From: dave@davesweb.cnchost.com
Date: 10/14/04 00:54:02
To: dave@davesweb.cnchost.com
Subject: Newsletter #70
Greetings from the Center for an Informed America
(http://davesweb.cnchost.com/). Please forward this newsletter widely.
If this was forwarded to you and you would like to receive future
mailings, e-mail (mailto:dave@davesweb.cnchost.com) a request to be
added to this mailing list.
NEWSLETTER #70
October 12, 2004
Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html
[Due to recent developments in the 'Peak Oil' scam, I decided to
put Act III of the new September 11 series on hold for a couple weeks.]
It has become apparent that many people have misinterpreted my
'Peak Oil' rants. I know this because I get e-mail with messages like,
"thanks for giving me hope," and "thanks for changing my view of the
future." I am sorry to have to report here that the newfound optimism of
some of my readers is entirely unwarranted. After reviewing my past
writings, I realize that the fault for this misunderstanding lies with
me, since I haven't done a very good job of articulating exactly what my
position is.
This, my friends, is the harsh reality, so pay very close
attention: the fact that 'Peak Oil' is an entirely manufactured
construct does not mean that the doomsday scenarios painted by the
'Peak' crowd will therefore not become our new reality. This is not just
another scam to further pad the pockets of the oil industry and other
financial elites. The stakes are much higher than that. Much higher.
In order to clarify my position on 'Peak Oil,' it would be
instructive to briefly review the areas of agreement, and the areas of
disagreement, that I have with those who are selling the scam.
The Peakers claim that 'Peak Oil' is the single most important
issue that we are facing today. I agree with that assessment (but not
because 'Peak Oil' is a valid concept).
The Peakers claim that much of America's military might has been
directed in recent years at conquering the key oil and gas producing
regions of the world. And that is obviously quite true. Central Asia and
Iraq have been seized, Venezuela has suffered through constant meddling
by the CIA, the Sudan has been targeted for a future assault, and Saudi
Arabia and Iran have been subjected to saber rattling.
But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have
been motivated by America's desire to seize what will soon be the last
drops of the world's precious reserves of oil -- and that is entirely
untrue.
The Peakers claim that we will very soon be facing a world where
chaos reigns supreme -- a world of war, famine and death on a scale
unknown in recorded human history. And that does, in fact, appear to be
the case. And we're not talking about the distant future here, folks;
we're talking about the very near future.
But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off" will be a
regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable, consequence of
the world's oil taps running dry. And that is the really big lie. That
is the lie that will very soon be used to rationalize the killing off of
hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of the world's people. There
are, you see, simply too many people in the world who, by merely being
alive, are standing in the way of the aspirations of the global elite.
The people that the 'Peak Oil' pitchmen are fronting for are
deadly serious about selling 'Peak Oil' to the masses -- and not just in
theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and increase
profits. No, it has become clear that the real goal is to actually cut
off most of the world's oil supplies under the ruse that the oil simply
no longer exists. The desired result is massive social unrest,
widespread famine, and endless war. The majority of the world's people
will not survive. Those that do will find themselves living under the
overtly authoritarian form of rule that will quickly be deemed necessary
to restore order. And if you think that we here in America are exempt,
you are sadly mistaken.
In order to pull off this stunt, all the world's major oil
producing regions must be solidly under the control of the U.S. and it's
co-conspirators, otherwise known as 'allies.' In other words, the
puppet-masters have to control all the major oil taps, so that they have
complete control over the flow of oil -- or lack of it. And that, in a
nutshell, is the real reason for America's recent military ventures. The
goal, you see, is not to steal Iraq's oil, or the oil in the 'Stans, or
in the Sudan, or in Venezuela, or anywhere else. We don't want to take
their oil, because the truth is that we don't really need it
(http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/090101/cov_opinions.shtml).
What we want to do is sit on the taps so no one else can get to the oil.
The Peakers have claimed that the Central Asian adventure -
launched with the invasion of Afghanistan, but certainly not limited to
Afghanistan - has largely been a bust. We have all heard the spin: the
hoped-for reserves aren't there, what has been found can't be extracted
economically, the grand plan simply didn't pan out, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Frankly, I find all of that a little hard to believe. After all,
hasn't Central Asia been the subject of intense interest and study by
geologists and the petroleum industry for the last century or so? You
would think that the lords of oil were operating on more than just a
hunch when they drafted this gameplan. And I couldn't help noticing that
the United States has established a massive military presence in the
area, and it looks very much like it was designed to be a permanent
military presence. If the oil and gas aren't there, then what exactly is
it that our troops are standing guard over?
At least one researcher has doggedly claimed that the Central
Asian and Middle Eastern military ventures are but a prelude to military
confrontations with Russia and China. But that hardly seems to be the
case. It does not appear as though there is any urgent need for 'regime
change' in Russia or China, since the West seems to already have
'friendly' regimes in place in both countries. And I have to add here
that if the ruling regimes of Russia and China really are enemies of the
United States, they will undoubtedly go down in history as the stupidest
enemies of all time for watching approvingly as the United States
entrenched its military machine in their backyards on the most
transparent of pretexts.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe that the Central
Asian adventure has been wildly successful. True, the West hasn't reaped
the bounty of the region's oil and gas reserves -- but I don't think
that was ever the goal. To the contrary, I think the U.S. has done
exactly what it set out to do: deny anyone else the opportunity - by
force if necessary, and it will become necessary - to exploit the area's
resources.
Also contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe that the Iraq
adventure has also been successful. Again, the goal was not to steal
Iraqi oil; the goal was to shut down or severely limit the flow of Iraqi
oil, and that goal has obviously been accomplished. Indeed, some reports
have held that American troops (and American mercenaries) are
responsible for at least some of the pipeline bombings and other attacks
on the Iraqi oil infrastructure.
Interestingly, Michael Ruppert began one of his recent "Peak is
the Word" rants with an ominous quote attributed to an "Anonymous Middle
Eastern Participant at the Third Conference of the Association for the
Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Berlin, May 2004." The quote, which Ruppert
presents without comment, reads as follows:
The one thing that every Middle Eastern leader, manager, and
planner who dreams of holding his country together fears now, is that
there will be a widespread uprising, inspired by the perceived victory
against Spain after Madrid, and Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, that it
might prompt much of the Muslim world to start attacking oil facilities
everywhere. This is the way they see that has worked to defeat the West
and to avenge their grievances. May God help us all if that happens.
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html)
This statement, if taken literally, is patently absurd --
beginning with the Bill O'Reillyesque claim that the 'terr'ists' somehow
scored a victory in Spain, and continuing through the astounding leap of
faith required to equate manufactured attacks on commuter trains to
widespread attacks on oil facilities. The only way that the uncredited
statement makes any sense at all is as a tip-off that the CIA's future
playbook is packed with false-flag terr'ist operations directed at
critical oil facilities -- especially in countries that haven't yet been
convinced that their vast oil reserves don't really exist.
In order to carry out the 'Peak Oil' agenda, the powers-that-be
need to have all the major oil producers on board. Some of them have
been on board all along. Some have to be recruited through military
force (Iraq, for example). Some will be compelled to join the team
through covert operations (e.g., Venezuela). And some are being brought
on board through threats, intimidation, and saber rattling.
The two most sought after recruits, of course, are Russia and
Saudi Arabia, since they are the world's two top oil producing nations.
As of this past April, Saudi Arabia apparently hadn't yet received the
latest memos on 'Peak.' Much to the consternation of Ruppert and his
handlers, Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom's
estimate of recoverable reserves had nearly quintupled! (The article
below says "tripled," but the math isn't that hard to do.)
Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials
Tim Kennedy, Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004
WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 — Officials from Saudi Arabia’s
oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a
gathering of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an
announcement that the Kingdom’s previous estimate of 261 billion barrels
of recoverable petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion
barrels.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers
assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its
oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.
[...]
“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated
reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us
reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new
resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil
from existing reserves,” the minister said.
Naimi said Saudi Arabia is committed to sustaining the
average price of $25 per barrel set by the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries. He said prices should never increase to more than
$28 or drop under $22.
[...]
“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,”
Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery
techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If
required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12 -
15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for
50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50
years. Perhaps much longer.”
Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2
trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total
recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a
minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land,
accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface
area, potentially contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the
entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with
this picture?
Needless to say, that sort of candor by the Saudis could put a
serious crimp in Washington's plans to sell the 'Peak Oil' scam. Perhaps
that is why, just three days after that announcement, the Saudi oil
industry was attacked by some of those terr'ists. Not to be deterred,
however, Saudi officials announced three weeks later, on May 21, that
the Kingdom still intended to dramatically increase its petroleum
output. And a week after that, on May 29, those crafty terr'ists
launched yet another brazen attack on the Saudi oil industry. Shit
happens, I guess.
At that very same time, and in the months that followed, the
U.S. was sending clear signals that it would not hesitate to set its
military dogs loose on the Kingdom if necessary. Michael Moore's "the
Saudis are the real enemy" movie, for example, splashed across America's
screens. Various voices involved in both the official and unofficial
9-11 investigations were pointing the finger toward the Saudis as well.
The message couldn't have been clearer: "we can easily drum up public
support for 'regime change' if you won't play ball." The Saudis, it
would appear, have now fallen in line.
Meanwhile, in Russia, the regime of Western puppet Vladimir
Putin has been working diligently to transfer control of Russian oil
production to what the L.A. Times referred to as "more complaint
owners." From a July 23, 2004 report by Kim Murphy:
Since the arrest in October of former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
now on trial on charges of fraud and tax evasion [editor's note:
probably trumped-up charges], the financial community has debated the
Russian government's decision to assess at least $8 billion in back
taxes against Yukos: Was it to punish Khodorkovsky for his political
activism and alleged financial misdeeds, but leave his company intact?
To hand control of the company to more complaint hands? Or destroy a
company that produces 2% of the world's oil supply?
("Oil Flow Could End, Yukos Says," Los Angeles Times, July 23,
2004)
"Yukos," according to the Times, "produces about 1.7 million barrels
of oil a day, equal to some OPEC countries." The turning point in the
case against Yukos, the Times noted, came "when court bailiffs moving to
execute an initial $3.4-billion tax judgment announced that they were
preparing to seize and sell not one of the dozens of small Yukos assets
that might easily settle the tax bill, but the company's production
unit, Yuganskneftegaz ... the two-month deadline for selling the company
means there would be little time to raise financing, and a potential
buyer would acquire it at a fire-sale price, analysts said. The
government listed the unit's official value at about $1.8 billion."
The actual value of Yuganskneftegaz, as the Times admitted, is
probably closer to $30 billion, or nearly 17 times the Russian
government's ludicrous assessment. And who do you suppose will acquire
the assets of Yukos, and the control of Yukos, at these fire-sale
prices? I'm guessing it could very well be one or more of the Western
oil giants. The Russian people, of course, will be less than thrilled
with such a scenario, which is probably one of the key reasons that
Putin has recently opted to reveal the iron fist within the velvet
glove.
Michael Ruppert, being the top-notch journalist that he is, has
either completely ignored or grotesquely misrepresented these recent
developments in Russia and Saudi Arabia. The 'Peak Oil' crowd has
claimed, with nothing to offer in the way of supporting evidence, that
the Saudis are lying about their oil reserves and their ability to
increase production. The Peakers have also strongly implied that the
Saudis actually attacked their own facilities, so that they would not
have to deliver on their promises. No logical explanation has been
offered though for why the Saudis would lie and then immediately attack
themselves to cover up the fact that they were lying. It seems to me
like it would have taken less effort to just not tell the lie to begin
with. The Saudis, meanwhile, have insisted that it is the Peakers who
are lying. (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=42933)
[For a discussion of the 'evidence' presented by the Peakers, see
Michael Lynch at
http://www.aramcoexpats.com/ArticleDetail.asp?article=701. Lynch
concludes: "There literally seems to be no evidence that the Saudi oil
fields are facing any unusual challenges or that Saudi production will
be constrained in the future by anything other than policy ... The use
of vague language ("tired" fields, "challenges") rather than specifics
about efforts and costs indicate that this is one more instance of
Malthusian bias."]
Even if the Saudis could boost production, say the Peakers, no one
would want their extra crude anyway, because, as it turns out, Saudi
crude oil just isn't very good. Who knew? What will we learn from the
Ruppertians next? That you can't get decent champaign in France? That
Russian caviar isn't all it's cracked up to be?
On the FTW website is a re-post of an article that begins: "The
world's oil refiners are unimpressed by Saudi Arabia's boost to
production capacity that would only swell supplies of sour, high sulphur
crude while they hanker for sweet oil ... 'Most refiners couldn't take
more sour if they tried,' said one refiner, who asked not to be named.
'We have a glut of sour crude and a short supply squeeze on low sulphur
crude oil and products, so extra Saudi makes no difference whatsoever,'
a physical oil trader said."
(http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/100604_refiners_unimpressed.shtml)
Now, I hesitate to point this out, because I know that Ruppert
prides himself on his journalistic professionalism, as well as his
police training, and I certainly wouldn't want to needlessly embarrass
him, but the truth of the matter is that the article that The Great One
re-posted appears to be a fake -- a fake that was planted, no doubt, for
the 'Peak' team to 'find.'
Here are a few clues that Detective Ruppert missed: the article ran
in the tabloidesque Gulf Daily News, which claims to be the "Voice of
Bahrain," although one wouldn't expect Bahrain to speak in an English
voice; the article has no byline, indicating that no real reporter
wanted his name attached to it; and the two alleged insiders quoted to
establish the premise of the article declined to be identified, even
though they were supposedly voicing an uncontroversial opinion shared
throughout the industry.
(http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=92871&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=27194)
What we have here then is an unsigned, unsourced article from the
Middle Eastern version of the National Enquirer being presented as real
journalism. And this from the man who constantly questions the
journalistic ethics and integrity of his detractors! Simply put, if this
was a real news story that Ruppert was promoting, he would have been
able to round up at least one credible report from a legitimate media
outlet.
Bizarrely enough, Ruppert has headlined the fake article, "Peak Oil
On The Table - Hard To Miss." Really, Mike? It can't be that hard to
miss, because I'm having trouble seeing it myself. I realize that it
might be partly my fault, since I haven't been attending the 'Peak'
indoctrination sessions, but here is what I'm having difficulty with: I
get the part about how we're quickly running out of oil, and I
understand that it is foolish to consider the viability of alternative
energy sources, because only oil will do; but are you now saying that we
also have to be very picky about what kind of oil we use?
That reminds me of a story about a guy who was lost in the desert
and spent days wandering aimlessly in search of water. This guy - we'll
call him Peak Oil Man - was followed by a circling vulture, who
occasionally spoke to him. At one point, the vulture asked Peak Oil Man
why he kept ignoring all the succulent plants along his route, from
which he could extract life-saving fluids. "A waste of time," said Peak
Oil Man, "must have water." Later in the journey, Peak Oil Man stopped
to relieve himself in the sand. "Why do you not capture and drink your
urine, Peak Oil Man," asked the vulture. "It could save your life."
Ignoring the vulture, Peak Oil Man pushed on, still muttering his
mantra: "must have water." Eventually, Peak Oil Man - emaciated,
severely dehydrated, and barely clinging to life - stumbled upon a
stranger, and the stranger extended his hand and offered Peak Oil Man a
container of water. Peak Oil Man raised the vessel to his lips and began
to drink, but quickly spat out the offending liquid. "Is that fucking
tap water!?" asked Peak Oil Man. "Where can I get some bottled water
around here?" And the vulture said: "But Peak Oil Man, how can you
afford to be so picky at a time of such great need? How can you turn
away not only viable alternatives to water, but even water itself if the
water offered to you doesn't meet your high standards? It is almost as
if you don't really need water at all." Peak Oil Man just smiled and
continued on his way.
Meanwhile, Mexico, which also hasn't been reading the 'Peak' memos,
recently announced the discovery of massive quantities of new petroleum
reserves. The Peakers, as we all know, repeatedly claim that no new
reserves of any consequence have been found for years. In fact, they go
so far as to say that there are no new reserves to be found. In one
recent collection of lies posted on the FTW website, Julian Darley
writes: "Major oil discoveries have declined every year so that 2003 saw
no new field over 500 million barrels ... It is well over twenty years
since more oil was found than consumed in a year."
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html)
Really, Mr. Darley? Are you sure about that? Let's check with the
Mexican press to see if you are correct:
Three years of exploration has enabled Pemex to map oilfields that
the state-owned oil monopoly believes will more than double the nation's
known crude oil reserves. Luis Ramírez Corzo, Pemex's director for
exploration, told EL UNIVERSAL that on a "conservative" estimate, almost
54 billion barrels lie underneath the oilfields. That would take
Mexico's reserves to 102 billion barrels, more than the United Arab
Emirates (which has reserves of 97.8 billion barrels), Kuwait (94
billion) and Iran (89.7 billion), and almost as much as Iraq (112.5
billion). The official also said the discovery could enable Pemex to
increase Mexico's oil production from the current level of 4 million
barrels per day (bpd) to 7 million bpd. Saudi Arabia currently produces
7.5 million bpd, while Russia's oil output is 7.4 million bpd. Ramírez
Corzo said the exploration, at an investment of US 4.6 billion, led to
the identification of seven separate blocks rich in oil and natural gas.
The most promising blocks are under water in the Gulf of Mexico, thought
to contain around 45 billion barrels.
(http://www.el-universal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=6110&tabla=miami)
No new fields over 500 million barrels? How about the 45 billion new
barrels sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, right in our own backyard? Isn't
that just a tiny bit more than is "consumed in a year"?
Of course, the oil will not be easy to extract. Mexico will need
some help, since it "lacks the technology for deep water pumping." And
there is another problem as well: "there are territoriality issues with
the United States and Cuba over the fields." In order to bring the oil
to market, Mexico will need the cooperation of both the United States
government and the major players in the oil industry. In other words,
the newly discovered oil isn't going to be extracted any time soon,
which is why the American media, and the 'Peak' crowd, haven't bothered
to acknowledge its existence.
(http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=15958)
It will no doubt be determined that it is not economically feasible
to extract the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, Reuters has
reported that, "Oil from deep-water reserves could cost $4 a barrel to
extract, nearly double the cost of oil from shallow water." And we
certainly can't expect any responsible corporation to shell out $4 a
barrel to extract something that they can then trade for $50 a barrel,
can we?
Or maybe the Peakers will claim that the oil doesn't even exist --
that Mexico, like Saudi Arabia, is lying about increased levels of
reserves. There seems to be a lot of that sort of lying going around
these days.
[For more on oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and various other issues
directly related to the 'Peak Oil' debate, see:
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
http://www.newaus.com.au/040908-oil-sources.html
http://www.pnl.gov/er_news/08_95/ER_News/oil1.kb.html]
The real problem with the Saudi crude, as near as I can determine,
is that the Saudis and the 'Peakers' have entirely different ideas about
what the price of crude oil should be. At the time of the attacks in
Saudi Arabia, it was hovering at about $40.00/barrel, and is now at
about $50.00/barrel. The Saudis would like to bring it down to
$25.00/barrel. And the 'Peakers' would like to see it raised to - are
you ready for this? - a whopping $182.00/barrel -- which would, quite
obviously, place oil out of reach for the vast majority of the world's
people.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm)
The $182.00/barrel figure was provided by Matthew Simmons to a BBC
reporter at the 'Peak Oil' conference held earlier this year in Berlin.
According to Simmons, "Oil is far too cheap at the moment ... we need to
price oil realistically to control its demand." Simmons is described in
the BBC article as "an energy investment banker and adviser to the
controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan." He is, in other words, a
perfectly credible source -- if we choose to overlook the fact that
everyone connected to the Bush-Cheney team reeks of corruption and
outrageous lies.
Nevertheless, the Peakers just adore Mr. Simmons, who was described
by Michael Ruppert as "the de facto star of the [Peak Oil conference]."
'Peak Oil' pitchmen just love to quote Simmons, says Ruppert, "because
his voice is refreshing."
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html)
Simmons is a member of ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil),
founded and led by 'Peak Oil' guru Colin Campbell and promoted
relentlessly by Michael Ruppert, who boasts of having "a great many
friends in ASPO." According to the BBC, ASPO includes in its ranks "a
diverse range of oil industry insiders," including a good number of "oil
executives" and "investment bankers." Just the sort of salesmen we
should trust, in other words, when shopping for a suitably apocalyptic
future.
And make no mistake about it: the future that has been scripted by
the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be pretty. Massive
population reduction has always been a key component of the 'Peak Oil'
agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail to this
website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that time:
I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual
and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil
(and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive
famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to
coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically
speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed
to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and
ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at
the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a
painful choice made by all of humanity.
At that time, I accused Ruppert of advocating a eugenics program,
and I was, not surprisingly, harshly criticized by the Ruppertians for
doing so. Numerous members of the cult of 'Peak Oil' sent e-mail
accusing me of "putting word's in Ruppert's mouth." But more recently,
while addressing the Commonwealth Club (which apparently just began
extending invitations to dissident journalists; who knew?), Ruppert put
the words in his own mouth when he quoted approvingly from a eugenics
tome penned in 1952 by Charles Galton Darwin. Darwin was, for the
record, a rather notorious figure in the American eugenics movement, as
were other Darwins and Galtons before him. Are we supposed to believe
that there was no significance to the fact that Ruppert referenced a
noted eugenicist while addressing such a distinguished audience?
(www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf)
In a previous newsletter, I reported that Ruppert had briefly
addressed the issue of population reduction during the speech that he
delivered at this year's 9-11 conference in San Francisco. Since then, I
have had the opportunity to review an audiotape of Ruppert's entire
'Peak Oil' presentation at the event. Here is a complete (enough)
transcript of that presentation:
Look, let's talk about Peak Oil quick, and [sounding clearly
irritated] I'm really tired of the debate. I'm really tired of "there's
no proof; there's no evidence." I'm not gonna take time to go through
this, but if we talk about Peak Oil real quickly, who's been talking
about it?
[Ruppert then ran through a lengthy list of mainstream media and
trade journal articles. The presentation went something like this:
"Foreign Affairs Magazine, yadda, yadda, yadda, James Kenneth Galbraith,
yadda, yadda, yadda, Sunday Herald, yadda, yadda, yadda, Los Angeles
Times, yadda, yadda, yadda." Several derisive comments were added about
these sources not being "conspiracy rags." Ruppert then read lengthy and
unsubstantiated excerpts from the writings of both Galbraith and Dale
Pfeiffer, before closing with the following.]
Now the question is: do we want to do it nice or do we want to do it
nasty? The world has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi
nightmare ever seen. It will be bloody, it will be violent, it will
involve population reduction by the most brutal, venal, underhanded
methods. So ultimately what I have to say to you is that, as I look at
this, and as I've studied this, and as I've worked for 26 years to
unravel this -- this covert mechanism that governs our lives, I'm firmly
convinced that what we are now faced with is a choice offered to us by
our creator: either evolve or perish. Thank you. Thank you.
So what is Ruppert telling us here ... other than that "our creator" is
now apparently now demanding that we evolve?
What exactly is this "world" of which he speaks -- this "world [that]
has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi nightmare ever
seen"? I don't think that it is the people of planet Earth that have
collectively chosen to take this path. And I doubt that it is the planet
itself that has chosen this path. Isn't it really the case that this
path was forced upon the world by the global elite and their paid
stooges?
Is Ruppert telling us that we are all facing a violent, bloody death, so
we might as well start taking care of the job ourselves -- in a less
"nasty" and more, uhmm, "nice" manner? Are those the only two options
available? Why is a "bloody," "brutal," "violent" and "venal" future
taken as a given? To be sure, we are certainly heading in that
direction, but we needn't necessarily continue to do so, unless we
blindly accept the manufactured reality as an objective, and inevitable,
reality. Of course, Ruppert and his fellow 'Peakers' seem to be working
very hard to guarantee the arrival of that "Nazi nightmare" future.
The truth is that such a future awaits us only if the claims of the
'Peakers' are true, or, more importantly, if we allow ourselves to be
convinced that the claims are true when they most certainly are not. It
is vitally important, therefore, that the people of the world be given
the opportunity to thoroughly review all sides of this issue. After all,
if the Peakers are right, then all of our lives are very much on the
line. And yet, strangely enough, the majority of the Ruppertians who
have chosen to spew their bile into my mailbox have made it quite clear
that they have no desire to read any opposing points of view.
Could it be any more obvious that these people have no interest in
ascertaining the truth?
Just this week, Ruppert discretely added a new article to his website,
which he posted "on an unpublished URL at the FTW web site" --
guaranteeing that none of his readers will ever know it is there, unless
they learn of it elsewhere. Asked to explain his previous comments on
population reduction, Ruppert does not deny that he advocates some type
of forced depopulation program; he only denies having a specific program
in mind:
I have no list of people who should be in charge of this. Everyone
should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor might best
include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists,
politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic
and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there
was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I
have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in an
effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely.
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml)
I wonder why it is that Ruppert continues to shelter his readers from
this aspect of the 'Peak Oil' gameplan? If this is such an important
issue, and if we should all have a voice in the 'debate,' as Ruppert has
claimed, then why has he not brought the issue to the forefront? Why has
he chosen instead to leak it in a limited way? Ruppert claims that, in
order to be "ethical in the face of an inevitable disaster, the entire
human community will have to share useful information as equably as is
humanly possible." Why then is Ruppert not sharing this most important
of information?
We turn now to a disturbing new post on the FTW website, which Ruppert
has modestly titled "WE DID IT!" Before even getting to the actual text
of the piece, we already know, just from the article's lengthy subtitle,
that Ruppert is taking another stroll into Bizarro World. With equal
parts bombast, ignorance, and unintentional irony, he actually refers to
his critics as "Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates." This is a guy, it
will be recalled, whose mission in life is to relentlessly promote a
scam predicated on a unproven, 250-year-old theory, while blithely
ignoring an unchallenged body of modern scientific research -- and yet
he dismisses the other side as Flat Earthers!
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_we_did_it.shtml)
The full subtitle of the post is "World's Seven Largest Economies Admit
They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency Call for
Transparency at DC Summit: A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil
Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It's Now or Never."
Ruppert begins by re-posting a Reuters report:
Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers met at the tightly
guarded U.S. Treasury building over lunch and were to work through the
afternoon before a dinner with Chinese counterparts that has currency
reform on the menu.
The officials will set out their world-view at about 5:45 p.m. EDT (2145
GMT) in a communiqué sources said would include a call to bolster
oil-market monitoring to make it easier to discern if scarce supply,
hefty demand or market speculation lay behind crude's drive to record
levels ...
The G7 gathering comes ahead of weekend meetings of the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank…
Ministers are seeking energy market transparency to discover if world
oil supplies may be scantier than they thought in May when they urged
producers to open the spigots…
Another G7 official suggested the rise in oil costs was rooted in such
fundamental factors as over-estimated supplies and was not solely due to
speculation.
There is "a recognition that oil resources are scarcer than was thought
a few years ago," the official said. "We agree there is a need for more
transparency on the potential supply of various areas."
Ruppert next segues into a rant of his own -- a rant that may some day
be regarded as the quintessential Ruppert diatribe. In just a few short
pages, he manages to squeeze in virtually all of his most acclaimed
rhetorical flourishes, including:
~ the arrogant self-importance - "We were right and this can no longer
be ignored. We did it."
~ the appearance of Mike the Martyr - "a group of dedicated men and
women, recognized as being in the forefront of the movement to place
Peak Oil front-and-center on the world's agenda, have endured intense
resistance ... I hope I speak for all of us when I say that whatever we
have endured, it was worth it."
~ the bombastic challenges - "Show us the oil! People are dying now ...
Put up or shut up."
~ the bizarre delusions of grandeur - "I do know that the world is
paying very close attention to what I have written."
~ the deliberate misrepresentation of critic's arguments - "That's what
these 'critics' argued would happen when the time came: there would be
some magic switcheroo, and a new energy source would be unveiled."
~ and, the newest addition to his arsenal, the shameless hyping of his
book - "This book may change the outcome of the election."
While Ruppert celebrates his 'victory,' perhaps the rest of us should
pause here and consider exactly what it is that he is celebrating. Just
months ago, Ruppert called for the leaders of the world to meet and
discuss the implications of 'Peak Oil,' including the necessity of
taking "immediate steps to arrive at a crash program" for depopulating
the world. And now we have the global elite meeting behind closed doors
to discuss the implications of a phantom oil shortage, and those elite
are, Ruppert believes, "well into discussing 'options' which they don't
want the rest of us to know about." At stake, Ruppert notes, is
"everyone's chances for survival and, most importantly, the future of
all the world's children."
And we are supposed to believe that this is somehow a positive
development? I don't think so. To the contrary, it would appear that the
call for 'transparency' is a signal that the puppeteers have control of
enough of the global chessboard to begin implementing the 'Peak Oil'
scam. They are not meeting behind closed doors to discuss how to contend
with a global oil shortage; they are meeting behind closed doors to
discuss how to manufacture a global oil shortage.
As I said earlier in this post, these people are deadly serious about
staging this apocalyptic scenario. And the stakes, for all of us, are
very high. Consider that, for many years now, concerted efforts have
been made to program our children to passively accept death as a
mundane, routine occurrence. Do not make the mistake of assuming that
that is a phenomenon unrelated to the 'Peak Oil' agenda.
Television, movies, and video games dwell relentlessly on death,
frequently violent death. Each and every year, the volume and intensity
of such propaganda is cranked up higher and higher. By the time our kids
reach adulthood, they have processed through their malleable minds
thousands of graphic images of death. Many of those deaths they may even
have caused themselves, as operators of graphically violent "first
person" computer and video games.
The next in the series of "Harry Potter" books - promoted endlessly as
the best thing to happen to children's books since Dr. Seuss - will
reportedly feature the death of one of the beloved characters. One of
the new features of the latest version of the wildly popular "Simms"
computer game is that the virtual characters that our children create to
populate their virtual worlds will now die virtual deaths.
Our high schools for some time now have offered students "death
education." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has noted that, "For
decades, schools around the world have used 'death education,' a
psychological experiment in which the children are made to discuss
suicide, what they would like placed in their coffins, and write their
own epitaphs in an effort to 'get kids more comfortable with death.'"
(http://www.cchr.org/topics/educators/violence/)
Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld writes that "Death education has been a part of
the progressive curriculum in virtually every public school in America
for at least the last fifteen years. Yet no one in the establishment,
let alone the U.S. Department of Education, has sought to find out what
death education is doing to the minds and souls of the millions of
children who are subjected to it. But we do have plenty of anecdotal
information on hand."
(http://www.ritalindeath.com/blumenfeld31.htm)
Why are our children being conditioned to accept death? How thorough
will this depopulation program be? How long will it take to shatter all
remaining social bonds -- to instill in the masses an "every man for
himself" mind set? How quickly will we collectively descend into
barbarism? If the masters of our collective illusion can convince us
that we live in a "kill or be killed" world, how much of the dirty work
of depopulation can they get us to do ourselves? What would we all do to
stay alive in a high stakes game of global Survivor?
The architects of 'Peak Oil' hope to find out soon.
(Permission is hereby granted for this material to be widely distributed
and reposted, in whole or in part, provided that the content is not
altered.)
No comments:
Post a Comment