Dave McGowan, Peak Oil and depopulation

gl69m

Member
Would like to re-create this thread also, another hoax and huge lie they have sold to the world, 'Peak Oil' and 'fossil fuels'. You will notice after reading some of this material in the original thread that 'Peak Oil' was sold to the masses as a back-handed justification for de-population or the kinder gentler euphamism population reduction or the even more gentler population growth reduction. 'Peak Oil' certainly shares many characteristics with 'covid-19' of how the narrative was sold to the public and the 'direness' of it (but 'Peak Oil' was not bombarding the news with 24/7/365 fear porn mongering though like 'covid'): however 'covid' differs markedly in that the horrifying measures propounded to allegedly curb the 'pandemic' is instead of advertising it as a necessary "population reduction" (of which said measures are a perfect recipe to create that) like 'Peak Oil' was, 'covid' restrictions are advertised to supposedly stop a "population reduction" by saving everybody from the scourge of the new 'coronavirus' by 'flattening the curve' and jabbing everyone (to death) er I mean to bring about (supposedly quicker) herd 'immunity'...

Sorry these posts will be very long winded, is kind of my style unfortunately. 'Peak Oil' and 'fossil fuel' just irks me to no end how bullshit they are, along with another turd narrative that justifies "de-population" that I want to dismantle in another thread for later "globo warming". I hadn't saved specific posts from the original thread, but I have probably most of the material from my posts on that thread in a word file, but that file is 134 pages long, so gonna have to stretch that out in quite a few posts, know what I mean Vern:) hehe


Gonna break it up with quotes from the Dave McGowan or Mike Ruppert or other sources in the quote boxes and my commentary not in the quote boxes and see how that works anyhow. I started this thread probably in 2017, so I probably would restate some of what I said back then or rethink it anyway, but just going to post what i had saved my commentary on Dave McGowan's newsletters.

The initial post to start with:


Dave McGowan on Mike Ruppert, 'Peak Oil' and “depopulation”

I know Dave McGowan as a writer is featured in many threads on LRF, and even his writings about 'Peak Oil' have been commented on in several threads as well, some consensus here seemed even back in 2004 here at LRF that 'Peak Oil' was a scam. I absolutely agree with that. I just wanted to add this thread to flesh out the ideas out of it that he wrote about on 'Peak Oil' (and about Ruppert and 'Peak') and it's correlation (connection) with “depopulation” agendas, I don't think that's been really covered here, not that I could find. It might seem I have a small obsession with the notions of “depopulation”, well, I'd like it to all be bullshit fearmongering, but since there seem to be many people in the world that don't exactly balk at the notion (of depopulation), I wonder could people really be propagandized enough to go along with it? I think they probably could, particularly if they're convinced they'll be one of the “keepers”. It would seem that the “Holocausts” (in Nazi Germany of Jews, in China at hands of Imperial Japan) of the 20th century had to be in some ways planned depopulation schemes (world wars), I would think that if the PTB have a WWIII planned, some depopulation schemes have to be brewing. Yeah, I know the “Holocausts” and genocides are all hoaxes right, I could hardly say I'm even 50% sure they are hoax in some way. Death toll numbers could be exaggerated, means or cause of death we're maybe not told the truth of, perhaps.


Certainly Dave wrote emphatically that the two were deeply connected, using one ('Peak Oil') to sell the necessity of the other (“depopulation”), so I wanted to go through writings of his that I could find and break those down, adding my own commentary. In many ways, these writings have strongly influenced my own views on “depopulation”, I had read a significant number of his Newsletters back in the day, as early as in 2004, I very much admired many of his writings, I know from much older threads 10 years ago and more here that many other LRF members admired his work as well. Great writer, loved his writing style, fiery wit extremely humorous and pretty good analysis of subjects he chose to write on, not always perfect of course. He had great stuff even on 9-11 back then, and many other topics as well. Sad that he died, and that he had to die on JFK assassination day (11-22) over a year ago, cancer no less, even took chemotherapy, yeah, no wonder he lasted only 6 months, terrible shame.


Thread from thunkerdrone
Dave McGowan dying of fast onset cancer
http://letsrollforums.com//dave-mcgowan-dying-fast-t31531p2.html?&highlight=dave+mcgowan


I know Phil posted an 8 part series on the Moon Landing Hoax McGowan wrote, and I haven't read very much of it, not sure how strong his defense of the Apollo Hoax is, I might catch up on it eventually though. I remember that his early work on 9-11 seemed to be top notch (far as I remember), spot on, tore the OCT to shreds, not that it explained any theory of what really happened, but very good none the less. Seemed his later writings on 9-11 (like later than 2008 I think?), from what I remember, was really strikingly different though, pretty much defending the official story, to the point I kind almost thought it had to be from a different writer, using sorta the same wit in the style (not as good I didn’t think) but seemingly coming to very different like conclusion/implications, IMO. I wondered if it was someone else, or he had been “controlled” at that point. Not like I really know or anything. I pretty much quit following his writings after that, so I didn’t find out about the Wagging The Moondoggie thread (The Apollo Moon Hoax - Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I - XIV - By Dave McGowan) till I saw it here this year on LRF.


Anyway, I had read most if not all of the Newsletters by Dave pertaining to 'Peak Oil' (been several years since I had read them until just recently again), Mike Ruppert, and Ruppert's writings and activism, and the 'Peak Oil' agenda Ruppert was proselytizing about so much. And the major implications of such Ruppert was hawking to “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.” (Newsletter #54). That's pretty much the meat of it, the punchline, that I want to get to, but first I want to start a little earlier in the chain of writings than that, and this site here is the best source I've found to paste it all from so far,


Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/peakoilindex.shtml

The 'Peak Oil' Put on


By Ken Adachi <E-mail>

I won't paste each Newsletter in their entirety, but the parts I deem more relevant to the connection with depopulation, so as not to write whole novels in these posts here.


First up, I will start with Newsletter #52, may not be the best place to start, for now it will do, here Dave starts off explaining Mike Ruppert's challenge to debate him (on Ruppert's terms) about Peak Oil, and Dave's responses to these are priceless, back in the day I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off! I know it was deadly serious business, whether or not if Ruppert was really selling death/euthanasia/fascism cultism to his readers, but I couldn't help but finding the humor in Dave's wit in chewing a new one in Ruppert's cyber asshole. Couldn't help it!

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan52newsletter13mar04.shtml
The Most Important Center for an Informed America Story in Two Years...

On February 29, 2004, I received the following e-mail message from Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness:


I challenge you to an open, public debate on the subject of Peak Oil; any time, any place after March 13th 2004. I challenge you to bring scientific material, production data and academic references and citations for your conclusions like I have. I suggest a mutually acceptable panel of judges and I will put up $1,000 towards a purse to go to the winner of that debate. I expect you to do the same. And you made a dishonest and borderline libelous statement when you suggested that I am somehow pleased that these wars of aggression have taken place to secure oil. My message all along has been, "Not in my name!" Put your money where your mouth is. But first I suggest you do some homework. Ad hominem attacks using the word "bullshit", unsupported by scientific data are a sign of intellectual weakness (at best). I will throw more than 500 footnoted citations at you from unimpeachable sources. Be prepared to eat them or rebut them with something more than you have offered.

Wow! How does high noon sound?

Before I get started here, Mike, I need to ask you just one quick question: are you sure it was only a "borderline libelous statement"? Because I was really going for something more unambiguously libelous. I'll see if I can do better on this outing. Let me know how I do.

Several readers have written to me, incidentally, with a variation of the following question: "How can you say that Peak Oil is being promoted to sell war when all of the websites promoting the notion of Peak Oil are stridently anti-war?"

But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point. What I was trying to say is that the notion of 'Peak Oil' is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd -- because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn't need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge.
What he meant was (IMO) that along with the co-opted 9-11 Truth Movement (controlled opposition), with Ruppert at the fore front of that (very LIHOPish of course), was getting people who opposed the fascism of Cheney-Bush and the war Hawks, to accept the fascism as necessary: via scaring them to death that 'Peak Oil” was soon going to crash the world economy, and everyone would at that point almost immediately have to riot and kill loot in the streets just to stay alive or find any way to get food water medicine clothing, etc etc, cause you could forget about transportation or electricity or other modern conveniences with no oil of course. So on order to avoid it surprising everybody (in a few short years according to the 'Peakers'), they could more peacefully prepare for the 'inevitable' (later, getting to that, the “immediate steps to arrive at a crash program”).
The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of 'Peak Oil.' After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for 'Peak Oil.'

I also need to mention here that those who are selling 'Peak Oil' hysteria aren't offering much in the way of alternatives, or solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that "there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html)
Now to be fair to Ruppert, in the FTW newsletter, he has kinda a good point in question 1. “How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?”, in his Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy. However IMO, even if that % EROEI is relatively low for the alternatives compared to oil ('fossil fuel'
biggrin.gif
not!), still not a good nor wise rejection of alternatives, especially if we really were running out of oil and fast! But I know there are some old threads here discussing a lot of Rupperts validity here, so I won't waste time on that, and I should move on. I just want to add Ruppert's introduction of that newsletter, and quote that to show the flavor of what Mike was really selling,
“May 27, 2003, 1400 PDT (FTW) -- Before we instantly accept alternative energy lifeboats that will let us keep our current lifestyles, don't you think it wise to see if they float?

Here are nine questions that you must ask of yourself, and anyone who claims that they have found a perfect alternative to oil. After answering these questions, you may have a better idea about whether you want to jump (or throw your family) into something that might sink in short order.
Deluding yourself that the energy problem has been solved only guarantees that the crisis will hit you and the planet much harder in the end.

The end of the Age of Oil is a life and death game. Can you afford to be cavalier about it? Do not think of prudent, but ultimately temporary, steps that should be taken to soften the blow as solutions.”
What a turd. What he is really only about is the marketing of 'Peak Oil' and it's implications for “solutions” coming from the NWO, and how everybody will have to go along whether they want to or not, because when the oil runs out, it's game over right? We'll see more on Mike's true intent with depop later.


Back to Dave's Newsletter,
The message is quite clear: "we're running out of oil soon; there is no alternative; we're all screwed." And this isn't, mind you, just an energy problem; as Ruppert has correctly noted, "Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html)

If we run out of oil, in other words, our entire way of life will come crashing down. One of Ruppert's "unimpeachable sources," Colin Campbell, describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will be characterized by "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html)
Here Dave's wit comes into play defending himself against Ruppert supporters and showing some of the absurdities of his arguments. Here I think he may have laid out the first skepticism of 'Peak Oil' in these rants by beginning the debunking of the term 'fossil fuel'. I remember Dave explaining the use of the tag marks ' ', around something, any word or phrase, singular, instead of the double quotation marks “ ”, to denote things he deemed as fictitious or false in some way, a very good literary device that I happened to have basically adopted myself. I don't remember what Newsletter he explained that in, I would like to find it and quote his explanation, “but I digress”. Which is another phrase, literary device he seemed to use fairly often as well, that I kinda borrowed and am fond of using sometimes.
A few readers raised that very issue in questioning my recent 'Peak Oil' rants. "Even if we are not now in the era of Peak Oil," the argument generally goes, "then surely we will be soon. After all, it is inevitable." And conventional wisdom dictates that it is, indeed, inevitable. But if this website has one overriding purpose, it is to question conventional wisdom whenever possible.

There is no shortage of authoritatively stated figures on the From the Wilderness website: billions of barrels of oil discovered to date; billions of barrels of oil produced to date; billions of barrels of oil in known reserves; billions of barrels of oil consumed annually. Yadda, yadda, yadda. My favorite figure is the one labeled, in one posting, "Yet-to-Find." That figure, 150 billion barrels (a relative pittance), is supposed to represent the precise volume of conventional oil in all the unknown number of oil fields of unknown size that haven't been discovered yet. Ruppert himself has written, with a cocksure swagger, that "there are no more significant quantities of oil to be discovered anywhere …"

(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html) A rather bold statement, to say the least, considering that it would seem to be impossible for a mere mortal to know such a thing. Ruppert's figures certainly paint a scary picture: rapid oil consumption + diminishing oil reserves + no new discoveries = no more oil. And sooner, rather than later. But is the 'Peak Oil' argument really valid? It seems logical -- a non-renewable resource consumed with a vengeance obviously can't last for long. The only flaw in the argument, I suppose, would be if oil wasn't really a 'fossil fuel,' and if it wasn't really a non-renewable resource.
His lines here in response to e-mails from Jeff Strahl is hilarious
biggrin.gif

On the very day that Ruppert's challenge arrived, I received another e-mail, from someone I previously identified - erroneously, it would appear - as a "prominent critic" of Michael Ruppert. In further correspondence, the writer, Jeff Strahl, explained that he is (a) not a critic of Ruppert in general, but rather a critic only of Ruppert's stance on certain aspects of the 9-11 story, and (b) not all that prominent. This is what Mr. Strahl had to say:

Lastly, let me say that, unlike you, Jeff, I am enough of a skeptic to believe that an ambitious, well-orchestrated disinformation campaign, possibly spanning generations, should never arbitrarily be ruled out. I am also enough of a skeptic to suspect that when a topic I have covered generates the volume of e-mail that my 'Peak Oil' musings have generated, then I must have managed to step into a pretty big pile of shit. What I did not realize, until I decided to take Mr. Ruppert's advice and "do some homework," was that it was a much bigger pile than I could have imagined.
Another line here that really cracked me up back then,
Interestingly enough, there is another story about oil that, unlike the 'Peak Oil' story, actually has been suppressed. It is a story that very few, if any, of my readers, or of Michael Ruppert's readers, are likely aware of. But before we get to that story, let's first briefly review what we all 'know' about oil.

As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class knows, oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down, folks; there will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some kind of 'public service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their all" so that we could one day have oil. It seemed a reasonable enough idea at the time -- from the perspective of an eight-year-old. But if, as an adult, you really stop to give it some thought, doesn't the idea seem a little, uhmm ... what's the word I'm looking for here? ... oh yeah, I remember now ... preposterous?

I had a highschool geography teacher one time tell the class that the dinosaurs (he pronounced it dina-sarrs) were the largest land mammals that ever lived
biggrin.gif
. We all had a lot of good laughs at that, but years later we're told by some dino experts that some dinosaurs had more mammal like features than previously thought, like some had fur even (Discovery Channel, you and me baby aint nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channell
icon_cool.gif
). I know dinos aren't the only thing alleged to have created 'fossil fuels', oil in particular, but the notion of it seemed quite absurd (that crude oil derives from biological origins) after reading these Newsletters, and I was probly skeptical of that notion before reading them anyhow, but hadn't really thought of it till then. The vast quantities already pumped out seem well beyond the organic biosphere capacity, and after all the volume inside, deeper in the earth is enormous compared to even a few thousand feet down into the earth, that crude is produced from many miles even hundreds of miles below. And that crude oil is the building blocks of what evolved as organic later, most likely, not the other way around, sounds much more plausible to me I'd say.

Dave spends pretty much the rest of this Newsletter on debunking 'fossil fuel' theory and showing supporting evidence for a-biotic oil theory, which is very interesting reading, I think it's pretty sound, and there are several other Newsletters and articles he wrote about the a-biotic theory. Which is necessary to counter 'Peak oil' of course, since the main notion of 'Peak oil', we're running out, is based on a 'fossil fuel' theory, that it's scarce and hard to get to. There are some other Newsletters where some commentators if his 'Peak Oil' rants I found somewhat plausible, that even though oil is a-biotic, it may not necessarily always be so easy to extract, and therefore not truly a limitless supply, and ever increasing demand/use of oil for energy (nor ever increasing population of course) is not possible to continue ad infinitum, that should be obvious. Even though that is basically true, 'Peak Oil' is still a scam none the less, and touting it as a scare tactic seems to serve only one real purpose; to scare people into accepting fascism, over energy and economy, and therefore everything else essentially, including the right to live or die at all (depopulation schemes etc, even if only scaremongering for control).

One thing I had thought of years ago, even before I had heard the concept 'Peak Oil', which I never found it addressed anywhere: when it comes to pumping so much liquid out of the earth; is it possible for that to have profound effects on the interior of the earth, possible massive rapid geological change, in the near future even? Like massive increases in earthquakes, volcanoes/volcanism, plate tectonics shift increases and plate subduction increases? Can this create devastating natural and ecological disasters of biblical proportions? I have no idea, but I bet if I tried, I could search shit up on geology and come up with a pseudoscientific sounding theory of it (whether had any validity or not) and a huge scare campaign, articles, books, dvds, very much along the lines of the likes of 'Peak Oil'. I could call it 'Peak Geology', or 'Oil Tectonic Apocalyptica', or something scary along those lines, people might eat that shit up! Hell, if the grain market crashes and my grain sampling hours get cut in half, I might just have to do that. Naw, if the science wouldn't convince me, then I could never bullshit my own way through it to try and deceive others, I'm just no good at that anyway. Scratch that thought
biggrin.gif
. Somebody like Mike Ruppert, I bet he would be a natural at running away with a meme like that though
icon_cool.gif
.

BTW, if I see a few months from now, someone hawking this idea, I'm gonna be pissed, I will hunt there idea sources down like flies on shit to make sure it didn't come from here, cause if they did lift it from me here, I'd sure as hell want my finders fee and royalties
biggrin.gif
for the idea. I've always had reservations and later skepticism about the “Global Warming' meme, some of it seems some what plausible, and most of it downright bullshitty, like the 'Peak' scare, and the Al Gore Carbon Tax scheme, really places it in my mind as another meme/scheme scare tactic to mentally condition people to the probable need for depop, or at least pop control. I may get into that in this thread at some point, or maybe another thread. Not sure yet.


Dave didn't seem to make any further mention of the connection Ruppert makes with 'Peak Oil' and depopulation in the rest of Newsletter #52, but he does point out Ruppert connecting 'Peak Oil' to 9-11, and thus a reason, justification for 'letting it happen', planned wars to take over the Middle East, out of 'necessity', 'survival', due to 'Peak Oil' of course. I have always understood 9-11 as the justification for the 'war on terror', and the mainstream in it's backhanded way, controlled opp 'liberal/progressive' that touts both simultaneously packs a one two punch for support of depopulation in general, the survival necessity ('Peak') and the moral justification (9-11, 'terr'rst baddies' who don't respect human life) for “depopulation”. Conveniently packaged and marketed (and sold) to the American/British (Western/NATO) population, most especially.
A few final comments are in order here about 'Peak Oil' and the attacks of September 11, 2001, which Ruppert has repeatedly claimed are closely linked. In a recent posting, he bemoaned the fact that activists are willing to "Do anything but accept the obvious reality that for the US government to have facilitated and orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, something really, really bad must be going on." That something really, really bad, of course, is 'Peak Oil'.

(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html)
To demonstrate the dubious nature of that statement, all one need do is make a couple of quick substitutions, so that it reads: "for the German government to have facilitated and orchestrated the attack on the Reichstag, something really, really bad must have been going on." Or, if you are the type that bristles at comparisons of Bush to Hitler, try this one: "for the US government to have facilitated and orchestrated the attack on the USS Maine, something really, really bad must have been going on."

The reality is that the attacks of September 11, and the post-September 11 military ventures, cannot possibly be manifestations of 'Peak Oil' because the entire concept of "Peak Oil' is meaningless if oil is not a finite resource. I am not saying, however, that oil and gas were not key factors behind the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The distinction that I am making is that it is not about need (case in point: there is certainly nothing in Haiti that we need). It is, as always, about greed. Greed and control -- control of the output of oil fields that will continue to yield oil long after reserves should have run dry.

One final note, this one directed at Michael Ruppert: I of course accept your challenge to participate in a public debate. However, I fail to see any benefit in limiting the audience of that debate to a "mutually acceptable panel of judges." I suggest we make this a truly public debate, available to anyone who wants to follow along. The debate, in other words, has already begun. Consider this my opening argument.

Another long winded post, sorry, but there is an abundance of this material to go through, and I think it might add some value for those that haven't seen the connections before, 'Peak', 9-11 (9-11 Truth, Ruppert among many others), “depop”. I think now we can probly add the so-called Nationalist Movement (so-called USA sovereignty preservation) to the growing list of memes/scam/hoax to justify “depop” or at least merely “population control”; which would still entail mass murder on a global scale (can anybody say WWIII?
icon_cool.gif
), by the millions and maybe not totally billions, but would still be egregious sins, crimes against humanity, that the NWO wants some scapegoat to carry out on their behalf. Trump at the moment looks like a strong candidate for at least inaugurating further plans to implement such schemes by the PTBs. And just like 'Peak Oil' being sold to the more pacifist crowd (“liberals”), the so-called threat to US sovereignty is another one being sold to them as well. Of course the flip side, “conservatives” (in general) don't need much coaxing in that direction anyway, but that doesn't stop the propaganda train from rolling full steam however. What everyone needs to realize, left/right, conservative/progressive, is that such plans/changes will impact “everyone” (well not the elite of the elite of course, in their plans), not just so-called 'useless eaters', most likely all of us for the worse, even if primarily directed at the 'lesser' human beings on this planet you've been bred by this culture to hate. Just my take. I may get into the “Nationalist Movement' nonsense in this thread or another thread, decide that later.


The next Newsletter of Dave's I will get into next post is #54, skipping #53, which was Dave's very funny and satirical response to Larry Chin, that Dave describes as Rupperts “attack dog” (not sure where I saw that at), and “second stringer”.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan53newsletter16mar04.shtml

Very good read, but since he really didn't mention depopulation, I will move on to #54 in the next post, and end this long rant here at this point. One last thing I want to clarify, is that “depopulation' may not be entirely real, they (PTB) may not even really want it (go all the way down the slippery slope); their behavior, language, and politcal culture of elitism, however obviously strongly suggests otherwise. And it's quite apparent, when you look into it seriously, at the ways in which it's (depop) been depicted (movies, books, TV, history {world wars, genocides}, now video games, internet, etc, etc, yadda yadda), even long before I was born: you cannot (in my view) escape the conclusion that we have all been highly socially engineered, programmed (mental conditioning at least) to subliminally, and many times overtly, take in the concepts, passively accept it as normal in the culture, in some peoples mind even accept it as natural (Malthusian) and desirable.
 

gl69m

Member
Next Dave McGowan Newsletter:


So onto Newsletter #54 from Dave,
Ruppert Responds!
March 18, 2004


NEWSLETTER #54
March 18, 2004
Ruppert Responds!​
This Newsletter was one of the funniest, yet deadly serious ones he had, IMO, and I think it most definitely sets the tone for McGowan in using what Ruppert writes (in his responses to McGowan) sort of against himself, and pinning Ruppert's real agenda as “depopulation” oriented in nature. Ruppert's response in #54 is I am assuming a response to Newsletter #52, where Dave responded to the earlier challenge to debate issued by Ruppert, where Dave says,
“One final note, this one directed at Michael Ruppert: I of course accept your challenge to participate in a public debate. However, I fail to see any benefit in limiting the audience of that debate to a "mutually acceptable panel of judges." I suggest we make this a truly public debate, available to anyone who wants to follow along. The debate, in other words, has already begun. Consider this my opening argument.”

Dave starts out in this Newsletter about Ruppert's response coming in, and then shows Ruppert's response letter in it's entirety for his readers. I won't paste Ruppert's full response, just parts more relevant to why I started the thread in general anyway. Here's Dave's opening of #54,

The official response is now in from Michael Ruppert, and it is a doozy. Although Ruppert's missive is filled, as was Chin's, with juvenile insults, misrepresentations, and completely unfounded accusations, I will, out of respect for my readers (though certainly not for Ruppert, who has earned no measure of respect from me), make every effort to take the high road here (several of you have written to caution me not to let these people provoke me into losing my cool, and that seems to be sound advice).

I will first present Ruppert's formal reply in its entirety (another suggestion from some of you), so that readers can get the full flavor of how this man operates. In many ways, his missive requires no commentary from me, for he has done a fairly respectable job on his own of revealing what he is, how he operates, and what his agenda is. Nevertheless, there is much here that I cannot let pass without comment.

Here then, exactly as it was received, is Ruppert's formal response to my counter-proposal for a public debate. I have added only a bit of subtle emphasis, because I felt certain that Ruppert would want to ensure that one point in particular gets across loud and clear:​

Here is the main punch line of the thread I wanted to get to (wholly supportive of “depop”), the most relevant parts bolded, and underlined some parts that are staunchly contradictory to these; and the deadly serious part of the agenda, I bolded and underlined. I pasted the first paragraph from Ruppert, then down to the meat and potatoes of his agenda. Of course there is more to flesh out of these exchanges, so the punchline continues for several Newsletters to come to be sure.
Mr. McGowan:

How interesting and how revealing that in posting your onerous rebuttal and pseudo-acceptance of my debate challenge, you sent it out to everyone but me. This is quite revealing as I sent my challenge directly to you personally. I guess you were assuming that either: a), I am an avid reader of your web site, or; b) that I would be unaware of your postings so that you could then misinterpret my non-response as some kind of evasive behavior. The psychology of your move is quite revealing. It shows that you have no faith in your own arguments and that you are interested only in holding a public stage and my time for as long as you possibly can or until your apparently insatiable ego is gratified. You know what my email address is.​

You have also attacked me and others as being part of some kind of covert operation intended to promote infinite war yet you ignore several facts:

1. Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all military conquest and imperialism by the US government and industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror. 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. It would also include arrival at a painful, but absolutely necessary, plan to implement a global program of “contraction and convergence” whereby consumption, rampant economic growth based on globalization, and corrupt economic practices is reversed in favor of a planned and executed program intended to reduce the size of a world economy which is inherently linked to the consumption of hydrocarbon energy. In stating this position I have made it clear that nothing of any real significance will be changed at all until a complete revision is made in the way money works -- on a global and local scale -- because it is financial activity and monetary policy which will dictate how any contingency plans are implemented and paid for.​

So how can Ruppert propose that all wars, hostilities and fighting for the last 'remaining drops of precious oil' be stopped just because HE called for a “convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas)”? Does he think the NWO will listen to him over anyone else or something? And Dave of course questions Who (quite rightly) he would have be the leaders to devise and implement this “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 –“.

From the Club of Rome Document, INITIATIVE FOR ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER, that I broke down in this thread (post #3), http://letsrollforums.com//eugenetics-aids-t31969.html, we see who would form the group to devise and implement it quite naturally, and I seriously doubt Ruppert would ever have (or did) objected to who would decide it in these parameters,

[D. The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races and peoples ara equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on suffrance that they cooperate with the Security Council. Decision making, including banking, trade, currency rates and economic development plans, will be made in stewardship by the Major Nations.

E. All of the above constitute the New World Order, in which Order, all nations, regions, and races will cooperate with the decisions of the Major Nations of the Security Council. (whereby Major Nations are the Anglo-Saxon Major Nation Powers of course)]


Certainly I wouldn't think Ruppert would object to that. Sufferance, misspelled as suffrance in the ECO Initiative, means the 'lesser' races wold have to go along with whatever program the NWO comes up with, or there's hell to pay obviously. What they don't want or need however is opposition and stalling within the Major Nations (moral and philosophical, let alone real scientific opposition against scams like 'Peak Oil”) to get in the way of that agenda. Hence the need to control all opposition, like controlling the so-called Left, Truth Movements (9-11 in particular), and other “populist' movements. Largely this is done by “intel” (the 19 alphabet secrecy agencies, that we know about that is). Ruppert of course has been linked with the CIA, and was called upon to spearhead a newer 'Peak Oil' long running psyop campaign it would seem. Seems to be so many of these kinds of campaigns, they don't ever end do they?

Mike lays down the law of his terms of debate at the closing of his response to McGowan,

TERMS OF DEBATE
I am more than willing and happy to engage in a face-to-face debate. It should take no longer than 90 minutes in a public forum to settle the question. I do not have time for the months and endless hours you intend to suck out of me and the poor readers to keep us from focusing on important work. I am willing to put my money and my reputation on it. However, in order to avoid your unethical argumentative protocols, distortions, and sophistry I will insist upon several conditions. They include:

1. You and I will both put into escrow the sum of $1,000 before the debate. Your refusal to do this indicates that you do not believe you can win by ethical means. I want you to put a personal piece of you into this, as I am willing to do, immediately if you agree to the other terms set forth below.

2. The live debate will be judged and moderated by a panel of three. This panel will also determine the winner of the debate according to standard debating procedure and rules and award the prize. They will also enforce penalty points for ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, evasion of the issues and straw-man arguments. This panel of three can be selected from high school or college debate coaches or lawyers in the area. I am also willing to pay half of the expense for their compensation.

3. I am assuming that you live in the Bay Area. I will come to the Bay Area at my own expense for the debate, which will be well publicized and open to the public.

4. The panel of judges mutually agreed to by you and me, can be selected from the Bay area. There is a large pool from which to choose and this should not be a difficult prospect.

5. The sole question to be debated will be: “Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?”

I have too much respect for my readers’ time – apparently more so than you for yours – to believe that they would be interested in reading hundreds of pages of back and forth, especially when you resort to such childish and uncritical tactics. I also refuse to let you invade and occupy my productive hours when this is a question that can be settled in ninety minutes of direct, face-to-face, ethical and well-policed discussion.

I have attached below a response I posted earlier today to another kindred spirit of yours on the subject of abiotic oil. As far as I am concerned this ends my participation with you until such time as you show the integrity to accept the challenge as I have laid it out for you.

Sincerely,
Michael C. Ruppert​

Ruppert seems to think that if he throws enough Oil Industry propaganda ('fossil fuel' and difficulty extracting oil, etc), if it is enough to derail any thought about a-biotic oil, he can avoid altogether discussion of alternatives to any 'actual' energy crisis (alternative energy) by default. Apparently he had not counted on McGowan homing in on the “moral” aspect of what Ruppert seemed to be hawking, the “ steps to arrive at a crash program” to bring about “the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.”, of which later Ruppert dances around this by sticking to the “guns” that it is purely out of 'necessity' (due to the 'energy crunch') and not some nefarious agenda/program.

Dave's initial response to this is quite humorous and quite serious simultaneously, very entertaining and enlightening for me it was yes mhm mhm (said like Yoda:)).

There is quite a bit of ground to cover here, so it is difficult to know where to begin. One thing, however, really seemed to jump out at me, so I suppose we should begin there. Obviously, I was mistaken when I said that you offered little in the way of solutions. I stand corrected. Thank you very much for clarifying that. And thanks for removing any doubt about what your true agenda is. I am sure that many readers will appreciate that.

I believe very strongly that you need to get that message out there more prominently. It appears that some of your readers aren’t getting it. I believe that to be the case because one of them just wrote to me with the following comments: “Thank you so much for the 'peak oil' rant. I subscribed to FTW for one year and never could get a line on what he's saying.” The reader (thanks, Joan!) explained that she got the ‘we're running out of oil’ concept, and she understood the ‘there are no alternatives’ part, but she didn't really understand what comes next. The problem, clearly, is that she did not pick up on the program of “ethical” population reduction.

You really need to pound away at that one.
Why do you limit such critical information to just the 15,000 people in eight countries that have attended the lectures that you never tire of mentioning? Why not splash it across your home page in bold print? Or better yet, you might consider renaming your website The Center for the Study of Ethical Population Reduction – or something along those lines.​

I underlined a few of these relevant parts here, shows quite clearly Dave kind of perhaps inadvertently just teased out Ruppert's almost full hand (after a certain number of exchanges, not certain how many before this Newsletter), what Ruppert had been up to all along especially with the 9-11/'Peak Oil' paradigm he was selling/marketing.

Dave then begins to break down some of the moral, and racist, aspects of the 'Peak' Ethical Population Reduction (depop, euthanasia?) program. Kinda funny if you have pale skin, maybe not so funny if you have darker skin. Although I did not know or see Dave's writings before that pertaining to exposing racism in the larger Globalization culture, seems he was showing that it ought to be obvious, even in a deluded white supremacist culture to the average sheople (well maybe not the extreme far right I guess), how racist such a program would be played out, if it indeed ever actual get's played out. And I doubt that even Dave would have seen it to the extent that I do, how utterly racist the “elites” are (now), but judging by these Newsletters, he certainly wasn't oblivious to their egregious racism in general.
Before we move on, I have a few quick questions that maybe you can answer for me, when you can find the time: do you have a specific eugenics program in mind at this time, or are you still working out the details? Do you think we should start with all the non-white people? Will getting rid of the non-white people be enough, or will some of 'us' have to go as well? What exactly is your target population level? What do you think the criteria will be? My driver’s license says that I have blond hair and blue eyes, but I am still wondering: is there anything more that I can do to increase the chances that I will be a 'keeper'? And one last question: have you considered showing true leadership in these troubled times by becoming the first person to volunteer for euthanasia? If we have to thin the herd here, Mike, I think you are missing a golden opportunity to set an example for your flock.

This paragraph really underscores this (the racism) and the likely hypocrisy of those that would propose it (Ruppert, among many 'intellectual academics' who comment on “overpopulation'): if indeed we were ever really faced with a “real” energy or any serious “resource” shortage, food or any other necessity; who would really “volunteer” to get out of the way (euthanize themselves) for the so-called good of Humanity? Most likely not Ruppert, or any of the other hoidy toidy 'intellectuals' (most supposedly “liberal” right? not) spouting off about “overpopulation”. Be damn surprised if I ever heard one claim they would start the euthanasia train to get the 'sustainable” desired human population down to just the right number, generally touted as 500 million to 1 billion. How's that gonna happen without extreme mass murder, or even without the use of 'weapons of mass destruction'? In comes 'Peak' to the rescue I'm guessing.

This part of the Newsletter here is quite comical, but serious as well, Dave responds to Ruppert's bombast here, about McGowan putting words in his mouth,

“Instead you are dancing around the issue with falsehoods which are typified (as only one example) by your statement that I and a number of petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs. Neither I nor any reputable scientist – especially those who are warning of Peak Oil -- has ever made such a claim. We all gagged as you put these words in our mouths. Yet it suits your purpose to falsify our statements and then defeat words which we never uttered to prove a point and thus boost your ego. “

so Dave responded to this saying,

“You did attempt to provide an example of a “falsehood,” and that pathetic attempt of yours is quite revealing. Your one shining example of my use of falsehoods is my supposed “statement that [you] and a number of petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs.” There is only one problem with your example, but it is kind of a big problem: I never said that. And since you obviously read my posting, then you know full well that I never said that. In other words, your one example of a supposed “falsehood” on my part is, in reality, an outright lie on your part -- because we both know that what I really said was that I was raised to believe that oil came from dinosaurs. For the record, let's take a look at the actual excerpt:

As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class knows, oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down, folks; there will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some kind of 'public service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their all" so that we could one day have oil.

It is quite clear that I never said - in any way, shape or form - that you, Michael Ruppert, or any "petroleum scientists," claim that oil comes from dinosaurs. To the contrary, the origins of oil seems to be a subject that you prefer not to talk about at all.​

Back tracking a little, here is the preceding paragraphs to dinosaur comments, where Dave calls Ruppert out about false accusations that Ruppert claims McGowan made of him, and did not give even one example,

I think that covers all my questions on that topic (I realize that you are not going to answer any of these questions, but I am going to ask them anyway), so let's move on to other things. One of the most remarkable aspects of your missive is that you have repeatedly accused me of making libelous statements about you, even while you, at the very same time, shamelessly libel me by accusing me of: employing “tactics intended to stall and distract, rather than educate”; “engaging in the most insidious and duplicitous kinds of sophistry”; employing “dishonesty, straw arguments, and libelous character assassinations”; “dancing around the issue with falsehoods”; employing “childish and uncritical tactics”; and utilizing “unethical argumentative protocols, distortions, and sophistry.” You have also strongly implied that I am partial to the use of “ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, evasion of the issues and straw-man arguments.”

That is a remarkable list of charges to levy against someone, especially considering that you do not offer a single concrete example to support any of the charges that you have made. Not one example of “sophistry.” Not one example of “dishonesty.” Not one example of employing a “straw argument.” Not one example of a “libelous character assassination.” Not one example of an “unethical argumentative protocol.” Not one example of a “distortion.” And not one example of an “ad hominem attack,” an “obfuscation,” a "childish and uncritical tactic," or even an “evasion of the issues.”

The rest of the newsletter is lengthy, and mainly he is rebutting many of the things Ruppert has said probably in previous other responses as well to McGowan or other critics of 'peak Oil'. Mainly the rest of the Newsletter concerns the debate between 'fossil fuel' theory and a-biotic oil theory, and why Ruppert's Terms of Debate are pretty ridiculous. Very entertaining and enlightening. I will simply post the rest of it, and spare a little commentary after-wards to finish off this post.

Early on in your missive, you comment on the "psychology of [my] move." I found it rather odd that you would purport to be able to analyze my moves when you don't actually have, as far as I am aware, any training in that area. I found it odder still that you would do so when condescendingly addressing someone who actually does have a degree in psychology. Why don't we then take a fun look at the psychology of one of your moves? When you told the lie about what I supposedly said, you actually embellished that lie with a completely fictitious story about an alleged physical reaction that you supposedly had to something that never even happened. That is not simply a lie; it is a sign of a pathological condition. For that reason, I am not expecting an apology anytime soon for what was clearly a lie on your part -- and a lie that was intended, ironically enough, to paint me as a liar.

As for your overall attempt to paint me as a disreputable charlatan, here is the situation as I see it: you pored over a 10,000-word essay that I composed, desperately seeking any example of a lie, distortion or misrepresentation, but you came up empty handed. That much we can safely infer from the fact that you resorted to making something up (as did your inept attack dog, Larry Chin). And then, armed with nothing but a lie, you proceeded to falsely accuse me of committing a number of egregious sins – and all the while, you actually had the gall to claim that it is your character that is being assassinated. You have also used your false and completely unsupported allegations to cast me as a lying egomaniac unworthy of the time required for a real public debate, thus enabling you to slip away even while claiming to take the high road. That would be a very clever maneuver -- except that you haven't even come close to pulling it off.

Let’s turn now to some other accusations that you have leveled at me. You claim that I have attempted to “invade and occupy [your] productive hours.” You have also accused me of showing a lack of integrity by not accepting your "challenge" as you have “laid it out,” as though I am under some kind of obligation to debate you only under the strictly defined conditions that you have unilaterally imposed. At the same time, you dismiss my counter proposal as some kind of ego-driven publicity stunt, referring to it dismissively as “the debate that assumptively proposed.”

I think it would probably be instructive here to briefly review the chronology of recent events. As you know, I have a small, non-commercial website - otherwise known as a vanity website - just like millions of other people across the country, and around the world. On that site, I post my thoughts and opinions on a wide range of topics. I also send out mailings to a small, private mailing list composed of people who have expressed an interest in receiving my writings. That is the extent of my Internet activities (and what your acolyte has disturbingly described as “misusing the Internet”). I do not post to, nor participate in, any news or discussion groups. I post only to my own private website. Despite the accusations of both you and Chen, I have never conspired with anyone, in any way, to smear your character. As I said before, I am not affiliated in any way with any groups or movements, and certainly not with any other individuals or groups who have served as critics of yours (your apparent attempt to connect me with the Solomon/Corn crowd, I must say, is particularly pathetic, given my frequently voiced, and well documented, opinion of that bunch).

As you recall, this all began when you took offense at an opinion that I had expressed on my own website. At that time, you invaded my space, issuing a belligerent and uninvited challenge. Prior to that, I had little interest in you or your website. I had never, by any stretch of the imagination, come close to invading your “productive time.” I had never so much as sent you a single e-mail. I rarely even visit your site. So it seems that it was not I who invaded your space, but rather you who invaded my space. And you did so by issuing a boorish challenge that you feel I was somehow instantly obligated to either accept, or reject and quietly slink away. Instead, I did what I always do, which was to air my argument in the only public venue available: my website. And at that time, as we both know, your people became completely unhinged.

I did not bring this fight to you as some attempt to bask in your reflected glory (and I'm the one looking to "boost [my] ego"?); I did not bring this fight to you at all. You bullied your way into my space, attempting to force me into playing the game by your rules, as though you have some kind of divine right to do so (and I'm the one with the "insatiable ego"?). There is a very clear pattern of intimidation here.

One of the most telling aspects of your response is that it is actually a cut-and-paste form letter. I know that because, for reasons known only to you, you chose to attach a response that you sent to someone else who challenged your theories, and that response was a different version of the same form letter. There are other indications as well, such as the redundant passages, and the numbered paragraphs that never get past the number 1. The fact that it is a form letter is very significant, for a number of reasons.

Based on my experiences of the last couple of weeks, I have concluded that this is how your machine operates: whenever anyone is presumptuous enough to question your almighty wisdom, you immediately swoop in and try to intimidate them into backing off by issuing a demand (you can't really call it a request) for a formal debate. If they take you up on it, then they get the form letter imposing the restrictions and strictly limiting the scope of the debate to a false argument. When they, quite naturally, refuse your 'offer,' you then cast them as cowards and charlatans for 'ducking' the debate.

What this means, of course, is that anyone who you feel threatened by, and who you send the form letter to, is routinely accused of being a lying, disreputable glory-seeker whose behavior must be policed -- regardless of their personal standing or the validity of their challenge. My guess is that the "example" is a fill-in-the-blank kind of thing, and in my case, you didn't have anything legitimate to fill in the blank. Nevertheless, you left all the unsupported accusations in the form letter and simply filled in the blank with a figment of your imagination.

You have accused me of attacking you "as being part of some kind of covert operation intended to promote infinite war." Your associate has implied that I have attacked you as being a shill for the Bush administration. I have never said, explicitly, that you are any such thing. But I will say that there is no question but that your tactics closely mirror those of the Bush administration (or pretty much any other U.S. presidential administration).

First and foremost is what we might call the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome." You engage in reprehensible character assassinations, even while claiming to be a victim yourself. You accuse your critics of employing tactics to stifle you, even as you employ those very tactics to stifle them. You accuse your critics of libel, even as you viciously libel them. You accuse your opponents of dodging a real debate, even as it is you who are dodging the real debate. You accuse your critics of being unable to stick to the issues and construct an ethical argument, even as you dodge the real issues through the use of unethical arguments.

Then there is your habit of unilaterally issuing uninvited, bullying, unreasonable, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums, and then claiming that it is the other party's fault when the 'offer' is refused. I am thinking of Rambouillet here, but there are also numerous other examples that could be cited. So while I obviously cannot definitively say if there is someone pulling your strings, I can say that Karl Rove himself couldn't run a more well-oiled machine.

Let us turn now to the inherent fraudulence of your debate "challenge." The biggest problem, and the most telling aspect of the 'offer,' is with the framing of the question. You have chosen (and this isn't the original topic of debate, by the way, but one that you came up with after you read my critique): "Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?”

The interesting thing about that question is that it presupposes that your side of the argument has already been proven, even though we both know that that isn't true. It is interesting to note here that whenever people such as you and Mr. Chin mention abiotic petroleum, you are usually quick to claim that it is a "disputed" theory. However, you never attach such qualifiers to mentions of 'fossil fuels.' Don't you find that odd, considering that it is actually the reverse that is true?

You have admitted that petroleum can be produced abiotically (in your response to my "kindred spirit"). In fact, no one with any credibility can deny that fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and verified with unchallenged mathematical models. It is a fact. The 'fossil fuel' theory, on the other hand, cannot be verified and is disputed by, at the very least, a large community of Soviet and Ukrainian scientists. Since abiotic petroleum is not disputed and is verifiable, the logical presumption, until proven otherwise, is that all the natural gas and petroleum in commercial use, and in the ground, and in storage tanks, and anywhere else, is abiotic oil and gas.

Your chosen question then is an entirely fraudulent one, selected so as to protect you from having to establish the basic foundation of your argument. Just as with Mr. Chin, you want to skip right over that and start building your 'Peak Oil' theory. It doesn't work that way, and all of your sophistry cannot change that fact.

A few other aspects of the debate 'challenge' seem problematic as well. You claim that you assume that I live in the Bay Area, when you know very well that I live in the Los Angeles area, just like you. You may pretend otherwise, but you have met me. We were introduced after an event in Santa Monica in 2002. You tried to engage me in conversation, but I wasn't interested and wandered off (or is that perhaps something that I have conjured up in my imagination to feed my ego?).

Why then the Bay Area? Perhaps the answer lies in condition number 4, and the "large pool" of judges that you seem to be familiar with. I don't happen to know anyone in the Bay Area, except for my cousin, and I doubt that he is part of that pool of judges. Your obsession with a purse is another problem, and an obvious attempt to discourage acceptance of your proposal (and judging by your response to my "kindred spirit," you don't pay up when you lose anyway). All I am going to say about this issue is that, unlike you, I am not in this for the money.

How much have you made, by the way, off the September 11 attacks? I know you claim to have doubled your subscribers, to 10,000. That's 5,000 new subscribers at $35.00 per year (more for the hard copy), or a minimum of $175,000 per year. Then there are the speaking fees and the reimbursed travel and living expenses. Then there are, of course, all the 9-11 related books and videos that you hawk. Then there are the donations that you solicit. So how much is it, in total, over the last two-and-a-half years? Around a half mil? More? Why don't we do this: each of us will contribute to the purse all the money that we have made off the 9-11 attacks. You will put up your proceeds, and I will put up mine. Does that sound fair?

Before wrapping this up, I need to address several more brazen misrepresentations and specious allegations that you have made. You have claimed that I have attempted to win this argument "by the sheer number of words that can be thrown at the subject." The truth though is that I have written exactly one article that challenges what you are selling. You, on the other hand, have littered the Internet with dozens of hysterical, and sometimes quite lengthy, missives on the subject. Again I would have to say that the 'pot-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome' clearly applies here.

You have claimed that I must be "assuming" that you are a reader of this site (my ego again, I presume). But we both know that you are a reader of this site. Why else would you have responded with warp speed not only to my abiotic oil posting, but to the posting that first caused your testes to draw up tighter than a newborn baby's? And I noticed, in reading through some of your material, that you have written things that appear to be direct responses to things that I have written (oops, there goes my ego again!). I will be commenting on that, and providing a clear example, in a future newsletter. As for your claim that I was hoping that you would somehow be unaware of my posting, we both know that that is absurd.

You claim that I have "attacked those who have warned of the dangers of Peak Oil as being employees of oil companies," but I said no such thing. I did identify the various geochemists quoted in news reports that I cited as "shills for the petroleum industry," but they were, in fact, identified in those reports as employees of various oil companies. It was nice of you though to volunteer the information that one of your experts once worked for Shell. And I would tend to agree that Deffeyes "long tenure at Princeton and the fact that his income is derived from there speaks volumes."

You are now claiming that, "If one paper has received peer reviews supporting it that does not, in fact, prove that the subject matter is true." But when you previously wrote that "peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science," you gave no hint that that statement was conditional. For the sake of accuracy, should you not go back and change the posting to read "peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science, unless the conclusions reached contradict the theories that I am selling"?

You also claim that I "ignore the fact that peer review is only one of nine critical questions FTW has posed," but it is you who ignores the fact that your theory is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which you identify as the most critical of the nine questions (the one that "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into").

You claim that "advocates of abiogenic oil and gas keep refusing to appear in public to defend their work" (not unlike the way that you claim that your critics refuse to appear in public to debate you). But Dr. Kenney and some of his Soviet colleagues have said that that is an egregious lie, and I am more prone to believe them than you. They have also complained about news reports claiming that they were "unavailable for comment," when no one had made the slightest attempt to contact them.

You have written: "As for 'Peak Groceries,' you again distort because groceries can be located by a mere phone call or internet order." To say that this is a bizarre rebuttal would be quite an understatement. It has nothing to do with my argument, which concerned the consolidation of various industries. And for the record, I can buy a can of oil with a phone call or an internet order as well. So what? Is this one of those "straw arguments" you were so concerned about?


Finally, you have written that you are "certain" that I will find "something" in my argument that you "did not respond to and state that this is proof" that you are defeated. "Not true. I never agreed to debate you on your terms." As you are well aware (and as anyone reading this will be well aware), you responded to almost nothing in my "diatribe." Instead, you sent me a bullying, childish form letter filled with entirely unfounded allegations and pompous self-importance. And for the record, it is I who never agreed to, and was never obligated to, 'debate' you on your terms.

You have declared that you are through with me. And that is fine. No one ever invited you to this party to begin with. And you obviously have nothing of substance to contribute anyway.

Dave McGowan



Here Dave implies Ruppert behaves like he is funded covertly,
“Then there is your habit of unilaterally issuing uninvited, bullying, unreasonable, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums, and then claiming that it is the other party's fault when the 'offer' is refused. I am thinking of Rambouillet here, but there are also numerous other examples that could be cited. So while I obviously cannot definitively say if there is someone pulling your strings, I can say that Karl Rove himself couldn't run a more well-oiled machine.”

And again when he calls Ruppert out for his income generated from “9-11 Truth Research” compared with McGowan's income from 9-11 (as if to say he {Dave} was certainly in it for the mony, but Ruppert certainly appeared to be)
“How much have you made, by the way, off the September 11 attacks? I know you claim to have doubled your subscribers, to 10,000. That's 5,000 new subscribers at $35.00 per year (more for the hard copy), or a minimum of $175,000 per year. Then there are the speaking fees and the reimbursed travel and living expenses. Then there are, of course, all the 9-11 related books and videos that you hawk. Then there are the donations that you solicit. So how much is it, in total, over the last two-and-a-half years? Around a half mil? More? Why don't we do this: each of us will contribute to the purse all the money that we have made off the 9-11 attacks. You will put up your proceeds, and I will put up mine. Does that sound fair?”

Here Dave mentions another amusing retort he coined in earlier exchanges ('Peak Groceries'), that Ruppert bullishly responded to in his response to Newsletter #52, but I don't remember what Newsletter he originally coined that in as of right now.
“You have written: "As for 'Peak Groceries,' you again distort because groceries can be located by a mere phone call or internet order." To say that this is a bizarre rebuttal would be quite an understatement. It has nothing to do with my argument, which concerned the consolidation of various industries. And for the record, I can buy a can of oil with a phone call or an internet order as well. So what? Is this one of those "straw arguments" you were so concerned about? “


Sometimes, I wish Dave would have shown a clearer distinction in the text which quotes come from only him as opposed to the other person he was addressing (Ruppert here), and was somewhat confounding in Newsletter #53. Although it was a very good Newsletter, would have been a lot more work for me to then comment on it because of that (but as well as he didn't much mention depopulation in it, and I suppose Larry Chin hadn't either when Chin responded to Newsletter #52), which was another reason I chose not to post on #53.

Dave's closing lines is classic here, again reiterating why Ruppert's Terms Of Debate are so jacked, to then declare victory when debate is declines, and then uses Ruppert's words agaisnt him at the end as well,
“Finally, you have written that you are "certain" that I will find "something" in my argument that you "did not respond to and state that this is proof" that you are defeated. "Not true. I never agreed to debate you on your terms." As you are well aware (and as anyone reading this will be well aware), you responded to almost nothing in my "diatribe." Instead, you sent me a bullying, childish form letter filled with entirely unfounded allegations and pompous self-importance. And for the record, it is I who never agreed to, and was never obligated to, 'debate' you on your terms.


You have declared that you are through with me. And that is fine. No one ever invited you to this party to begin with. And you obviously have nothing of substance to contribute anyway.


Dave McGowan”​


Classic McGowan on one of his finest Newsletters, IMHO.
 
Top