David McGowan, October 12, 2004
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:
-
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.
New:proof of the oil Non-Crisis by Lindsay Williams
Originally
published at:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html
More research that punches a big
hole in the Peak Oil hysteria
A
pril
13, 2004
There has not been enough true "formerly living
matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum
that has been consumed to date
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by
The Seventh Fire
News without permission, solely for purposes of
criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use
Guidelines of copyright material under
§ 107 of U.S.C.
Title 17.
Queen
Victoria