Greer's 2016 predictions - should we get worried?

[emordnilap]

A perverse thought I've often had is that deliberate disruption to oil supplies could be a Good Thing.

Of course, this thought is not half as perverse as the US/UK regime's subsequent actions would be. But in relatively narrow terms of forcing people to confront their short-sighted reliance upon oil, it's the boot up the arse required.

[Lord Beria3]

So what is the verdict? What realistic implications would it have for the average Brit if the Saudi regime imploded this year?

Indeed, this maybe the trigger...

http://www.gulfinstitute.org/exclusive- ... -to-son-2/

Washington DC – Saudi King Salman Al-Saud plans to abdicate his throne and install his son Mohammed as king, multiple highly-placed sources told the Institute for Gulf Affairs.

Mohamed bin Salman is the current deputy crown prince, second in-line to the throne, and defense minister.
King Salman, 80, has been making the rounds visiting his brothers seeking support for the move that will also remove the current crown prince and American favorite, the hardline Mohammed bin Naif from his positions as the crown prince and the minister of interior.

According to sources familiar with the proceedings, Salman told his brothers that the stability of the Saudi monarchy requires a change of the succession from lateral or diagonal lines to a vertical order under which the king hands power to his most eligible son.

A Sunday Times article also repeats the above rumors - from US diplomatic sources in Saudi Arabia. Apparently something 'big' will happen this summer.

[Lord Beria3]

Reading Greer's recent predictions on a looming Second American Civil War (although a possible election of Trump will postpone that to next decade) made me go back to a interesting article I read a few years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/pa ... ans_s.html

All this has made me consider in a new light something said by an oil-man who consults for one of the biggest companies in the world. Last summer he told me:

"We run a mainframe computer simulation of the global political and economic situation, modelling various outcomes of the resource crunch that begins in the back half of the 2010s. And no matter which way we tweak it, it always comes out with the same result: civil war in America in 25 years's time."

For obvious reasons, given that the said company is a global player, they were not very interested in publicising the scenario.

In this oil company scenario the driver is not ideology but simply resources. As explained to me, the question becomes whether the world's biggest consumer of petroleum based products can move away from oil dependency fast enough; and in the scenario the answer is no because its political institutions are too consensual. That is, even where you get politicians who are prepared to act decisively, there are so many checks and balances - state-level opt-outs, Supreme Court, Congressional filibuster, corporate-controlled media etc - that they can never implement the most painful decisions. And as a result the political system fragments once the oil gets scarce.

Looking at the level of political discourse in America now, I am wondering that maybe the computer simulation is a lot closer to the mark than realized. So, assuming for the moment that the simulation is correct, how long do we have? Approximately 2035 which is 20 years away.

[johnhemming2]

"We run a mainframe computer simulation of the global political and economic situation, modelling various outcomes of the resource crunch that begins in the back half of the 2010s. And no matter which way we tweak it, it always comes out with the same result: civil war in America in 25 years's time."

That all sounds odd. I would be surprised if a mainframe was needed.

Who are the "sides" for a civil war in the USA?

[Little John]

"We run a mainframe computer simulation of the global political and economic situation, modelling various outcomes of the resource crunch that begins in the back half of the 2010s. And no matter which way we tweak it, it always comes out with the same result: civil war in America in 25 years's time."

That all sounds odd. I would be surprised if a mainframe was needed.

Who are the "sides" for a civil war in the USA?

The Puritans and the Quakers. All else is historical details.

[jonny2mad]

"We run a mainframe computer simulation of the global political and economic situation, modelling various outcomes of the resource crunch that begins in the back half of the 2010s. And no matter which way we tweak it, it always comes out with the same result: civil war in America in 25 years's time."

That all sounds odd. I would be surprised if a mainframe was needed.

Who are the "sides" for a civil war in the USA?

http://www.resist.com/CWII.pdf civil war 2 thomas chittum former mercenary vietnam soldier who fought in bosnia .

one possible american civil war

[vtsnowedin]

Who are the "sides" for a civil war in the USA?

Take your pick.
Whites vs. colored
Christians vs. Muslims
Haves vs. Have nots
Urban vs. rural
Drug users vs. straights
Recent immigrants vs. entrenched establishment.
I'm picking the Straight white Christian, Haves that are entrenched as the winners.