From the Wilderness Closing Its Doors.
Yes, I know Mike Ruppert has alienated the 9/11 Truth movement for a while. I also know he has seemed extremely exaggerated and melodramatic for the past year or so and constantly seeks funds for his foundering company. But, the guy was a pioneer of 9/11 research. Further, unlike some of our 9/11 Truth heroes such as Alex Jones and Tarpley, he understands the seriousness of peak oil and declining energy supply. Anyway, you all won't have Mike to kick around anymore. He has had no control of FTW since he left for Venezuela. Alas, this great site is closing its doors. Mike is doing his best to at least preserve the research archives. If you respected Mike, do what you can to at least maintain that legacy. Here is what looks to be a parting shot.
[FTW is really screwed up right now. Everybody knows it and I am not going ignore it. I am in bad shape too. I am not going to hide that either. I have been in Caracas for 14-plus weeks and am facing a serious combination of medical symptoms that were described by Carlos Ruiz in “Living with Mike Ruppert in Caracas." They include sudden drops in blood pressure, blood sugar crashes, dizziness, weakness, paresthesis of lips and fingers, small kidney stones, heavy calcification of the urinary tract and prostate, cloudy urine and chronic fatigue. There have been four seizure-like violent tremors.
Looking back I can see that the first major signs of my illness started appearing about a year ago. The first tremor happened in January before we moved FTW out of Los Angeles. What is happening now erupted in full about two weeks after I arrived in Caracas. We do not have a firm diagnosis yet. I have just had an expensive series of blood tests run but do not have the results. Both FTW and I need your help although I must tell you that our offices are being vacated next week.
My friends and subscribers know that I have never lied to them. My enemies know that I have never lied to my friends and subscribers. That has been an unbroken bond for 104 consecutive months and I am not about to break it now.
FTW’s time of usefulness on this planet is ending. Michael Kane offered his resignation last week. Having already lost Stan Goff (due to cash shortages) and Jamey Hecht. No one person can carry it on their own. Kane made the right decision for personal reasons and I support it completely. We remain close and trusted friends with deep mutual admiration and respect for each other. The article that follows is my personal tribute to him and the entire generation of talented investigators, researchers and writers that has arisen since 9-11.
One of our former writers has expressed concern for his safety in the current political climate of the United States. I know that he is not alone and that many others feel the same. I say to you all, fight the good fight.
There is one other person I must specifically thank and that is the angelic, dedicated, and steadfast Jenna Orkin who has researched, blog-managed, and loved me so unconditionally as to affirm my belief in God when all other evidence of Him seemed MIA. To all who have made FTW and its accomplishments possible, whether we parted as friends or not, I offer a gratitude that will endure throughout all time.
We changed the world a little bit.
My time may be over too and I must now turn my attention to that. One thing we must do, however, is to save the FTW archives as a permanent fixture on the internet for future researchers and try to clean things up before we go. We must also save my personal library of around 250 books.
How this came to pass merits only a brief discussion. There are too many details that I just don’t know. In the first month after I left the states we had our strongest sales month in (I’m guessing) a year and a half. The organization I hastily put in place before leaving was working. Decisions were made in Ashland to upgrade our store and web site for all the right reasons; chiefly to cut costs by outsourcing our product shipment and warehousing. Many glitches made that process take more than two months and during that time our subscriber-only section was free and often orders could simply not be accepted. It was not that people didn’t want to buy. They just couldn’t.
Sales fell by around 60% and cash flow dried up. I was made fully aware of these details only about two weeks ago. I was out of the loop for these decisions and didn’t find out how bad things were until many well-intentioned choices had already been made; choices that could not be changed. The same is true for our long-time agent/publicist Ken Levine. We all owe a debt of gratitude to everyone who wrote for FTW after I left the United States. Some great stories and articles came out between July and November.
There were more problems of human origin. Some were definitely malicious. I won’t go into them here because they just don’t matter anymore. If there are any recriminations to be given for how things turned out I accept them. I was the glue that held FTW together all these years. I am the one who left knowing that I couldn’t continue any longer after our offices were burglarized and our computers were smashed this June. There had been one-too-many battles and, looking back, I knew my health was failing then even though I didn’t want to admit it.
As far as I know, the Ashland staff did the absolute best they could. However, one person who is no longer affiliated with FTW wrote me about a month ago that the decision to close FTW was a “fait accompli” and that it could not be prevented. I had not been consulted before that. I immediately cautioned against painting a rosy picture and continuing to sell subscriptions and products after I was told that the office was being staffed only one day per week, they couldn’t pay for inventory, and there was no money to ship product or pay staff.
I was advised on Nov. 6 that the staff, working without pay, had shipped most, but not all of the remaining orders.
What is important to me is that we try to make our obligations good. Sadly, in my present condition and position I may not be able to have much impact on that. FTW is closing its doors with many angry people who have not received their orders and vendors who never got paid for what they shipped us. I did everything I could possibly think of to prevent that, including considering returning to the States with all the risks and personal anguish that would entail.
We have jointly decided that the FTW store cease all sales of subscriptions and product immediately, remaining available only for badly needed donations. Those will be used to ship remaining back orders, pay staff save the web site and transfer my personal library to an as yet undetermined safe location – in that order.
Those are the facts. It is too soon to glibly say “let the healing begin”. There is too much wreckage scattered about. But it is certainly time to stop creating any more. Healings will inevitably occur. That is the beauty of life.
At the end of this article I will list options for those who want to help me personally and give FTW the decent end it deserves. I know you’re out there. I am nearly broke and am unable to even purchase a plane ticket if I had another country to go to or a bed to sleep in when I got there. Venezuela has kicked my butt as you will soon see. How all of that happened gave me the “inspiration” for this final FTW essay.
This is my tribute to Michael Kane and to all who have learned from FTW, taken the map we have drawn, and are now reading it for themselves. God bless you. The struggle continues. – MCR]
EVOLUTION
by
Michael C. Ruppert
© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.
Cultural diversity is not only humanity’s hallmark of progress, but an insurance policy against extinction as a species. Diversity gives not only cultural and economic riches derived from different perspectives on natural resources and what it means to be human, but options to problem solving that are stifled in a homogenized society. When such a society is organized around economic goals that are measured by profit margins for private gain by powerful elites, where the demands of those who bear cash as the ticket of admission to the marketplace rule, rather than the needs of people, then those who are deprived – and those who have never been part of such a global economy – must necessarily suffer. The genocide of tribal peoples, therefore, is symptomatic of a deep malaise in the world’s metropolises. Indigenous peoples will suffer the most, but humanity as a whole will suffer the loss of some of its memory, not only of a unique knowledge of the natural world, but of its ability to cope with the future in various, diverse ways.
THY WILL BE DONE, The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett
Harper Collins, 1995, p. 685
November 7th 2006, 4:39PM [PST] – Nature protects itself through diversity. It stands to reason then that when threatened – as it is now on so many fronts – Mother Earth will exert itself aggressively; enforcing rigid boundaries that ignore the lives of individuals – plant or animal – in order to preserve the diversity which protects all life. That human beings as a species also show such characteristics is proof of the connection between man and planet. In some ways this is not unlike the point in time when a child must break with parents in order to fulfill its own destiny, with its own unique life path, thus guaranteeing that the evolutionary process – life itself – is protected; that something better and new might follow.
All individual life ends so that that life as a whole may go on and evolve. As I have said in so many lectures, the human race is now being faced with a choice: either evolve or perish.
Americans tend to think of the Third World as “the frontier”, a place still open to settlement as if it were a divine right just for the willingness to endure a little hardship. With overpopulation and dwindling global resources, the “frontiers” are defending themselves to protect diversity in many ways; ways that are far more effective than any resistance to colonization in previous centuries. Global warming has been characterized as a planet developing a fever to rid itself of an infection. I believe that increasing global tensions might also be mirroring that process.
The human side of this resistance is also organic and, in Latin America, Venezuela is its heart. It has now taken solid root, emerging almost simultaneously in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. I do not think it can be stopped. It is an anthropological resistance.
Living in Venezuela has been an amazing, brutal, and illuminating lesson. It is a truly alien culture that I find simultaneously beautiful, hard, giving, unfamiliar, uncomfortable and definitely self-protecting to the extreme. That is why I am confident that Venezuela, and most of Latin America, will survive the coming crash of Peak Oil better than any other region of the world. I believe it is already starting to protect itself. It doesn’t need me or any outsider to survive. But as a general rule, only those who are native here will be protected by its blessings.
It is not just that I am blond haired and blue-eyed, which does get me a lot of double takes – some hostile. It is as though I am a fish used to swimming in a different kind of water. The way that I swim affects the other fish here, already swimming too much in a superimposed American cultural blanket that has been enforced by scores of coups, debt enslavement, colonization, exploitation, genocide and war over the course of the 20th century and into today. In order to understand this picture a British citizen trying to drive in super-crowded Caracan traffic where there are few rules. Under stress the Brit might instinctively react in a way that might tie up streets. Now change the image of traffic to a culture adapting to dwindling energy reserves, conflict or panic. The Brit would be singled out quickly and forced off the road so that the rest might “function” in ways they were accustomed to.
However, the powerful lessons and principles of human justice, sustainability, harmony with the land, freedom from the mandate of endless capitalist growth, openness, and localization contained in the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chavez are powerful survival tools that can and must be studied and adapted to other regions. If one reads Richard Heinberg, Matt Savinar, Megan Quinn, Post Carbon Institute, FTW, or any of the great sustainability writers, one will find those same principles; arrived at through different means.
Forget labels. This is what will work.
The Bolivarian Revolution is different from the main body of sustainability literature in one key respect. It is the practical, hands-on implementation of these principles on local, national and continental levels; something all European and North American sustainability advocates know little or nothing about. How could they? While US and European sustainability advocates write about “shoulds” the Bolivarian Revolution is an evolving process of actual doing. It must be watched closely by all who would learn from it.
The irony is that for the most part, the Bolivarian revolution does not see itself as a sustainability movement but rather as a political and economic one. Now for another of my trademarked quotes: Until you change the way money works, you change nothing. The Bolivarian Revolution is doing just that.
PROTECTING DIVERSITY
The Bolivarian Revolution and Venezuelan culture inherently knows that it cannot make too many exceptions to the rule that diversity must protect itself or else the rule will have no meaning. That’s exactly what I was asking it to do (though I didn’t know it) when I came here. I am not just one migrating gringo. Mike Ruppert could not be assimilated without changing something here: the Tao of politics.
That is why, after 15 weeks of waiting, after only one interview, a formal petition and a lot of pressure from influential Americans and Venezuelan-Americans (some with direct government connections) I have not heard a word on my request for political asylum. Venezuelans are inherently suspicious, let alone of a blond gringo who is an ex-policeman who came from a US intelligence family. It is possible that within the massive and glacially slow bureaucracy, some who are not loyal to Chavez have buried my request under a pile of papers. In Latin America things take much longer and I can see now that the waiting process, never guaranteed to be successful, is part of a natural selection.
My thirty year record of activism and sacrifice in the US means little in Venezuela. Those deposits were made in a bank belonging to a different ecosystem. There are no ATMs for that kind of withdrawal here.
The first real kindness shown to me by a full-blooded Latin American with government connections, came about two weeks ago as “Tano”, a bearded artist and long-time revolutionary who had worked with Salvador Allende in Chile, looked at me with true compassion and said, “Venezuela will run you through a gauntlet. It will ignore you. It will make promises and never call you back or fulfill them. It will mistrust you even if you have lived here for ten years, twenty years.”
It took me 12 weeks to get to Tano and it was not by a linear, logical path.
Tano is a famed artist and thinker knows Hugo Chavez personally. He has traveled with him. His kindness and sympathy was abundant and visible. Kittens slept on his massive belly as he spoke from behind a desk cluttered with papers. Two dogs gravitated to him as though he was a magnet. He offered to open doors and make some introductions in certain ministries. As opposed to many other unfulfilled promises since I have been here, he meant it. Promises are made quickly here and soon forgotten, even between native Venezuelans. But it was already too late. My health was gone, I could not make one important event and I had already been rejected like an invading organism; rejected by the differences in culture and an environment I had trouble adapting to.
I was introduced to Tano by my young Venezuelan friend Ivan, who, at 27, who had just quit his job as a trader at J.P. Morgan because it was too stressful. He was too Venezuelan to live the life of a Venezuelan posing as an American. Good for him.
It would be embarrassing to many people if I named the names of all of those back “home” who, learning that I had come here, told me that they had been considering the same move. They said that when things got intolerable in the States, or the UK, or Canada, they would just move here; or to Costa Rica, or to New Zealand, or to someplace else. My pains and troubles here will serve as an object lesson for all that the time to relocate in advance of Peak Oil has, for almost everyone, long passed.
DISTINCTIONS
The important distinctions about adaptivity are not racial at all. US citizens come in all colors. American culture is the water they have swum in since birth. A native US citizen of Latin descent who did not (or even did) speak Spanish would probably feel almost as out of place here as I do. They would look the same but not feel the same. And when it came time to deal collectively with a rapidly changing world, a world in turmoil, a native-born American’s inbred decades of “instinctive” survival skills might not harmonize with the skills used by those around him.
Another one of my trademarked lines is that Post Peak survival is not a matter of individual survival or national survival. It is a matter of cooperative, community survival. If one is not a fully integrated member of a community when the challenges come, one might hinder the effectiveness of the entire community which has unspoken and often consciously unrecognized ways of adapting. As stresses increase, the gauntlets required to gain acceptance in strange places will only get tougher. Diversity will become more, rather than less, rigid and enforced.
As energy shortages and blackouts arrive; as food shortages grow worse; as droughts expand and proliferate; as icecaps melt, as restless, cold and hungry populations start looking for other places to go; minute cultural and racial differences will trigger progressively more abrupt reactions, not unlike a stressed out and ill human body will react more violently to things that otherwise would never reach conscious thought.
Start building your lifeboats where you are now. I can see that the lessons I have learned here are important whether you arethinking of moving from city to countryside, state to state, or nation to nation. Whatever shortcomings you may think exist where you live are far outnumbered by the advantages you have where you are a part of an existing ecosystem that you know and which knows you.
If the time comes when it is necessary to leave that community you will be better off moving with your tribe rather than moving alone.
Evolution is guaranteed. Useful knowledge gained by ancestors is incorporated into succeeding generations. It may not be used in the same way that it was when acquired. It may lie dormant for years or decades, safely stored in DNA or the collective unconscious. But it is there, and it will always be available should the day come when it is needed.
----------
SENDING HELP
FOR MIKE RUPPERT MEDICAL CARE AND RELOCATION ONLY:
My trusted attorney Ray Kohlman in New York will be receiving all donations intended for this purpose. I really need help. At present only checks and money orders can be processed. They should be made out to Ray Kohlman and (very important) the Memo section should read, “For Mike Ruppert”.
Mail to:
Mike Ruppert
c/o Ray Kohlman
300 East 71st St.
Suite 3H
New York, NY 10021
Those with offers or information on residency in another country should contact Jenna Orkin, Jennakilt@aol.com. These must address three things: Visa and immigration considerations, access to affordable health care, and an initial place of residence. Jenna will screen these offers and forward them to Ray Kohlman for further evaluation. I can only get online for a few hours a day at best by going to an internet café.
TO SAVE THE FTW WEBSITE, RESEARCH FILES AND LIBRARY:
All contributions should be sent to FTW’s agent-publicist Ken Levine by check or money order only. Offers to store (or purchase) my personal library of 250 volumes should be made to Ken Levine (below). If I do make it into another life and recover my health, however, I reserve the right to someday reclaim the 15 or so books that are personally autographed to me by their authors. Again, checks or money orders should be sent to:
FTW
c/o Ken Levine
More Than News Productions
13500 Ventura Blvd.
Suite 301
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
818/907-9466 phone
818/907-9551 fax
ken@bighula.com
DIRECT CREDIT CARD DONATIONS, can be made at the FTW website. These will be used to fund immediate operating expenses, salaries, and other essential functions. They will not be used to help me personally.
- Al Czervik's blog
- Login to post comments
Ruppert remains a bit of an enigma to me. I am very sorry to
learn of his serious health problems & his difficulties in Venezuela. I'm still not sure what to think about any "Peak Oil" catastrophe in the near future.
immed
mr. ruppert should go to www.immed.org to find out about stealth bacteria that can cause disease, millions of people have it manifested in diseases like cfids, ra, etc its being covered up, treatable with abx
I would also suppose a guy like Ruppert could've been a target
of some sort of poisoning or deliberate infecting with germs. He should certainly look into the possibility.
A few lines from the Wikipedia article on Ruppert:
"Ruppert, whose father was a CIA agent and mother was in a British intelligence agency, graduated from UCLA in 1973 and became a narcotics investigator for the LAPD. In 1977 he claimed to have discovered an extensive drug trafficking operation run by the CIA and went on record about it. He was subsequently forced out of the LAPD in 1978 despite earning the highest rating reports possible, and having no pending disciplinary actions. (This account comes from Ruppert's book jacket.)"
[hmmm...Ruppert was merely an L.A. cop with a background & accomplishments like that ???]
"The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have built on the Peak Oil idea, stating that 9/11 is seen as an enabling event, similar to other false flag operations, and one which would provide the justification for a sequential war to control the world's remaining oil reserves."
[Interesting, especially the meaning/sense of the word "justification"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruppert
by the way, Wikipedia is crap!
They lie about 9/11 truth, why use them as an authority on anything? Oh wait--is it wrong to accuse wikipedia of being disinfo? It's the bestest wiki in the wiki world!!
OK but the point about Ruppert is well taken--here's a guy with spook parents who went to college in 1969 (of all years) then becomes a cop.
You would think if he was legit he would have the ties and contacts to have a slightly more dignified approach to his activism. But no, he is a comic-book caricature paranoid conspiracist who tries to influence others to be the same with a manufactured cult of personality around him.
NO ONE has been talking about Mike Ruppert since the "break in". And that really bugs the disinfo peeps because they thought he was an ace in their hand. It's funny in a way to see these people bungling everything like this. The arrogance behind this idea that they can control reality like it was their little play act is going to be their downfall, mark my words. No really, mark them. Because I think a lot of people know exactly what I'm talking about.
You're all screwed, shills, every last one!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
He was more likely an upper-level CIA agent and L.A. drug-cop
simultaneously, IMO. (That could certainly have been arranged, and a sharp guy like Ruppert could've easily pulled it off.)
He was probably a CIA mole or CIA liaison in the L.A.P.D.!
!
NSA agent working within the CIA for NASA and the gov't of Chad
In my opinion, anyway.
I think it's time to write off Ruppert
As more than likely an agent. Sorry, but all this drama, now he comes down with a mysterious illness--my spider sense is saying this is way too dramatic not to be scripted. I had a sneaking suspicion that also that people were going to start speculating about "foul play" with his mysterious illness, and here you have it--someone posts a website about stealth bacteria. OK, no. Nope. Sorry. And peak oil? When we know alternatives like ethanol are readily available? Sounds more like an excuse to boost oil prices to make those record profits for Enron. I'm going on record to say that Ruppert is more than likely part of a disinfo plot, and a not so subtle one at that. All right, have at me! :)
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Tip
Base your opinions on facts, not "spider senses".
Ethanol is not an alternative to oil. It takes energy to make energy, and in the case of ethanol, it also requires precious land.
And please, if you are unfamiliar with Mike Ruppert's work, I suggest refraining from making baseless accusations. Labeling somebody as an 'agent' with absolutely no supporting evidence is exactly what the 9/11 Truth Movement should avoid, especially when the person being accused has contributed so much to the cause.
see theres this thing called the sun
that for eons provided all the energy the earth needed. and it makes corn grow. and if you hadn't noticed that they're spiking your gas at the pump with it already than you need to look closer when you fill up.
I bought and read Crossing the Rubicon in its entirety. Pluse I wasted some money subscribing to his newsletter. The man is a drama queen however you look at it.
People are free to agree or disagree, but I will never shy away from calling em like I see em--I don't care how many people claim to think someone is a hero, that's the kind of sacred cow nonsense that has gotten us into so much trouble already.
Anyone who wants to see what Ruppert's all about should look at how he went on and on about some Vreeland guy having predicted 9/11. He gets you all interested and then when you see what he bases this on, a scribbled jumble of nonsense making a passing reference to bin Laden but proving nothing whatsoever, you'll get an idea of his MO. It must be frustrating to the powers that be that no one has really paid any attention to his latest antics--fleeing to Venezuela after mysterious forces destroy his computers. PLEASE. It looks like a bunch of wannabe Hollywood scriptwriters are wasting good COINTELPRO money on this fantasy, nothing more nothing less.
I know that bugs you, pal. But hey--you chose... poorly.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The sun provides us with food...to eat!
Growing corn and producing ethanol requires oil, natural gas, and fertile land that would otherwise be used for growing food.
Oil and natural gas are essentially millions of years' worth of stored sunlight energy that has been compressed underneath the ground. Fossil fuels are, by far, the most concentrated energy resources on the planet and there is no alternative or combination of alternatives that will ever be able to match their efficiency and former abundance.
As for Ruppert, you are free to believe whatever you like, but there is a difference between speculation and fact.
Agreed on all counts
Petroleum packs a punch, and is infact stored sunlight. What I'm saying is that fuels like ethanol could power future technologies designed to need less punch, which have not been a priority because of the oil monopoly.
And you are quite right, I don't know for a fact Ruppert is an agent. He may just be a clown in real life, not as an act. Time will tell a whole lot!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
US ethanol is uneconomic; "Agent" labeling is counterproductive
Yes, pdevlinbuckley, U.S. corn-derived ethanol does not make economic sense. However, Brazil's sugar-cane-derived ethanol (burned exclusively in many Brazilian vehicles) makes substantial economic sense. I can back this up with data, if anyone is interested.
Some of Mike Ruppert's work is very good. However, his Peak Oil work left somethng to be desired (to say the least). See below.
Since labeling someone else as an "agent" is a primary tactic of "agents," such labeling is probably something that we should all avoid.
Such labeling also promotes paranoia and plays quite well into the Divide & Conquer strategy of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.
ehhh, in some cases it's worth speculating
I do avoid it especially in the case of small time activists like myself. BUT in the case of people who have received lots of attention and have proven not to be very effective, and have declared the truth cause dead, I'll make an exception. It makes no sense to pretend that we all think everyone is a legitimate truther. In the end, even if everyone here was calling everyone else an agent, the facts are still the facts, and those of us who aren't agents go do most of our work in the streets where it counts the most.
Some people call STeve Jones an agent. Well, if he is, he's an agent who provided us with a great explanation and analysis of the WTC demolitions. We need more agents like him and fewer like Ruppert who tuck tail and try to demoralize everyone and come begging for money. Get a frikkin job pumping gas and stop trying to scare everyone by claiming you're being persecuted you fool. If you really were in so much danger why did you flee to Venezuela of all places, and broadcast the fact to the world? Why not just quietly slip away into the woods and live off tree bark like you were saying we would all have to once Peak Oil hit? Where is all the gold you hoarded? Wasn't that part of the plan Mike? Or was that just something you told people so the price of gold would go up along with oil?
Here's a tip for all you agents--if you don't want to be called out, do a BETTER JOB of pretending to be a truther. Agents who help the cause I can tolerate. Agents who make truthers look like asses I cannot.
If you haven't figured it out, I answer only to me and encourage others to answer only to themselves and take what I say with as big a grain of salt as you want. It's the people who say TRUST ME that you have to watch out for. Don't trust me. Don't trust devlinbuckley, don't trust tom mattingly. If we've learned anything it is to listen to what everyone has to say, the make up your own mind, and if you want to help others, speak out when you feel strongly about something.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Agent labeling is counterproductive, if the person is really
not an agent, that is. I can't say that for sure about Ruppert. He's a complex dude, for sure.
it's just like in the movies
When the doppleganger or clone or whatever is standing next to the real person he is impersonating, and they're both trying to convince you that they are the real one. If you DON'T engage them and test them how will you know which one you have to blow to kingdom come with your Judy "Jetson" Wood space beam?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
No Need for Upset, Ridicule or Blowing Anyone to Kingdom Come
The 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps still effectively control every single significant government on our planet. Therefore, there is little need to hide what really occurred on 9/11, most of the clues about & truth of which are hidden in plain sight.
The so-called "agents" amongst us are generally no real physical threat to us personally. Their purposes are primarily to intimidate, confuse, and emotionally upset us. Therefore, there is no reason to even talk about blowing anyone to kingdom come (agent or not).
If your reference to "blow[ing people] to kingdom come" with a "Judy 'Jetson' Wood space beam," was a crude attempt at humor or to ridicule Dr. Judy Wood's & Dr. Morgan Reynolds' new scientific article, entitled "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html, then your ridicule or attempted humor may be both misplaced and inappropriate.
Dr. Jim Fetzer & Dr. Steve Jones have prominently placed links to all six (6) pages of the above article in two (2) separate places on the front page of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. In addition, Jim Fetzer will interview Dr. Wood for 2 hours on his internationally syndicated internet radio show on this Saturday from 7pm to 9pmET (www.RBNlive.com). A link to both serious and not-so-serious discussions about the new Wood/Reynolds scientific article is also available elsewhere at 911 Blogger.
There is no need for us to be upset with or afraid of any possible 9/11 truths. What we emphasize in our advocacy, discussions & activism is another matter entirely. To each, his own.
Although your attempted humor & ridicule of sincere 9/11 scientists and new 9/11 scientific hypotheses may be entirely innocent, you may want to recognize that retarding the scientific search for possible 9/11 truths through the counterproductive upset of ridicule & name-calling does not necessarily help the 9/11 Truth Movement.
no, it was real ridicule
I don't believe for one second that Morgan Reynolds (Wrap) or Judy Jetson are legit or honest or sincere. You can go ahead and pretend that everything anyone says is honest and valid. I have looked at their claims and they are based on junk science, particularly Reynolds' analysis of grainy compressed pictures off the internet.
Their job is very clearly to get a following so as to be able to convince people that this whole 9/11 thing is the realm of kooks and conspiracists. Their version of 9/11 truth is simply not possible. The fact that they invariably pepper their claims with weird looking stills from online videos that are nowhere near their original size just shows the level of their dishonest. Structures collapse with a bit of smoke coming off of them and suddenly it is "steel was vaporized instantly!"
I cannot stress enough how damaging and purposely so these people are. Now that their proponents have disappeared and can no longer ruin this site with their Wile. E. Coyote cartoons, seems they're trying a different approach.
By all means, everyone, look into what they claim, but be aware that they are spinning a web of decpetion, in my opinion and that of most other real truthers.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Hey, "Real Truther"! Beliefs are not necessarily truths...
Real Truther, beliefs are not necessarily truths. Unless you are willing to offer some proof for your beliefs, why don't you let 911 Blogger readers judge for themselves what is truth and what is illusion?
Other than just name-calling and ridicule, you say that Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds rely on "grainy compressed pictures [and videos] off the internet."
Are you saying that you can't get high quality pics & videos off the internet? If this is in fact what you are saying, then you should (finally) look at the high quality pictures and high quality videos on which Wood & Reynolds rely for some of their alleged science in "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html. Some if not many of the pictures are amongst the highest quality pictures that you will find as proof for 9/11 truth claims.
What is your proof that Wood & Reynolds are not legit, not honest, and not sincere? Other than your name-calling & ridicule, you offer none.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Wood & Reynolds are right about their assertions in "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon." In addition, I have told Wood & Reynolds that they are wrong many, many times (e.g., about their criticism of Professor Steve Jones on Cold Fusion). And I cannot yet say whether or not their hypothesis in this article is correct.
By the way, it's also the sincere, fanatical people who screw you. The Bush Administration is replete with examples of this. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, legitimacy, sincerity & honesty are no proofs of 9/11 truth. However, IMHO, name-calling & ridicule are also not the best methods to do 9/11 science and to find 9/11 truths.
If your purpose in writing the above was to confuse the issues and upset those who want to do good 9/11 science, then you have probably not succeeded with most 9/11 Blogger readers.
Dr. Jim Fetzer & Dr. Steve Jones have prominently placed links to all six (6) pages of the above article in two (2) separate places on the front page of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. In addition, Jim Fetzer will interview Dr. Wood for 2 hours on his internationally syndicated internet radio show on this Saturday from 7pm to 9pmET (www.RBNlive.com). A link to both serious and not-so-serious discussions about the new Wood/Reynolds scientific article is also available elsewhere at 911 Blogger.
If you tune in to Dr. Jim Fetzer's radio show with Dr. Judy Wood on Saturday, then you can call in to the show to continue your name-calling & ridicule -- or to ask any pertinent questions that you like.
"But, the guy was a pioneer
"But, the guy was a pioneer of 9/11 research. Further, unlike some of our 9/11 Truth heroes such as Alex Jones and Tarpley, he understands the seriousness of peak oil and declining energy supply."
^ LOL Peak Oil is pure disinfo!
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hubbert_Humbug
Hey, Dem Bruce! Don't say that I never agree with you...
Hey, Dem Bruce! Don't say that I never agree with you... See below.
buy corn futures!!
And come on, who hasn't yet heard about diesel engines running on vegetable oil? This petro nonsense is just that. A way to charge people a ton of money for sludge from the ground when they can just grow their fuel in amidst amber waves of grain. What a racket.
I'm disgusted just thinking about this fat lardass CEO of Exxon scarfing down twinkies while we send kids to die fighting over his twinkie money.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Enormous jowls on that billonaire hog!
!
a couple chins too...
a couple chins too...
Read
Have you read the entire thread at GNN? Palast's article has been completely deconstructed by the readers over there. I suggest you check it out. If you are interested in an expert's opinion, Richard Heinberg's response may be viewed here.
Peak Oil is a Semi-Scientific Scam Perpetrated by Big Oil
"Peak Oil" is a scam and a sham perpetrated by Big Oil interests. If so, then "Peak Oil" cannot possibly explain anyhing about 9/11. If so, then Mike Ruppert's probably-unwitting perpetration of the Peak Oil scam may also be an indirect Limited Hang Out that cannot and does not justify the U.S. invasions & occupations of Afghanistan & Iraq.
There may be many better links to prove the proposition that Peak Oil is a scam, but one link is the following: "The pEEk Oil Strategy & Energy Abundance" at www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews040910.mp3 (an archived international internet radio interview with yours truly by Fintan Dunne of www.BreakForNews.com).
I puckishly changed the name of "Peak Oil" to "pEEk Oil," because the oil companies are only allowing us to "peek" at a small amount of the actual oil reserves on the planet. "Proven Oil Reserves" is a misleading accounting term that understates the total amount of "proven" & "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves on the planet.
China's $200 Billion contract with Iran for oil & gas is for NEW oil & gas (yet to be drilled & developed). The same is true about China's contract with Venezuela. There is also plenty of oil in & off the coasts of many West African countries, many South American countries (e.g., the Falkland Islands), Vietnam, Russia, Louisiana, Alaska, Cuba, etc. Iran & Iraq have 7 to 10 times the oil in their "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves as they have in their "proven" oil reserves. Thus, no one is going to lose any oil due to China's unquenched thirst for oil (despite the rising oil prices that we have recently experienced -- abated right before the elections). Oil shale & tar sands in the U.S. & Canada also contain more "unproven" oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Acting as if they believe their own Peak Oil propaganda, the oil companies have now decreased their budgets for oil exploration, thus they now find less oil -- a self-fulfilling prophecy, driven by budgetary constraints. Since the oil companies have shut down and mothballed much of the world's oil refining capacity, even when new oil is found, there are few refineries with excess capacity at which such new oil can be refined.
Another part of the oil companies' "pEEk Oil" strategy is to threaten and cut back existing oil exports from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Sudan, etc. Yes, the Iraq War was in part "about oil" -- but not in the way that most may think. The name of the game in Iraq was to shut down oil exports from Iraq (accomplished by motivating Iraqi insurgents to attack the oil export infrastructure) Until recently, there was less oil being exported from Iraq after the U.S. bombing, invasion & occupation of Iraq than there was during Saddam's "Sneak Oil" days (violating the embargo against Iraqi oil exports). The U.S. & its buddies invaded Iraq & shut down oil exports just as the Iraqi oil embargo was about to expire.
Why does chaos & conflict seem to always occur in & around the oil producing countries? It's elementary, my dear Watson. Threatening oil supplies with such chaos & conflict drives up the oil futures market.
The Russian geology of deep abiotic oil is more scientific and explains more about where oil comes from and where to find it than Western oil geology. Oil is not a "Fossil Fuel." There was never enough dinosaur shit on the planet to produce all of the oil that exists in the "proven" and "unproven" oil reserves.
"Peak Oil" is Big Oil's last chance to make a lot of money before a new energy economy takes hold of the planet. What Big Oil wants to come next is a nuclear-power-based energy economy. Unbeknownst to Ralph Nader, Rockefeller oil interests funded Uncle Ralphy's "Critical Mass" anti-nuclear power campaign in the 1970s (on which I worked with Ralph). Now that oil interests control much of the future of nuclear power construction & possibly-impending operations, Big Oil is saying: "Bring it on!"
The conflicts with Iran & North Korea also make nuclear power look more attractive. Some nations are now saying: "If I can't have it, then I want it" (which is in part the reason for U.S. opposition to Iranian & North Korean nuclear electric power development in the short term). The strategy is to increase the desirability of a new, lucrative, centralized energy generation technology.
This is also the purpose of the "Global Warming" scam and the "Kyoto Accords" scam. Global warming & cooling are longterm cyclic and solar-energy based(having little to do with so-called global warming gases made by man). The science is semi-complex, and Big Oil allies have paid a lot of money to buy experts and to ridicule anyone who says what I'm saying. Nuclear power does not produce any of the so-called global warming gases. Normally-anti-nuke environmentalists may soon wake up the morning after to find out that they have been screwed by ugly pro-nuclear-power interests -- thanks to the "beer goggles" of a fake Global Warming. Who knew?
This "pEEk Oil Strategy" was one of the primary topics of Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force." This is why Cheney was loathe to release the notes from the meetings of his Energy Task Force. He threatened to cut the budget of the U.S. GAO if the GAO continued to press for the guest list and the notes.
There are oil replacement energy technologies on the horizon, such as the cheap, decentralized Tesla-type energy technologies (which may soon power homes, businesses, cars, trains, ships, and planes). However, these Tesla-type electric energy technologies (on which I semi-informally work) have been suppressed for more than 100 years.
Mike Ruppert once threatened to sue me if I persisted in opposing him on his scientifically misguided "Peak Oil" assertions. He said that I would need a bevy of top attorneys and oil geologists to defend myself, because he had more than 1,000 footnotes in his new book to support his position. (I just snickered & left him alone.)
Now Mike is living in a country that has more "proven" & "unproven" oil reserves than Saudi Arabia (and he may not even know about this fact). However, IMHO, Mike is not a witting shill for Big Oil. Mike was just not willing to take a peek at the simple scientific evidence that he might be mistaken about his Big-Oil-benefiting Peak Oil propaganda. Who knew?
Ruppert established his reputation in part due to his exposure of semi-official drug running -- some of which investigations & writings were very good. Regardless of Mike's mistakes about Peak Oil and other matters, I wish him well.
Please
Abiotic oil theory has been discredited ten times over.
And Fintan Dunne? Give me a break. That guy claims everybody works for the CIA. According to Mr. Dunne, all of the following web sites are "CIA fakes":
airamericaradio.com
albasrah.net
aljazeera.net
aljazeera.com
almartinraw.com
americanfreepress.net
angieon911.com
antiwar.com
apfn.org
arcticbeacon.com
batr.org
bellaciao.org
bilderberg.org
blackboxvoting.org
bradblog.com
buzzflash.com
cloakanddagger.ca
coasttocoastam.com
conspiracyarchive.com
conspiracyplanet.com
commondreams.org
cooperativeresearch.org
counterpunch.org
cryptome.org
davidicke.com
deepblacklies.co.uk
democracynow.org
dieoff.com
earthfiles.com
ellsberg.net
fromthewilderness.com
globalresearch.ca
halfpasthuman.com
infoclearinghouse.info
infowars.com
inn.globalfreepress.com
internationalanswer.org
jackblood.net
jihadunspun.com
jimmarrs.com
jmccanneyscience.com
johnbuchanan.org
johnkaminski.com
judicialwatch.org
justacitizen.com
justicefor911.org
karlschwarz.com
konformist.com
kurtnimmo.com
larouchepub.com
legitgov.com
letsroll911.org
libertyforum.org
libertythink.com
lovearth.net
madcowprod.com
meria.net
monbiot.com
moveon.org
mysteriesofthemind.com
narconews.com
newswithviews.com
newtopiamagazine.com
nomorefakenews.com
occupationwatch.org
oilempire.us
onlinejournal.com
peakoil.net
plaguepuppy.net
prisonplanet.com
propagandamatrix.com
questionsquestions.net
ralphnader.com
radioliberty.com
rawstory.com
rbnlive.com
recombinomics.com
rense.com
reopen911.org
rigorousintuition.blogspot
riverbend.blogspot
rumormillnews.com
sanderhicks.com
savethemales.ca
septembereleventh.org
skolnicksreport.com
standdown.net
stanley2002.org
team8plus.org
tomflocco.com
thepowerhour.com
thetruthseeker.co.uk
truefacts.co.uk
truthout.org
tvnewslies.org
unansweredquestions.org
uruknet.info
vialls.net
votetoimpeach.org
wanttoknow.info
whatreallyhappened.com
wingtv.net
worldaffairsbrief.com
xymphora.blogspot
911citizenswatch.org
911forthetruth.com
911truth.org
911truthradio.com
Unless you're into fiction, ignore Fintan Dunne.
it's not abiotic vs non-abiotic
As usual, you all try to frame the debate as one of two things. Blue Red! Republicrat Demoblican! Butter or Margarine! Coke or Pepsi! Don't you get tired of such a narrow worldview?
I happen to suspect abiotic oil is nonsense. 'But that's not the point--the point is that it's NOT ABOUT OIL. OIL is not the end all be all of energy.
But when you frame the debate as "is or isn't oil running out" people will surely think that that's the only issue right?
and I don't see wtcdemolition.com on that list, nice!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
What?
"As usual"? Do I know you?
I wasn't the one who brought up abiotic oil. I was addressing the comments by Thomas J Mattingly.
your comment intentionally or not simplifies the debate
And it's such a common practice that I lumped you in with others who make a career out of it. I admit that wasn't fair. (Lesson #23 Admit when you are wrong)
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Does telling Dunne about pEEk Oil mean that Peak Oil is true?
pdevlinbuckley, in your "extensive" critique of my Peak Oil debunking, you list two (2) points to prove that Mike Ruppert's & others' "Peak Oil" hypothesis is true.
First, you say that my assertion that "Russian oil geology is superior to Western oil geology" is wrong. However, this assertion is by no means central or even necessary to my assertions & analyses in "The pEEk Oil Strategy & Energy Abundance."
The second "major" point that you make in support of your alleged truth of the Peak Oil hypothesis is that I told Fintan Dunne and his listeners about the Peak Oil scam.
What else have you got?
On the contrary...
First, I provided three links to a FTW series examining the theory of abiotic or abiogenic oil. I did not simply say that you were wrong.
Second, contrary to your implication, the abiotic theory is only held by a small minority of Russian scientists.
Third, I never said that you told "Fintan Dunne and his listeners about the Peak Oil scam," as you claim.
Fourth, Peak OIl is real. Oil is discovered, discoveries peak, fields are exploited, oil is extracted, production peaks, and the fields go into decline. Peak OIl has happened time and time again...to individual fields, to groups of fields, to entire oil-producing regions, and to entire countries. This cannot be attributed to some century-long conspiracy orchestrated by the oil tycoons.
Yes, there are additional fossil fuels to exploit, but they require more energy and more money to extract and refine than the easily accessible Texan and Saudi Arabian fields of the twentieth century. That is what peak oil is all about.
Fifth, your assertion that Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Task Force devised this master plan is based on pure speculation, as is Ruppert's claim that Peak Oil was the topic of the Task Force and the motivation for the war (ironically you use the same arguments).
Sixth, I am unfamiliar with "Tesla-type energy technologies" but I would be interested in learning. Do you have any recommendations for reading? For right now, I will simply say that the "Tesla-type energy" economy if possible at all, won't exist in time to compensate for the declining availability of fossil fuel energy.
Peak Oil Is Bogus because of the OVERABUNDANCE of Oil
The primary reason that Peak Oil is bogus is because of the overabundance of oil on the planet in "proven" and "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves. See the above partial listing of massive "unproven" but known-to-exist oil sources.
In your first & second points above, you tell me again that the oil geological science of the Russians is not true (citing the FTW 3-part series) and that most Russian scientists do not accept the science of this oil geology. So? Regardless of the truth of Russian oil geology, my primary assertion (above) does not rely on Russian oil geology. In addition, disputing the FTW articles is beyond the scope of this comment.
You say: "Third, I never said that you told 'Fintan Dunne and his listeners about the Peak Oil scam,' as you claim."
No, to prove the truth of Peak Oil, you said: "And Fintan Dunne? Give me a break. That guy claims everybody works for the CIA. According to Mr. Dunne, all of the following web sites are "CIA fakes": [you then include 18 column inches of websites]... Unless you're into fiction, ignore Fintan Dunne."
The implication is that my arguments about Peak Oil are false because I told someone that you don't like about my arguments -- guilt & discrediting by association. If not, then what was your purpose in spending 18 column inches on Fintan Dunne?
You say: "Fourth, Peak OIl is real. Oil is discovered, discoveries peak, fields are exploited, oil is extracted, production peaks, and the fields go into decline. Peak OIl has happened time and time again...to individual fields, to groups of fields, to entire oil-producing regions, and to entire countries. This cannot be attributed to some century-long conspiracy orchestrated by the oil tycoons."
So? Just because oil production in existing oil fields is declining, this says nothing about the abundance of oil in other "unproven" (but known to exist) oil fields and oil fields in chaos-&-conflict-ridden areas (e.g., Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria & Iran ) from which the oil is threatened or being exported in lesser quantities.
If Big Oil cuts its budget for new oil exploration & new oil drilling, then is it any wonder that Big Oil is finding & producing less "new" oil? Yes, some oil sources require more money for production using existing methods. (Contrary to your assertion, Texas oil is substantially more costly to produce than most Middle East oil.) None of the above means that we are running out of oil. In addition, I certainly do not concede the point that oil is a "fossil fuel."
You say: "Fifth, your assertion that Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Task Force devised this master plan is based on pure speculation, as is Ruppert's claim that Peak Oil was the topic of the Task Force and the motivation for the war (ironically you use the same arguments)."
Mike & I may have had similar similar Washington sources for our assertions. Our assertions on this point are certainly not inconsistent. Well, at least Mike was right about something (LoL).
You say: "Sixth, I am unfamiliar with "Tesla-type energy technologies" but I would be interested in learning."
Two (2) sources of many for such info are Dr. Tom & Jackie Valone's Integrity Research Institute (http://users.erols.com/iri); and Dr. Tom Bearden's research, writings & inventions (http://www.cheniere.org).
Tom & Jackie just held their second Conference on Future Energy in Washington, which I attended. See http://users.erols.com/iri/cofe.html. The conference was only partly about Tesla-type energy technologies, but they and others have held conferences exclusively devoted to Tesla-type energy technologies.
Dr. Tom Bearden's site contains a wealth of interesting & useful information -- some true, some not true. Unfortunately, Tom may be unwittingly part of the means to frame the scientific discussion in the wrong way for the top-level scientists. For those not familiar with the field, his site & writings provide an interesting introduction to the field of Tesla-type & other cheap energy technologies.
You say: "For right now, I will simply say that the "Tesla-type energy" economy if possible at all, won't exist in time to compensate for the declining availability of fossil fuel energy."
How do you know? The Chinese are willing & able to invest more than $500 Billion to develop & manufacture Tesla-type & other cheap energy technologies (and to sell such devices at Wal-Mart, when appropriate). However, some Chinese oligarchs are also involved in suppressing the Tesla-type & other cheap energy technologies -- similar to the oligarchs of the balance of the G8+.
Why would these cheap energy technologies be suppressed? Well, J.P. Morgan (who funded Tesla at times) said that he was against the cheap, decentralized energy technologies because they were too cheap, because he could not meter them, and because he could not turn them off when the people did not continue to pay him.
Energy scarcity and all other scarcities (all fake, by the way) are used as a means to control the people in the different nations on this planet. The elimination of energy & other scarcities would sound the death knell for control of the people by the power elites. It's really as simple as that.
Therefore, knowledge of such technologies is hidden from the masses. In addition, 9/11 may have been carried out in part using some of these hidden technologies (e.g., possibly similar to the scientific assertions in Wood's & Reynolds' "9/11 Beam Weapons" article). Then the national & international power elites can continue to scare & confuse the population of the planet into following the dictates of those who are manipulating the scarcities. Massive depopulation is probably more of a scare tactic than a real alternative. Who knew?
Your "primary' argument
"The primary reason that Peak Oil is bogus is because of the overabundance of oil on the planet in "proven" and "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves. See the above partial listing of massive "unproven" but known-to-exist oil sources."
You keep repeating this mantra with all sorts of unnecessary formatting (almost like you're begging for attention) but when it comes to the actual facts, you fail to mention that Peak Oil scenarios factor in both proven and unproven reserves, and therefore, since you offer no specific numbers or supporting data, your rhetoric is irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Furthermore, "unproven" means just that: unproven. The term refers to highly speculative reserves that may or may not exist. Unproven reserves only have an approximate 10% chance of ever being extracted and they are dependent on improving and favorable economic conditions to produce.
As I noted earlier, there is indeed additional oil out there, but it is harder to get to, requires more energy to extract, is of lesser quality, and is more expensive to refine. The ratio of energy invested to energy returned on each barrel will therefore inevitably drop, and consequently, so will overall energy availability.
Since you are unable to rewrite that "list", I will copy it here...
"... China's $200 Billion contract with Iran for oil & gas is for NEW oil & gas (yet to be drilled & developed). The same is true about China's contract with Venezuela. There is also plenty of oil in & off the coasts of many West African countries, many South American countries (e.g., the Falkland Islands), Vietnam, Russia, Louisiana, Alaska, Cuba, etc. Iran & Iraq have 7 to 10 times the oil in their "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves as they have in their "proven" oil reserves. Thus, no one is going to lose any oil due to China's unquenched thirst for oil (despite the rising oil prices that we have recently experienced -- abated right before the elections). Oil shale & tar sands in the U.S. & Canada also contain more "unproven" oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. ..."
First, China is signing big deals with Iran and Venezuela (as well as buying every scrap they can get their hands on elsewhere) for a reason: they are in desperate need of long-term energy supplies. Up until 1993, China was an oil exporter. Today, China relies on imports. Just like the U.S., they have become dependent on foreign oil.
And no, this is not a hoax; it is reality...
You say China has nothing to worry about because they will simply import more and more as time goes on. But as any reasonable person can see, such growth and consumption rates are dangerously unsustainable.
According to you, Iraq and Iran have "7 to 10 times" more oil in unproven reserves than they do in proven reserves, but again, you offer no source for this information and you drastically overemphasize the significance of "unproven" reserves.
In reality, according to the most optimistic number I could find, "Iraq is estimated to have 265 billion barrels of unproven reserves and 125 billion barrels of proven reserves." In other words, your number is off by about 400%. I would be willing to bet that the figures for Iran are similar, but if you can contest this, please do.
Also worth noting is your apparent ignorance regarding the differences between conventional and unconventional oil. Deep offshore oil, heavy Venezuelan oil, Canadian tar sands, etc. are all unconventional sources that require more money and energy to bring to the market than standard conventional oil.
We are being forced to use less efficient methods of energy production, which does not refute Peak Oil; it proves it.
Ruppert matters, even without Peak Oil as a motive for 9/11
I think you can set aside opinions of Peak Oil and still appreciate the work Ruppert has done for 9/11 Truth. Even if you remove the "motive" from his argument, you are still left with a wealth of useful data. Let's face it, Ruppert has been right about a good deal concerning 9/11. He recognized the paucity of the physical evidence tactic almost immediately following 9/11; and ever since we have seen the neverending showdown of "experts". He followed up on the war games research, which remains of the best smoking gun evidence. He outlined the connections between oil and drugs, which, even if you don't believe they are the central motives for 9/11, remain powerful incentives for covering it up.
And, yes, Ruppert said some nasty things about 9/11 Truth, and maybe his comments were driven by arrogance or pride or whatever failings. But perhaps he was simply voicing the opinion of someone who has seen a crime like 9/11 go unprosecuted (JFK), and perhaps he just wanted people to learn from past mistakes? He has been right about many things, whatever one thinks of Peak Oil, and he may yet be right about a few more.
I've never known what to think about Ruppert as a person. I don't trust most people who come asking for money so frequently (instead of, say, running a good business). But "Crossing the Rubicon" remains one of the two or three essential texts for anyone who wants to understand 9/11, whatever one thinks of Peak Oil.
You "Peak Oil" people
You "Peak Oil" people frighten me. You guys supposedly convinced by this stuff will yack on about how people who dismiss "Peak Oil" do so because they can't face it's "cataclysmic implications". No. What frightens me is that you people do not understand what it is that you are providing the false, sickening and fraudulent justification for. You say "Peak Oil" is scary, well I don't want to say this because I think it's just as sensational and alarmist as "Peak Oil", but nevertheless what do you make of this;
THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13394
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
Ok, so this could just be some weird whacked out nonsense that some total freakshows decided to put up. But then we have "academics" and the "Elite" saying the same thing;
Professor's "Kill 90% of Population" Comments Echo UN, Elite NGO policies
"Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406_b_depopulation.htm
Now this is total insanity. The population growth in developed nations is slow and in decline;
"Economists say Europe's population decline threatens to damage economic growth for decades."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4793997.stm
And that's because in developed nations the populations are secure and comfortable, and so there isn’t this instinctive drive to have a large number of children, which would be caused by otherwise deprived conditions. The only parts of the word where the population is growing is in the comparatively undeveloped parts of the world. In "Third World" countries for example the infant mortality rate is often very high, and so as a survival reflex people are driven to have more children then in developed countries. So if this were a real problem, surly the answer would be to help develop the developing countries, so there isn’t this desperation that causes people to have a lot of children etc. But this isn’t what happens because the same "Elite" who promote the idea that the worlds population should be reduced, also have their boot firmly pressed on the developing countries in the form of oppressive trade and debt, preventing them from developing and in turn stabilizing their population growth. So the argument if there ever was one is wholly invalid and insane in my opinion.
But where does "Peak Oil" come in to this madness you "Peakers" ask? Well "Peak Oil" supports the notion that the planet is "over populated" because we're "using up to much of our resources". And if the nutbags ever get their way and try and "cull the human herd", it will be with the false justification and "elite" sponsored phoney academic consensus like "Peak Oil" that they do it in the name of. The objection that you "Peakers" have to understand is that this has got nothing to do with "environmental reasons" or "finite resource depletion", but with a megalomaniac "Elite" who believe that if they can get a small global population they can dominate and control it indefinitely. That is what's scary, and that is why I recoil when I see people pushing issues like "Peak Oil" which provide false justification for such insane ideas.
One question
Does anyone know the proper citation technique when referencing an ancient guidestone?
What are you talking about
What are you talking about that was erected in 1980, it's not ancient, perhaps the shit written on it might be but regardless it's total nonsense in my opinion. And what do you mean "proper citation technique"?
A few things.
Devlin, great work in this thread.
DBLS, I am glad to see in your last post or two, you are not so much arguing about the basics of oil depletion, but in what the typical peaker's reaction or how that feeds into the global elite's population control plan. Just because someone believes that peak oil is a fact, doesn't mean he/she espouses some freakish depopulation idea. But, you are absolutely right that the controllers at the top somewhere are probably pushing that.
Finally, here is Mike in a little bit happier time from a few years back. 9/11 Truth was in its infancy, and Mike was on his A game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCrUmDa6tT0
Thanks man, but do you see
Thanks man, but do you see how it goes from "the Oil's running out" to "there are too many people on the planet"?
So if Peak OIl was real, you would still think it is a scam?
The reality of Peak Oil is not evidence of a conspiracy.
All life on the planet is sustained by energy from the sun. Fossil fuel is nothing more than highly concentrated, compact, and easily transportable solar energy that has been compressed underneath the surface of the earth for very, very long periods of time.
It took human beings just a couple of hundred years to extract and burn the fossil fuels that took the planet hundreds of millions of years to produce. Obviously, this trend cannot continue forever.
The exploitation of fossil fuel as an energy resource has momentarily, but dramatically, increased the carrying capacity of the planet. Simply compare a timeline of population growth to a timeline of energy production and you'll see exactly what I mean.
I don't buy "Peak Oil" for a
I don't buy "Peak Oil" for a second, but tell me what do you think about killing off 90% of the planet with an air born Ebola virus? Sound like a sane solution to a nonexistent problem to you? Do you understand that these people want to dominate human life, and that there using people like you to buy into their false justifications for doing so? Just look at how entrenched the "population control" issue is in Academia, issues like "Peak Oil" are bought and paid for by the "Elite". I can imagine it's quite hard for anyone who thinks Peak Oil is credible to contemplate that, but regardless consider whether or not you're down with mass genocide, because that is what this is about. I hate discussing this crap because I think it's disturbing and counter productive, it's better to just concentrate on 9/11 truth and try and affect change with that.
The ebola virus plan
is beyond evil. Does he not realize the suffering that would entail -- I mean, if you want to so drastically reduce the population, does it have to be something that liquefies your internal organs and makes you bleed from every orifice?
On the other hand, what I find weird is the fact that critics of the Malthusian-types (not specifically you, DBLS) tend to conflate population reduction with population control (and gradual reduction) through effective birth control. There are many places in the world where women bear more children than they actually want -- why not fix that for starters?
no yucky virus necessary--look up "neutron bomb"
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I know casseia it's just
I know casseia it's just completely bizarre, totally and utterly devoid of any sanity or compassion. That guy Dr Pianka got shown up pretty badly though, he was even visited by the FBI from what I remember because people filled terrorism charges against him. He ended up retracting and back pedaling it all, but at the time when he gave his "lecture" after receiving an award of some kind he was saying all this "90% should be wiped out" shit and he actually got a standing ovation at the end apparently. And you're right I think I do confuse the two "population control" and "population reduction", if there is a problem with the worlds population then by all means we should tackle it. But tackle it with sanity and in the most begin way possible, not with some virus that kills people in the most horrific way imaginable.
No connection
I have not seen one connection between advocates of mass genocide and advocates of Peak Oil.
And from what I have seen, your opinion is based on nothing but speculation and paranoia. If this assumption is inaccurate, please provide documentation demonstrating how the so-called 'elite' are using Peak Oil to justify extermination. So far, all I've seen is a few unrelated items (such as the Georgia Guidestones).
More importantly, in order to establish your premise, you must refute the scientifically established theory that is Peak Oil. Can you honestly tell me that oil is not a finite resource? Can you actually argue that fields and countries do not peak and go into decline, something that has been occurring since the first discoveries?
Furthermore, do you actually think that people such as myself would advocate genocide simply because we believe in Peak Oil?
"No Connection" "Paranoia",
"No Connection" "Paranoia", I wish that were true because I hate thinking about this crazy shit, hang on....
Edit: And no I don't think you or the majority of people who believe in Peak Oil support what Malthusian nutjobs think. But I do think you should wise up to the way you're being played, and take the below article for example to all the other normal members of the "Peak Oil" community, and get them to denounce the freakshow author for a start.
I want everyone who's an
I want everyone who's an advocate of "Peak Oil" to read this, be warned though it’s rather disgusting;
http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/588
Oil and People
First published July 2005; article no. 573
The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750-2000, contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic.
Reducing Population in step with Oil Depletion
Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be.
In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is “more of the same”. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
In 2150, for example, a wind turbine constructed of steel, concrete and plastic may not be able to generate, during its lifetime, as much renewable energy as would have been used up in creating it. Imagine mining, refining and smelting the metal ores, quarrying and transporting the rock, growing the biomass; fabricating the component parts, and erecting and maintaining the structure, using only the trickle of electricity produced by another similar turbine. Vast engineering projects such as constructing the first Airbus A380 airliner (Bowie 2005), using only renewable energy from start to finish, would be unthinkable (to say nothing of flying the plane without oil!).
If, in this article, I discuss ways in which a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century, precedent suggests that nearly everyone will ignore me. “He must be mad”, media reviewers concluded when they read my first probes into the subject two years ago and effectively blacklisted the book (Stanton 2003). After all, do the world’s leading politicians and their scientific advisers, including highly paid demographers working for the United Nations and other international bodies, ever doubt that economic “business as usual” will continue for the foreseeable future?
But, given that ASPO is successfully challenging conventional wisdom on oil depletion (there were four anxious letters on the subject of peak oil in my local weekly newspaper in May), what are the options?
The first and most likely scenario is rejection. People in high places view an alleged need for population reduction with incredulity, scorn and denial. In consequence, the price of fossil fuels, especially oil, goes on rising without causing serious alarm in the West, except perhaps in the business world.
When, probably before 2010, the price is so high that construction of new airliners, airport terminals, Olympic villages and traffic reduction schemes judders to a halt, uncontrollable inflation and recession will spread round the world. The oil price may stabilise for a while, as manufacturing wilts, along with demand for its products.
In Third World nations, without oil, that can neither buy food nor grow it in adequate quantity without mechanised agriculture, a Darwinian struggle for shrinking resources of all kinds will be in full swing. Tribe against tribe, religion against religion, family against family, the imperative to survive will be driving strong groups to take what they want from weak ones. The concept of human rights will be irrelevant: “How can the weak have rights to food, when there is not enough even for the strong”?
It may well be that, in the West, the same argument will affect the thinking of militarily powerful nations. “If billions must die, and we have the technology to ensure that they are others, not us, why should we hold back”? Instantaneous nuclear elimination of population centres might even be considered merciful, compared to starvation and massacres prolonged over decades. Eventually, probably before 2150, world population will have fallen to a level that renewable energy, mainly biomass, can sustain. It is likely to be similar to the population before the Industrial Revolution.
That is the do-nothing, let Nature take its course, scenario, involving more than a century of immeasurable human suffering. What alternatives are there? They have to be scenarios in which enlightened governments and their peoples, with astonishing foresight and determination, take positive action to reverse population growth by new, Draconian, laws. China has pioneered such an approach, by its one child per family policy.
ASPO’s Oil Depletion Protocol (Campbell 2004) is a scenario that aims to persuade national governments to cope with declining oil production equitably and peacefully, on the world scale. An annual depletion rate (the percentage of remaining global oil reserves produced each year, currently about 2.5% per year) is calculated by experts, after which nations agree to reduce their consumption and/or production of oil year after year strictly in accordance with the depletion rate. How population reduction will be achieved in step with growing oil shortage is not spelt out. Some will see the Protocol as too idealistic for a Darwinian world, because it expects every nation to co-operate regardless of whether they are resource rich or poor, have a high or a low birth rate, or are responsibly or chaotically governed.
Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak. In fact, human civilization in the fossil fuel era has been totally anomalous, fuelled by the unthinking exploitation and exhaustion of all the world’s resources, not just fossil fuels. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out, decades ago, that Western civilization was a “one-shot affair”, for this reason (Duncan 1997).
So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness (Stanton 2003 page 193). It is best examined at the nation-state scale. The United Kingdom will serve as the model.
To those sentimentalists who cannot understand the need to reduce UK population from 60 million to about 2 million over 150 years, and who are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say “You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful quality of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.”
The Darwinian approach, in this planned population reduction scenario, is to maximise the well-being of the UK as a nation-state. Individual citizens, and aliens, must expect to be seriously inconvenienced by the single-minded drive to reduce population ahead of resource shortage. The consolation is that the alternative, letting Nature take its course, would be so much worse.
The scenario is: Immigration is banned. Unauthorised arrives are treated as criminals. Every woman is entitled to raise one healthy child. No religious or cultural exceptions can be made, but entitlements can be traded. Abortion or infanticide is compulsory if the fetus or baby proves to be handicapped (Darwinian selection weeds out the unfit). When, through old age, accident or disease, an individual becomes more of a burden than a benefit to society, his or her life is humanely ended. Voluntary euthanasia is legal and made easy. Imprisonment is rare, replaced by corporal punishment for lesser offences and painless capital punishment for greater.
A rough calculation suggests that by following these Draconian but simple rules UK population could be reduced by 5 to 10 million during the first ten years, without excessive pain (compared to the alternatives). If this was thought too fast or too slow, there would be scope for modifying the child entitlements. The punishment regime would improve social cohesiveness by weeding out criminal elements.
UK military forces should be maintained strong and alert, given that other nations working to different scenarios, or to none, would certainly attempt Darwinian piracy on UK trade routes, or mount mass immigration invasions of UK coasts. Collaboration with other nations practising the same population reduction scenario would be of great mutual advantage.
Initially the greatest threats to UK security would come from rogue nations unwilling to curb traditionally high birth rates but lacking the means to feed the ever-growing numbers of new mouths. In the past, these were the poverty-stricken nations that repeatedly received humanitarian aid and famine relief, which did nothing to reduce the birth rate. In a Darwinian world, Nature would take its course. In consequence, their populations would reduce particularly fast and their threat would fade away.
After four or five decades the populations of the UK and other nations following the same scenario would probably be halved. In the rest of the world, where Nature was doing the reduction in an ambience of massacres and destruction, the proportionate fall would be greater and the pain would have been terrible. In the UK, in contrast, where orderly population shrinkage would have outpaced resource shrinkage, a relatively comfortable quality of life would have been enjoyed throughout the period. There would have been no loss of technological expertise, but it would no longer be employed in grandiose energy-wasteful projects. Instead, there would be intensive research into cost-effective methods of renewable energy recovery.
A particular problem could arise from the fact that the world’s greatest oil reserves are controlled by the nations surrounding the Gulf. They have dizzyingly high birth rates which, for cultural reasons, they might not want to lower. Their populations exploded following the discovery of oil, and if the explosion continues, even a very high oil price will not provide enough national income to prevent general poverty. Indeed, the demand for Gulf oil might occasionally fall, if for example alternative sources were still available to nations practising orderly population reduction, and there was minimal demand from the chaotic rest of the world. After a decade or two of unrestricted population growth, with limited income from oil and terrible shortages, especially of water, Nature will begin to reverse population growth around the Gulf.
Of course, in a Darwinian world, a militarily powerful nation might try to take oil by force anywhere on the planet. World War Two provided recent examples: oil supply being critical to Germany and Japan.
Another problem is likely to be the residual opposition to population reduction from sentimentalists and/or religious extremists unable to understand that the days of plenty, when criminals and the weak could be cherished at public expense, are over. Acts of violent protest, such as are carried out today by animal rights activists and anti-abortionists, would, in the Darwinian world, attract capital
punishment. Population reduction must be single-minded to succeed.
References
Bowie, B. 2005. Building the A380. New Scientist, 11 June 2005 pp 34-41.
Campbell, C.J. 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood.
Campbell, C.J. 2004. The Truth about Oil and the Looming Energy Crisis. Eagle Print Ireland.
Duncan, R.C. 1997. The Olduvai Theory. In Campbell 1997, pp106-107.
Stanton, W. 2003. The Rapid Growth of Human Populations 1750-2000; Histories, Consequences, Issues, Nation by Nation. Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood.
Stanton, W. 2005. Living fairly comfortably without fossil fuels.
ASPO Newsletter No 52 (April 2005). Item 524.
You do realize...
This article does not support the claim that Peak Oil is a myth propagated by the 'elite' in order to justify genocide. The paper analyzes possible responses by the 'elite' to a real Peak Oil scenario.
Indeed, we should all be worried about how governments deal with dwindling energy supplies.
So you don't concede then
So you don't concede then that Peak Oil is being used to justify mass genocide? Instead you fall back and almost condone it with "Indeed, we should all be worried about how governments deal with dwindling energy supplies. " No we should'nt be worried about "dwindling energy supplies", we should be worried about the lunatics pushing that fraudulent pretext to further their incomprehensibility insane agenda.
Settle down, friend...
We essentially agree. Yes, I do 'concede' that there are people out there, and possibly some occupying influential positions, with horrific ideas for drastically reducing demand, including population reduction and, in some cases, the downright killing of individuals and groups of the world's population.
But this does not in any way imply that Peak Oil is a myth. On the contrary, Peak Oil is the motive behind such barbaric and Machiavellian methods.
And if such radical doomsday scenarios do in fact manifest, what will you do? Will you be exterminated as you waste time telling everybody the energy crisis is all a hoax? Or will you organize and develop alternative and sustainable ways of living? Would you rather be dependent upon FEMA camps and corporations for your survival or be dependent upon a community run by and for you and your fellow citizens?
Putting Malthus & Peak Oil to Sleep with the Fishes...
Dem Bruce Lee Stiles, I agree with you again. Will wonders ever cease?
As indicated above, "Peak Oil" is both a scam and an excuse for depopulation (amongst its other nefarious purposes). If so, then Mike Ruppert's speech about Peak Oil and populaton reduction before the super-establishment Commonwealth Club in San Francisco a couple of years ago was both unfortunate and insidious. If Mike was really so anti-establishment, then why did the Commonwealth Club ask him to speak?
pdevlinbuckley, you say: "But [depopulation] does not in any way imply that Peak Oil is a myth. On the contrary, Peak Oil is the motive behind such barbaric and Machiavellian methods."
No, the depopulation agenda does not prove that Peak Oil is a myth. The overabundance of oil on the planet in "proven" and "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves proves that Peak Oil is a myth. Just because oil production in existing oil fields is declining, this says nothing about the abundance of oil in other "unproven" (but known to exist) oil fields. If Big Oil cuts its budget for new oil exploration & new oil drilling, then is it any wonder that Big Oil is finding & producing less "new" oil?
Peak Oil is NOT "the motive behind such barbaric and Machiavellian methods." Peak Oil is the excuse for the methods & objectives of depopulation. This excuse may enable survivors to accept the depopulation of others without much upset (justified by Malthusian, Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and all that rot).
You ask: "And if such radical doomsday scenarios do in fact manifest, what will you do? Will you be exterminated as you waste time telling everybody the energy crisis is all a hoax? Or will you organize and develop alternative and sustainable ways of living?"
The doomsday scenarios are already beginning to manifest (in Africa, Iraq & Iran) in part under the cover of the hoax of Peak Oil. A global war with China, India & others using the excuse of a fight for scarce energy resources is already in the planning stages by the oligarchs of the G8+. The time to expose the hoax of Peak Oil is now. In addition, the time to develop other cheap, alternative & sustainable energy sources is also now.
There is absolutely no need for anyone to lower his or her standard of living. The myth of Peak Oil and the scam of the Kyoto Accords are being used to shut down Third World development and to deny Third World people access to their nations' own natural resources (e.g., oil & natural gas in Nigeria and natural gas in Bangladesh, with both of which I'm fairly familiar).
If we can finally put both the myth of Peak Oil and the undead Thomas Robert Malthus to sleep with the fishes, then the world might be a better place for all of us. Mike Ruppert should live & become healthy again -- if only so that I can watch him eat a richly-deserved & healthy portion of crow.
"Just because oil production
"Just because oil production in existing oil fields is declining, this says nothing about the abundance of oil in other "unproven" (but known to exist) oil fields. If Big Oil cuts its budget for new oil exploration & new oil drilling, then is it any wonder that Big Oil is finding & producing less "new" oil?"
Discoveries peaked in the 60s and have been falling ever since. This has occurred despite continuous increases in exploration investments and improvements in exploration and drilling technology.
Only in recent years have overall exploration investments declined; and keep in mind this occurred long after discovery rates fell off.
It is simple economics. Corporations stopped exploring and digging dry holes because it simply wasn't profitable.
"Peak Oil is NOT "the motive behind such barbaric and Machiavellian methods." Peak Oil is the excuse for the methods & objectives of depopulation. This excuse may enable survivors to accept the depopulation of others without much upset (justified by Malthusian, Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and all that rot)."
Again, you offer no evidence to support these extreme remarks. Just more speculation.
Excellently put there Tom, I
Excellently put there Tom, I couldn’t have said it better LOL! I'm done with this topic right now, but I just hope that the "Peakers" can get a f*cking clue and wake up from their stupid brainwashing.
You couldn't have said it
You couldn't have said it any better than "There is absolutely no need for anyone to lower his or her standard of living."? That sounds like double plus denial to me. Although, I guess that statement is technically true. There will be no need for anyone to lower his or her standard of living intentionally. It will be inevitable for many people (probably including us) as access to energy decreases due to cost or actual shortages.
I suggest you consider the possibility that it is you who needs to "get a f*cking clue and wake up from their stupid brainwashing."
I get the impression that you have spent little, if any, time trying to find out whether peak oil is real, as indicated by your frequent reposting of Greg Palast's uncharacteristically horrid analysis and throwing up the straw man of evil elites planning mass genocide. Then there's this telling statement that indicates your desire to just burry your head in the sand: "No Connection" "Paranoia", I wish that were true because I hate thinking about this crazy shit,.
And yet it's the "peakers" who are being "played" and are "brainwashed," not the dude who "LOL"s every other comment and appears not to understand the operative word in the whole discussion: PEAK.
Peak Oil or not! We wont need any oil sooner or later....
Talk about a hoax!
Both the 'Hutchison Effect' and 'perpetual motion machines' are scams, and 'water power' is actually electric power passing through water. The 'water-powered cars' above are nothing but inefficient electric hybrids.
There is no such thing as 'free' energy.
As long as we are not a FREE
As long as we are not a FREE society there is no FREE energy.
Once we become a FREE society there will be FREE energy!
Research and FREE your mind!
peace.
Oil Replacement Technologies (above) Show Peak Oil = Scam
The overabundance of oil in "proven" and "unproven" (but known to exist) oil reserves on the planet is the first proof that Peak Oil is a scam.
The oil replacement technologies shown in the above videos (and other such technologies about which I personally know) are the motivation for Peak Oil as a scam.
Rockefeller oil interests and others have suppressed these oil replacement technologies for more than one hundred (100) years.
I cannot say for sure that any of the technologies shown in the above videos will be successfully brought to market to replace oil as an energy source. However, I can personally testify to the fact that private interests close to the Bush Administration blocked some of these unclassified oil replacement energy technologies from going to China. In addition, others & I are working on similar oil replacement technologies in which we have great confidence.
In all probability, given the current public re-emergence of these oil replacement technologies, one or more of these oil replacement technologies will be proven to be a scam. This will be an example of the classic technique of setting up a sham Straw Man to knock it down (to dry up investment capital & public confidence).
As indicated above by lietruly, Peak Oil or not, We wont need any oil sooner or later....
Do you now see the long-standing motivation for the multi-Trillion-dollar, multi-national oil industry to mount a complex, semi-scientific scam such as Peak Oil? Peak Oil is Big Oil's last hurrah.
Big Oil interests want centralized, controllable, nuclear electric energy to power the next energy economy. My preference (and probably yours too) is for cheap, decentralized oil replacement technologies to be the economic engine and rising tide that lifts all boats. The choice is yours.