in this article.

Is natural-gas-derived methanol proven to work? Yes. Not just a million cars in China, but the big methanol trial in California (15,000 cars), and in Zubrin's more recent methanol experiment:

And, of course, methanol has fueled racecars from Indy to CART and Monster Trucks.

Pastorius said...

1) Of course, OPEC is against Fracking. They don't have the technology to do it like we do. We are beating them because we are smarter.

2) You say, we are the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas.

I say, not only are we the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas, but CW, WE ARE ALSO THE SAUDI ARABIA OF OIL.

It is stuff like this that makes me think you have been ignoring my comments to you. If you have noticed the agitated tone of my comments, well, here is the reason why. I have told you over and over that we have multiple times the amount of oil in the US that Saudi has. And these numbers are from NPR.

I have posted the information over and over. If you would like me to post it again, I will do so.

And, did you know that Australia recently found a field that dwarfs every other on the planet? This means that Canada, Australia and the US will be the international leaders in oil production. We will be the OPEC of the 21st century.

Did you know this? Or am I hitting you with something new?

Now, back to what you tend to write about: Methanol, GREAT.

Natural Gas will more than likely be used to power most cars in the U.S. by 10-15 years from now, from what I have heard. The infrastructure is already being built. We do not need Ethanol.

My suspicion is the farm lobby wants the government to support Ethanol because they want the government handouts.

I think it is very dangerous to teach that Ethanol is an alternative. And, I say that because

1) it is a drain of food resources and drives the prices up

2) we already have a better alternative in natural gas and oil.

3) why go for the weaker alternative at the expense of the better alternative? If you do, you are actually destroying our ability to fight for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

"But only as long as oil retains its monopoly"
It's no coincidence that the modern Muslim hijrah involves most of the oil producing nations.

Anonymous said...

Most of the nonmuslims oil producing nations

Citizen Warrior said...

Pastorius, here's the deal: If you have posted that stuff before, I haven't seen it because I didn't leave a comment and click the little box that sends me an email letting me know someone commented on the article. You'll notice that the last few times I've posted something, that's what I did, so I would be notified. Your home page is so huge and you have so much going on here that it's too much to try to scroll through to find my article to see if anyone commented yet. So I have to make the first comment and click that box, which I promise to do from now on so I don't irritate my friend Pastorius!

No, it is not a surprise to me about new oil finds. I'm keeping up on oil news and have been for the last few years. And it is truly amazing what fracking has done. But, as Yossie Holander of the Fuel Freedom Foundation says, "We have 500 years worth of oil under our a thousand dollars a barrel." The question isn't how much there is, but how expensive it is to produce.

One of the main reasons we have found a way to recover so much oil in America is that OPEC has been doing a good job of keeping the price of oil high. This has motivated investors and innovators. It is worth the risk and the cost of getting that oil out of the ground only because oil is selling consistently at over a hundred dollars a barrel. But who is paying for this? You and me.

If we had true fuel competition in America, much of that oil would not be worth getting out of the ground. Some still would, and it would be competing in a free market with other equally valid fuels.

I'm NOT a big fan of ethanol made from corn. There are MUCH more productive ways to produce ethanol. For example, making it from trash, which is now being done in Vero Beach, Florida (profitably, while simultaneously reducing the landfill mass by 90%). And the shit they're doing with algae is amazing:

To quote from the article: "Corn can produce 350-400 gallons of ethanol per acre per year. Cellulosic fuels such as grass and wood chips can produce 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, but so far, not cheaply enough to compete with gasoline.

"But Algenol, a company in Florida, has successfully achieved 9,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year using algae grown in salt water — at one dollar a gallon! Another company, Joule Energy, is producing 15,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year at $1.23 per gallon using undrinkable water! And they are confident they will eventually be able to achieve 25,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year!"

And they're doing this on land that cannot be used to grow crops.

Corn can't compete with this kind of production. The only reason we use corn to make ethanol is because that's how it got started: they were trying to find some way to keep farmers from going out of business because they were so productive they kept producing a glut of corn, which lowered prices so much they would go broke. So they tried to find other uses, and one of them was ethanol. But that's old fashioned. There are much better ways. And when those sources of algae ethanol are available and when natural-gas derived methanol is available, corn ethanol will not be able to compete.

The reason I say we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas but not of oil is because of the cost. We are producing so much natural gas so cheaply that producers are flaring a huge amount of it just to get rid of it. The stuff is so cheap they don't even bother trying to sell it.

Oil is cheap to produce in Saudi Arabia and they have a lot of it. Oil is expensive to produce in the U.S. Natural gas is cheap to produce in the U.S. and we have a lot of it. And we should use it to ruin OPEC's gravy train.

Pastorius said...

We can Frack oil out of the ground in the Montana/Dakotas for $30 a barrel. Not $1000.

Maybe you have reason to know that it is more expensive than that.

The Colorado Rockies will be more expensive. But that means that AT THIS TIME with what we know, it will be more expensive. Not that it will be more expensive down the line.

What we are doing now in Bakken was not done before because we didn't really know how to do it.

So, here are some articles for you:


I have been writing on this subject since 2008. In 2009 I predicted that the US would once again be the #1 oil-producing nation in the world. And now the momentum shows I was right.

Now, I will make more predictions: Australia will be the #1 oil-producing nation in 10 years from now.

In 10 years from now, America's cars will for the most part be run on LNG.

Pastorius said...

Now, to address your points: The Algenol sounds promising. Very good.

Can "Algenol" be used in cars as they are constructed now? Or will this require a complete overhaul of everything? Because if it requires a complete overhaul, then it is not going to happen in the next 10 years, because the next ten years are already planned.

And this is the problem with Alternative fuel source speculation and the kind of rhetoric that goes on around it. There is a Howard Zinn-like element in the Alternative fuels industry who are constantly running down Capitalism as if it is a series of Conspiracies against Mother Earth and Reason itself.

For instance, there are many people out there who claim the car industry is trying to kill the Electric Car.

Electric Cars just are not as efficient. That's just the truth.

There are people out there who believe Solar energy is free, and corporations are in a conspiracy to deny the people of the Earth the Free energy. The fact is, Solar power is 1) unreliable and 2) more expensive per unit than the ways we make power now BY FAR.

But from what you say, it sounds like Algenol is less expensive. And that is good.

Do you know who Craig Ventner is?

Anonymous said...

Key centers of non-OPEC production include North America, regions of the former Soviet Union, and the North Sea. -US Dept. Energy

These are the very regions to which mass migration (hijrah) and cultural agitation (jihad) persists. You do not read about the same degree of jihad/hijrah to non-oil producing regions. Mohammedans fortune changed at the precise time oil became a valuable commodity. Mohammedans invent nothing beyond new ways to torment/pilfer from/purge achievers whose mere existence and successes highlight the inherent shame & indignity of Islam and it's blood soaked history.

Another example . . .look at Egypt (non-OPEC), another oil producing nation. Oil has been the key to funding the re-emerging Caliphate. Drugs are another useful key on several levels but not to the same scale as oil. Not everyone is a junkie for opiates. Nearly everyone needs a constant supply of energy which has relied heavily on coal and oil. The coal industry is being dismantled . . . who benefits?
Where oil is OPEC controlled yet is predominantly Shia, the jihad rages against Sunni.
Where non-OPEC oil is gaining production, jihad becomes an issue.
Where there is no oil production, is there jihad/hijrah?

Citizen Warrior said...

Yes, Pastorius, I am aware that right now some of the fracked oil is $30 a barrel. I'm sure you're aware that fracked wells are short-lived. I'm sure with more innovations, even more will be able to be extracted from a spent well, but it will likely become more expensive.

I believe that gasoline can become much less expensive, but only if either the U.S. produces such a huge amount of oil that it can significantly lower the world's oil price, or (more quickly) methanol is allowed to compete with it.

No matter what happens, competition is better than a monopoly. And right now oil is functioning as a monopoly. Oil companies are preventing competition in every way they can, from disallowing franchise station owners from putting in an ethanol pump (methanol isn't legal yet) to influencing EPA regulations (to make it difficult for conversion-kit manufacturers to get approval on flex fuel kits, and by preventing the use of methanol as a fuel), and that includes a long-standing, well-funded propaganda campaign to put people off any fuel that looks like it might compete.

And then OPEC is exploiting that monopoly and draining our economy.

Competition changes this completely. And if gasoline can compete with methanol, that's fine. It will lower the price so much, the balance of power on earth will shift. America will gain the advantage.

Citizen Warrior said...

Algenol is not a fuel, but a company that makes ethanol from algae. And yes, ethanol can burn in conventional internal combustion engines. Many cars don't even need a conversion kit. You can put the fuel right into your car and it can burn. All the conversion kit does is extend the range of your fuel injector. Some injectors have a narrow range, and they can only take up to half ethanol in the tank. Some have a bigger range and can take E85.

Citizen Warrior said...

Craig Ventner is a biologist, and he believes synthetic bacteria will be used to make fuel. It's already being done, in fact. That garbage-to-ethanol facility I mentioned in Vero Beach, Florida uses bacteria (not yeast) to ferment the syngas into fuel. It's not synthetic bacteria, in this case. It is naturally-occurring bacteria. But the Algenol people and also Joule Energy use genetically-modified algae to make the fuel.

A few years ago, they grew algae and harvested it to ferment it into fuel. But the new method is to genetically modify the algae to actually EXCRETE the fuel. No harvesting is required. The algae produce a continual stream of fuel. That's why the yields are so high -- they excrete fuel all year long. It is not one crop per year like corn.

They've also created modified strands of algae that excrete diesel fuel and jet fuel!

Pastorius said...


So, maybe you and I are in total agreement.

I got the idea that we were not because you appeared to ignore every bit of information I had ever given you to add to your posts.

Of course, you've offered an explanation for that, and it certainly is an understandable explanation.

Pastorius said...

Yes, I'm glad you know who Craig Ventner is. He has great ideas. His ideas may never be profitable for him, but he is, at the very least, pointing the way. He is the guy behind the mapping of the human genome. He is a true iconoclast and innovator. He may be one of the most important men of our generation.

Citizen Warrior said...

Yes, I believe we are actually in total agreement. I am also disgusted by the bullshit conspiracy theories that consider capitalism as the enemy.

And one of the beauties about both ethanol and methanol is that they work in internal combustion engines so well. In fact, ethanol was the fuel the inventors of internal combustion engines used.

This versatility of the internal combustion engine allows real fuel competition. Instead of having to buy a different car to use a different fuel, you can put whichever fuel you want today into the same car, which forces those fuels to fight it out amongst themselves. And both ethanol and methanol can be made in many different ways, and each one of those ways can compete with each other too. And once the monopoly is broken, the same thing can happen with petroleum. Right now, everybody sells their petroleum at top dollar because it is the only fuel available to 95% of transportation vehicles in the world, so the demand is very strong. But with the destruction of the monopoly, each seller of petroleum will have to compete ON PRICE with everybody else, including other petroleum producers. It will be great for the consumers (and the economy).