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
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
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,
Back to Dave's Newsletter,
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
. 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
). 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
. Somebody like Mike Ruppert, I bet he would be a natural at running away with a meme like that though
.
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
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.
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?
), 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.
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
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 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.
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'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)
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.“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.”
Back to Dave's Newsletter,
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.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)
His lines here in response to e-mails from Jeff Strahl is hilariousA 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.
Another line here that really cracked me up back then,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.
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
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
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
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?
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.