[Editor's Note: Dave McGowan deserves a Pulitzer for not only
helping to unmask the Peak Oil scam, but also revealing the true colors
of Michael Ruppert, the principle mole in charge of Peak Oil disinformation.
Michael Ruppert calls his web site, "From
the Wilderness (FTW), as if he's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
and is letting us 'civilians' in on the real deal in world politics. His
rise to national recognition is a typical covert grooming job to establish
Ruppert as one of the Good Guys of the internet world whose only interests
are that of Truth, Justice, and Honor; the good cop who took on the nasty
CIA Baddies in the LA drug wars and lost. I believe Ruppert, a former Los
Angeles cop, was convicted in 1978 on drug related charges. Ruppert, of
course, claims his conviction was a frame up in which he accuses Ted
L. Gunderson, of all people, of having played a role in his 'set up'.
It was Ruppert's false allegations against Ted (who had no idea who Michael
Ruppert was in 1978 while Ted was the Bureau Chief of the FBI in Los Angeles)
that started me to suspect that Ruppert wasn't as straight shooting as he
wished the public to believe. Nonetheless, I was impressed with the quality
of stories that Ruppert was writing in the late 90's and was willing to
give him the benefit of doubt and cut him some slack when it came to his
paranoia about Ted, but his continuing false allegations about Ted, next
published in Nexus magazine, started to make me think that Ruppert
may be working for somebody. Now that Ruppert has blown his cover completely
by promoting the Peak Oil scam, there is no longer any doubt in my mind:
Ruppert is a mole. Note these two brief paragraphs referring to Ruppert
and Peak Oil excepted from Joe Vialls' article titled "Black Psyop
at Russian School Controlled by Wall St." (http://joevialls.altermedia.info/myahudi/beslanpsyop.html)
"Though the "Peak Oil" scam currently being
peddled by Mike Ruppert and others has absolutely no validity in global
terms, it does make sense if viewed as deliberate Wall Street propaganda.
The world as a whole has massive oil reserves on tap, with more continuing
to flow from up from the earth's mantle, but American oil reserves cannot
at present meet American demand, due primarily to a lack of investment
in new domestic oil drilling and production infrastructure. Thus when
Ruppert and others claim "The world is running out of oil",
the accurate underlying truth of the matter is that "America alone
is running out of oil".
The same holds true for the parallel propaganda claim that "World
oil production had peaked, and can no longer keep pace with global energy
requirements". In reality world oil production as a whole has not
peaked, but the world as a whole is no longer prepared to provide America
with one out of every two gallons of gasoline it refines every day of
every year, especially not on the strength of worthless Federal Reserve
promissory notes. Therefore this particular piece of 'Peak Oil' propaganda
can be interpreted as meaning, "The world is no longer prepared to
keep pace with, or provide, America's excessive energy requirements."..
Note too, that Dave has exposed Ruppert's bent towards eugenics.
Ruppert embraces the notion of population
reduction, but he just doesn't want to state publicly exactly how that
'goal' ought to be accomplished. Now what other group do we know about that
is equally interested in population reduction and eugenics?
Finally, Dave has also nailed down the brainwashing inculcation
by our covert manipulators of the passive acceptance of death as mundane.
With kids, it's video games and movies. With adults, it's movies and TV;
the promotion of a 'dog eat dog' mentality and 'survival of the fittest'
as clearly promoted in all those TV brainwahing programs about Survival,
the Weakest Link, Extreme This, Extreme That, Divorce Court, etc. The manipulation
couldn't be more obvious. Why don't more people recognize it?... Ken]
By Dave McGowan <email@example.com>
October 12, 2004
[Due to recent developments in the 'Peak Oil' scam, I decided
to put Act III of the new September 11 series on hold for a couple weeks.]
It has become apparent that many people have misinterpreted
my 'Peak Oil' rants. I know this because I get e-mail with messages like,
"thanks for giving me hope," and "thanks for changing my
view of the future." I am sorry to have to report here that the newfound
optimism of some of my readers is entirely unwarranted. After reviewing
my past writings, I realize that the fault for this misunderstanding lies
with me, since I haven't done a very good job of articulating exactly what
my position is.
This, my friends, is the harsh reality, so pay very close
attention: the fact that 'Peak Oil' is an entirely manufactured construct
does not mean that the doomsday scenarios painted by the 'Peak' crowd will
therefore not become our new reality. This is not just another scam to further
pad the pockets of the oil industry and other financial elites. The stakes
are much higher than that. Much higher.
In order to clarify my position on 'Peak Oil,' it would be
instructive to briefly review the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement,
that I have with those who are selling the scam.
The Peakers claim that 'Peak Oil' is the single most important
issue that we are facing today. I agree with that assessment (but not because
'Peak Oil' is a valid concept).
The Peakers claim that much of America's military might has
been directed in recent years at conquering the key oil and gas producing
regions of the world. And that is obviously quite true. Central Asia and
Iraq have been seized, Venezuela has suffered through constant meddling
by the CIA, the Sudan has been targeted for a future assault, and Saudi
Arabia and Iran have been subjected to saber rattling.
But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have
been motivated by America's desire to seize what will soon be the last drops
of the world's precious reserves of oil -- and that is entirely untrue.
The Peakers claim that we will very soon be facing a world
where chaos reigns supreme -- a world of war, famine and death on a scale
unknown in recorded human history. And that does, in fact, appear to be
the case. And we're not talking about the distant future here, folks; we're
talking about the very near future.
But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off"
will be a regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable, consequence
of the world's oil taps running dry. And that is the really big lie. That
is the lie that will very soon be used to rationalize the killing off of
hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of the world's people. There are,
you see, simply too many people in the world who, by merely being alive,
are standing in the way of the aspirations of the global elite.
The people that the 'Peak Oil' pitchmen are fronting for
are deadly serious about selling 'Peak Oil' to the masses -- and not just
in theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and increase profits.
No, it has become clear that the real goal is to actually cut off most of
the world's oil supplies under the ruse that the oil simply no longer exists.
The desired result is massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless
war. The majority of the world's people will not survive. Those that do
will find themselves living under the overtly authoritarian form of rule
that will quickly be deemed necessary to restore order. And if you think
that we here in America are exempt, you are sadly mistaken.
In order to pull off this stunt, all the world's major oil
producing regions must be solidly under the control of the U.S. and it's
co-conspirators, otherwise known as 'allies.' In other words, the puppet-masters
have to control all the major oil taps, so that they have complete control
over the flow of oil -- or lack of it. And that, in a nutshell, is the real
reason for America's recent military ventures. The goal, you see, is not
to steal Iraq's oil, or the oil in the 'Stans, or in the Sudan, or in Venezuela,
or anywhere else. We don't want to take their oil, because the truth is
that we don't really need it (http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/090101/cov_opinions.shtml).
What we want to do is sit on the taps so no one else can get to the oil.
The Peakers have claimed that the Central Asian adventure
- launched with the invasion of Afghanistan, but certainly not limited to
Afghanistan - has largely been a bust. We have all heard the spin: the hoped-for
reserves aren't there, what has been found can't be extracted economically,
the grand plan simply didn't pan out, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Frankly, I find all of that a little hard to believe. After
all, hasn't Central Asia been the subject of intense interest and study
by geologists and the petroleum industry for the last century or so? You
would think that the lords of oil were operating on more than just a hunch
when they drafted this gameplan. And I couldn't help noticing that the United
States has established a massive military presence in the area, and it looks
very much like it was designed to be a permanent military presence. If the
oil and gas aren't there, then what exactly is it that our troops are standing
At least one researcher has doggedly claimed that the Central
Asian and Middle Eastern military ventures are but a prelude to military
confrontations with Russia and China. But that hardly seems to be the case.
It does not appear as though there is any urgent need for 'regime change'
in Russia or China, since the West seems to already have 'friendly' regimes
in place in both countries. And I have to add here that if the ruling regimes
of Russia and China really are enemies of the United States, they will undoubtedly
go down in history as the stupidest enemies of all time for watching approvingly
as the United States entrenched its military machine in their backyards
on the most transparent of pretexts.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe that the Central
Asian adventure has been wildly successful. True, the West hasn't reaped
the bounty of the region's oil and gas reserves -- but I don't think that
was ever the goal. To the contrary, I think the U.S. has done exactly what
it set out to do: deny anyone else the opportunity - by force if necessary,
and it will become necessary - to exploit the area's resources.
Also contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe that the
Iraq adventure has also been successful. Again, the goal was not to steal
Iraqi oil; the goal was to shut down or severely limit the flow of Iraqi
oil, and that goal has obviously been accomplished. Indeed, some reports
have held that American troops (and American mercenaries) are responsible
for at least some of the pipeline bombings and other attacks on the Iraqi
Interestingly, Michael Ruppert began one of his recent "Peak
is the Word" rants with an ominous quote attributed to an "Anonymous
Middle Eastern Participant at the Third Conference of the Association for
the Study of Peak Oil and Gas - Berlin, May 2004." The quote, which
Ruppert presents without comment, reads as follows:
"The one thing that every Middle Eastern leader, manager,
and planner who dreams of holding his country together fears now, is that
there will be a widespread uprising, inspired by the perceived victory
against Spain after Madrid, and Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, that it
might prompt much of the Muslim world to start attacking oil facilities
everywhere. This is the way they see that has worked to defeat the West
and to avenge their grievances. May God help us all if that happens."
This statement, if taken literally, is patently absurd --
beginning with the Bill O'Reillyesque claim that the 'terr'ists' somehow
scored a victory in Spain, and continuing through the astounding leap of
faith required to equate manufactured attacks on commuter trains to widespread
attacks on oil facilities. The only way that the uncredited statement makes
any sense at all is as a tip-off that the CIA's future playbook is packed
with false-flag terr'ist operations directed at critical oil facilities
-- especially in countries that haven't yet been convinced that their vast
oil reserves don't really exist.
In order to carry out the 'Peak Oil' agenda, the powers-that-be
need to have all the major oil producers on board. Some of them have been
on board all along. Some have to be recruited through military force (Iraq,
for example). Some will be compelled to join the team through covert operations
(e.g., Venezuela). And some are being brought on board through threats,
intimidation, and saber rattling.
The two most sought after recruits, of course, are Russia
and Saudi Arabia, since they are the world's two top oil producing nations.
As of this past April, Saudi Arabia apparently hadn't yet received the latest
memos on 'Peak.' Much to the consternation of Ruppert and his handlers,
Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom's estimate of recoverable
reserves had nearly quintupled! (The article below says
"tripled," but the math isn't that hard to do.) [1.2 divided by
.261 = 4.9....Ken]
Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say
Officials Tim Kennedy, Arab News
WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 - Officials from Saudi Arabia's
oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a gathering
of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an announcement
that the Kingdom's previous estimate of 261 billion barrels of recoverable
petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion barrels.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia's key oil and finance ministers
assured the audience - which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan - that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its
oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.
"Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated
reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason
to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and
we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,"
the minister said.
Naimi said Saudi Arabia is committed to sustaining the
average price of $25 per barrel set by the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries. He said prices should never increase to more than
$28 or drop under $22.
"Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves are certainly there,"
Naimi added. "None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques.
We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required,
we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12 - 15 million
barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or
more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps
Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2
trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable
oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a minute
and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting
for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface area, potentially
contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to
offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture?
Needless to say, that sort of candor by the Saudis could
put a serious crimp in Washington's plans to sell the 'Peak Oil' scam. Perhaps
that is why, just three days after that announcement, the Saudi oil industry
was attacked by some of those terr'ists. Not to be deterred, however, Saudi
officials announced three weeks later, on May 21, that the Kingdom still
intended to dramatically increase its petroleum output. And a week after
that, on May 29, those crafty terr'ists launched yet another brazen attack
on the Saudi oil industry. Shit happens, I guess.
At that very same time, and in the months that followed,
the U.S. was sending clear signals that it would not hesitate to set its
military dogs loose on the Kingdom if necessary. Michael Moore's "the
Saudis are the real enemy" movie, for example, splashed across America's
screens. Various voices involved in both the official and unofficial 9-11
investigations were pointing the finger toward the Saudis as well. The message
couldn't have been clearer: "we can easily drum up public support for
'regime change' if you won't play ball." The Saudis, it would appear,
have now fallen in line.
Meanwhile, in Russia, the regime of Western puppet Vladimir
Putin has been working diligently to transfer control of Russian oil production
to what the L.A. Times referred to as "more complaint owners."
From a July 23, 2004 report by Kim Murphy: Since the arrest in October of
former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now on trial on charges of fraud and tax
evasion [editor's note: probably trumped-up charges], the financial community
has debated the Russian government's decision to assess at least $8 billion
in back taxes against Yukos: Was it to punish Khodorkovsky for his political
activism and alleged financial misdeeds, but leave his company intact? To
hand control of the company to more complaint hands? Or destroy a company
that produces 2% of the world's oil supply? ("Oil Flow Could End, Yukos
Says," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2004)
"Yukos," according to the Times, "produces
about 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, equal to some OPEC countries."
The turning point in the case against Yukos, the Times noted, came "when
court bailiffs moving to execute an initial $3.4-billion tax judgment
announced that they were preparing to seize and sell not one of the dozens
of small Yukos assets that might easily settle the tax bill, but the company's
production unit, Yuganskneftegaz ... the two-month deadline for selling
the company means there would be little time to raise financing, and a
potential buyer would acquire it at a fire-sale price, analysts said.
The government listed the unit's official value at about $1.8 billion."
The actual value of Yuganskneftegaz, as the Times admitted,
is probably closer to $30 billion, or nearly 17 times the Russian government's
ludicrous assessment. And who do you suppose will acquire the assets of
Yukos, and the control of Yukos, at these fire-sale prices? I'm guessing
it could very well be one or more of the Western oil giants. The Russian
people, of course, will be less than thrilled with such a scenario, which
is probably one of the key reasons that Putin has recently opted to reveal
the iron fist within the velvet glove.
Michael Ruppert, being the top-notch journalist that he is,
has either completely ignored or grotesquely misrepresented these recent
developments in Russia and Saudi Arabia. The 'Peak Oil' crowd has claimed,
with nothing to offer in the way of supporting evidence, that the Saudis
are lying about their oil reserves and their ability to increase production.
The Peakers have also strongly implied that the Saudis actually attacked
their own facilities, so that they would not have to deliver on their promises.
No logical explanation has been offered though for why the Saudis would
lie and then immediately attack themselves to cover up the fact that they
were lying. It seems to me like it would have taken less effort to just
not tell the lie to begin with. The Saudis, meanwhile, have insisted that
it is the Peakers who are lying. (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=42933)
[For a discussion of the 'evidence' presented by the Peakers, see Michael
Lynch at http://www.aramcoexpats.com/ArticleDetail.asp?article=701.
Lynch concludes: "There literally seems to be no evidence that the
Saudi oil fields are facing any unusual challenges or that Saudi production
will be constrained in the future by anything other than policy ... The
use of vague language ("tired" fields, "challenges")
rather than specifics about efforts and costs indicate that this is one
more instance of Malthusian bias."]
Even if the Saudis could boost production, say the Peakers,
no one would want their extra crude anyway, because, as it turns out, Saudi
crude oil just isn't very good. Who knew? What will we learn from the Ruppertians
next? That you can't get decent champaign in France? That Russian caviar
isn't all it's cracked up to be?
On the FTW website is a re-post of an article that begins:
"The world's oil refiners are unimpressed by Saudi Arabia's boost to
production capacity that would only swell supplies of sour, high sulphur
crude while they hanker for sweet oil ... 'Most refiners couldn't take more
sour if they tried,' said one refiner, who asked not to be named. 'We have
a glut of sour crude and a short supply squeeze on low sulphur crude oil
and products, so extra Saudi makes no difference whatsoever,' a physical
oil trader said." (http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/100604_refiners_unimpressed.shtml)
Now, I hesitate to point this out, because I know that Ruppert
prides himself on his journalistic professionalism, as well as his police
training, and I certainly wouldn't want to needlessly embarrass him, but
the truth of the matter is that the article that The Great One re-posted
appears to be a fake -- a fake that was planted, no doubt, for the 'Peak'
team to 'find.'
Here are a few clues that Detective Ruppert missed: the article
ran in the tabloidesque Gulf Daily News, which claims to be the
"Voice of Bahrain," although one wouldn't expect Bahrain to speak
in an English voice; the article has no byline, indicating that no real
reporter wanted his name attached to it; and the two alleged insiders quoted
to establish the premise of the article declined to be identified, even
though they were supposedly voicing an uncontroversial opinion shared throughout
What we have here then is an unsigned, unsourced article
from the Middle Eastern version of the National Enquirer being presented
as real journalism. And this from the man who constantly questions the journalistic
ethics and integrity of his detractors! Simply put, if this was a real news
story that Ruppert was promoting, he would have been able to round up at
least one credible report from a legitimate media outlet.
Bizarrely enough, Ruppert has headlined the fake article,
"Peak Oil On The Table - Hard To Miss." Really, Mike? It can't
be that hard to miss, because I'm having trouble seeing it myself. I realize
that it might be partly my fault, since I haven't been attending the 'Peak'
indoctrination sessions, but here is what I'm having difficulty with: I
get the part about how we're quickly running out of oil, and I understand
that it is foolish to consider the viability of alternative energy sources,
because only oil will do; but are you now saying that we also have to be
very picky about what kind of oil we use?
That reminds me of a story about a guy who was lost in the
desert and spent days wandering aimlessly in search of water. This guy -
we'll call him Peak Oil Man - was followed by a circling vulture, who occasionally
spoke to him. At one point, the vulture asked Peak Oil Man why he kept ignoring
all the succulent plants along his route, from which he could extract life-saving
fluids. "A waste of time," said Peak Oil Man, "must have
water." Later in the journey, Peak Oil Man stopped to relieve himself
in the sand. "Why do you not capture and drink your urine, Peak Oil
Man," asked the vulture. "It could save your life." Ignoring
the vulture, Peak Oil Man pushed on, still muttering his mantra: "must
have water." Eventually, Peak Oil Man - emaciated, severely dehydrated,
and barely clinging to life - stumbled upon a stranger, and the stranger
extended his hand and offered Peak Oil Man a container of water. Peak Oil
Man raised the vessel to his lips and began to drink, but quickly spat out
the offending liquid. "Is that fucking tap water!?" asked Peak
Oil Man. "Where can I get some bottled water around here?" And
the vulture said: "But Peak Oil Man, how can you afford to be so picky
at a time of such great need? How can you turn away not only viable alternatives
to water, but even water itself if the water offered to you doesn't meet
your high standards? It is almost as if you don't really need water at all."
Peak Oil Man just smiled and continued on his way.
Meanwhile, Mexico, which also hasn't been reading the 'Peak'
memos, recently announced the discovery of massive quantities of new petroleum
reserves. The Peakers, as we all know, repeatedly claim that no new reserves
of any consequence have been found for years. In fact, they go so far as
to say that there are no new reserves to be found. In one recent collection
of lies posted on the FTW website, Julian Darley writes: "Major oil
discoveries have declined every year so that 2003 saw no new field over
500 million barrels ... It is well over twenty years since more oil was
found than consumed in a year." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html)
Really, Mr. Darley? Are you sure about that? Let's check
with the Mexican press to see if you are correct:
"Three years of exploration has enabled Pemex to map
oilfields that the state-owned oil monopoly believes will more than double
the nation's known crude oil reserves. Luis Ramírez Corzo, Pemex's
director for exploration, told EL UNIVERSAL that on a 'conservative' estimate,
almost 54 billion barrels lie underneath the oilfields. That would take
Mexico's reserves to 102 billion barrels, more than the United Arab Emirates
(which has reserves of 97.8 billion barrels), Kuwait (94 billion) and
Iran (89.7 billion), and almost as much as Iraq (112.5 billion). The official
also said the discovery could enable Pemex to increase Mexico's oil production
from the current level of 4 million barrels per day (bpd) to 7 million
bpd. Saudi Arabia currently produces 7.5 million bpd, while Russia's oil
output is 7.4 million bpd. Ramírez Corzo said the exploration,
at an investment of US 4.6 billion, led to the identification of seven
separate blocks rich in oil and natural gas. The most promising blocks
are under water in the Gulf of Mexico, thought to contain around 45 billion
No new fields over 500 million barrels? How about the 45
billion new barrels sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, right in our own backyard?
Isn't that just a tiny bit more than is "consumed in a year"?
Of course, the oil will not be easy to extract. Mexico will
need some help, since it "lacks the technology for deep water pumping."
And there is another problem as well: "there are territoriality issues
with the United States and Cuba over the fields." In order to bring
the oil to market, Mexico will need the cooperation of both the United States
government and the major players in the oil industry. In other words, the
newly discovered oil isn't going to be extracted any time soon, which is
why the American media, and the 'Peak' crowd, haven't bothered to acknowledge
It will no doubt be determined that it is not economically
feasible to extract the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, Reuters has
reported that, "Oil from deep-water reserves could cost $4 a barrel
to extract, nearly double the cost of oil from shallow water." And
we certainly can't expect any responsible corporation to shell out $4 a
barrel to extract something that they can then trade for $50 a barrel, can
Or maybe the Peakers will claim that the oil doesn't even
exist -- that Mexico, like Saudi Arabia, is lying about increased levels
of reserves. There seems to be a lot of that sort of lying going around
The real problem with the Saudi crude, as near as I can determine,
is that the Saudis and the 'Peakers' have entirely different ideas about
what the price of crude oil should be. At the time of the attacks in Saudi
Arabia, it was hovering at about $40.00/barrel, and is now at about $50.00/barrel.
The Saudis would like to bring it down to $25.00/barrel. And the 'Peakers'
would like to see it raised to - are you ready for this? - a whopping $182.00/barrel
-- which would, quite obviously, place oil out of reach for the vast majority
of the world's people.
$182.00/barrel figure was provided by Matthew
R. Simmons to a BBC reporter at the 'Peak Oil' conference held earlier
this year in Berlin. According to Simmons, "Oil is far too cheap at
the moment ... we need to price oil realistically to control its demand."
Simmons is described in the BBC article as "an energy investment banker
and adviser to the controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan." He is, in
other words, a perfectly credible source -- if we choose to overlook the
fact that everyone connected to the Bush-Cheney team reeks of corruption
and outrageous lies.
is a member of ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak
Oil), founded and led by 'Peak Oil' guru Colin Campbell
and promoted relentlessly by Michael Ruppert, who boasts of having "a
great many friends in ASPO." According to the BBC, ASPO includes in
its ranks "a diverse range of oil industry insiders," including
a good number of "oil executives" and "investment bankers."
Just the sort of salesmen we should trust, in other words, when shopping
for a suitably apocalyptic future.And make no mistake about it: the future
that has been scripted by the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be
pretty. Massive population reduction has always been a key component of
the 'Peak Oil' agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail
to this website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that time:
"I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic,
spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue
of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse,
massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion
to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically
speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed
to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical
principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best
possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful
choice made by all of humanity."
At that time, I accused Ruppert of advocating a eugenics
program, and I was, not surprisingly, harshly criticized by the Ruppertians
for doing so. Numerous members of the cult of 'Peak Oil' sent e-mail accusing
me of "putting word's in Ruppert's mouth." But more recently,
while addressing the Commonwealth Club (which apparently just began extending
invitations to dissident journalists; who knew?), Ruppert put the words
in his own mouth when he quoted approvingly from a eugenics tome penned
in 1952 by Charles Galton Darwin. Darwin was, for the record, a rather notorious
figure in the American eugenics movement, as were other Darwins and Galtons
before him. Are we supposed to believe that there was no significance to
the fact that Ruppert referenced a noted eugenicist while addressing such
a distinguished audience?
In a previous newsletter, I reported that Ruppert had briefly
addressed the issue of population reduction during the speech that he delivered
at this year's 9-11 conference in San Francisco. Since then, I have had
the opportunity to review an audiotape of Ruppert's entire 'Peak Oil' presentation
at the event. Here is a complete (enough) transcript of that presentation:
Look, let's talk about Peak Oil quick, and [sounding clearly
irritated] I'm really tired of the debate. I'm really tired of "there's
no proof; there's no evidence." I'm not gonna take time to go through
this, but if we talk about Peak Oil real quickly, who's been talking about
[Ruppert then ran through a lengthy list of mainstream media
and trade journal articles. The presentation went something like this: "Foreign
Affairs Magazine, yadda, yadda, yadda, James Kenneth Galbraith, yadda, yadda,
yadda, Sunday Herald, yadda, yadda, yadda, Los Angeles Times, yadda, yadda,
yadda." Several derisive comments were added about these sources not
being "conspiracy rags." Ruppert then read lengthy and unsubstantiated
excerpts from the writings of both Galbraith and Dale Pfeiffer, before closing
with the following.]
Now the question is: do we want to do it nice or do we want
to do it nasty? The world has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst
Nazi nightmare ever seen. It will be bloody, it will be violent, it will
involve population reduction by the most brutal, venal, underhanded methods.
So ultimately what I have to say to you is that, as I look at this, and
as I've studied this, and as I've worked for 26 years to unravel this --
this covert mechanism that governs our lives, I'm firmly convinced that
what we are now faced with is a choice offered to us by our creator: either
evolve or perish. Thank you. Thank you.
So what is Ruppert telling us here ... other than that "our
creator" is now apparently now demanding that we evolve?
What exactly is this "world" of which he speaks
-- this "world [that] has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst
Nazi nightmare ever seen"? I don't think that it is the people of planet
Earth that have collectively chosen to take this path. And I doubt that
it is the planet itself that has chosen this path. Isn't it really the case
that this path was forced upon the world by the global elite and their paid
Is Ruppert telling us that we are all facing a violent, bloody
death, so we might as well start taking care of the job ourselves -- in
a less "nasty" and more, uhmm, "nice" manner? Are those
the only two options available? Why is a "bloody," "brutal,"
"violent" and "venal" future taken as a given? To be
sure, we are certainly heading in that direction, but we needn't necessarily
continue to do so, unless we blindly accept the manufactured reality as
an objective, and inevitable, reality. Of course, Ruppert and his fellow
'Peakers' seem to be working very hard to guarantee the arrival of that
"Nazi nightmare" future. The truth is that such a future awaits
us only if the claims of the 'Peakers' are true, or, more importantly,
if we allow ourselves to be convinced that the claims are true when they
most certainly are not. It is vitally important, therefore, that the
people of the world be given the opportunity to thoroughly review all sides
of this issue. After all, if the Peakers are right, then all of our lives
are very much on the line. And yet, strangely enough, the majority of the
Ruppertians who have chosen to spew their bile into my mailbox have made
it quite clear that they have no desire to read any opposing points of view.
Could it be any more obvious that these people have no interest
in ascertaining the truth?
Just this week, Ruppert discretely added a new article to
his website, which he posted "on an unpublished URL at the FTW web
site" -- guaranteeing that none of his readers will ever know it is
there, unless they learn of it elsewhere. Asked to explain his previous
comments on population reduction, Ruppert does not deny that he advocates
some type of forced depopulation program; he only denies having a specific
program in mind:
"I have no list of people who should be in charge of
this. Everyone should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor
might best include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists,
politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic
and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there
was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I
have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in
an effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely."
I wonder why it is that Ruppert continues to shelter his readers
from this aspect of the 'Peak Oil' gameplan? If this is such an important
issue, and if we should all have a voice in the 'debate,' as Ruppert has
claimed, then why has he not brought the issue to the forefront? Why has
he chosen instead to leak it in a limited way? Ruppert claims that, in order
to be "ethical in the face of an inevitable disaster, the entire human
community will have to share useful information as equably as is humanly
possible." Why then is Ruppert not sharing this most important of information?
We turn now to a disturbing new post on the FTW website, which
Ruppert has modestly titled "WE DID IT!" Before even getting to
the actual text of the piece, we already know, just from the article's lengthy
subtitle, that Ruppert is taking another stroll into Bizarro World. With
equal parts bombast, ignorance, and unintentional irony, he actually refers
to his critics as "Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates." This is
a guy, it will be recalled, whose mission in life is to relentlessly promote
a scam predicated on a unproven, 250-year-old theory, while blithely ignoring
an unchallenged body of modern scientific research -- and yet he dismisses
the other side as Flat Earthers!
The full subtitle of the post is "World's Seven Largest
Economies Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency
Call for Transparency at DC Summit: A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic
Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It's Now or Never."
Ruppert begins by re-posting a Reuters report: Group of Seven
finance ministers and central bankers met at the tightly guarded U.S. Treasury
building over lunch and were to work through the afternoon before a dinner
with Chinese counterparts that has currency reform on the menu.
The officials will set out their world-view at about 5:45
p.m. EDT (2145 GMT) in a communiqué sources said would include a
call to bolster oil-market monitoring to make it easier to discern if scarce
supply, hefty demand or market speculation lay behind crude's drive to record
The G7 gathering comes ahead of weekend meetings of the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Ministers are seeking energy market transparency to discover
if world oil supplies may be scantier than they thought in May when they
urged producers to open the spigots.
Another G7 official suggested the rise in oil costs was rooted
in such fundamental factors as over-estimated supplies and was not solely
due to speculation.
There is "a recognition that oil resources are scarcer
than was thought a few years ago," the official said. "We agree
there is a need for more transparency on the potential supply of various
Ruppert next segues into a rant of his own -- a rant that
may some day be regarded as the quintessential Ruppert diatribe. In just
a few short pages, he manages to squeeze in virtually all of his most acclaimed
rhetorical flourishes, including: ~ the arrogant self-importance - "We
were right and this can no longer be ignored. We did it." ~ the appearance
of Mike the Martyr - "a group of dedicated men and women, recognized
as being in the forefront of the movement to place Peak Oil front-and-center
on the world's agenda, have endured intense resistance ... I hope I speak
for all of us when I say that whatever we have endured, it was worth it."
~ the bombastic challenges - "Show us the oil! People are dying now
... Put up or shut up." ~ the bizarre delusions of grandeur - "I
do know that the world is paying very close attention to what I have written."
~ the deliberate misrepresentation of critic's arguments - "That's
what these 'critics' argued would happen when the time came: there would
be some magic switcheroo, and a new energy source would be unveiled."
~ and, the newest addition to his arsenal, the shameless hyping of his book
- "This book may change the outcome of the election."
While Ruppert celebrates his 'victory,' perhaps the rest of
us should pause here and consider exactly what it is that he is celebrating.
Just months ago, Ruppert called for the leaders of the world to meet and
discuss the implications of 'Peak Oil,' including the necessity of taking
"immediate steps to arrive at a crash program" for depopulating
the world. And now we have the global elite meeting behind closed doors
to discuss the implications of a phantom oil shortage, and those elite are,
Ruppert believes, "well into discussing 'options' which they don't
want the rest of us to know about." At stake, Ruppert notes, is "everyone's
chances for survival and, most importantly, the future of all the world's
And we are supposed to believe that this is somehow a positive
development? I don't think so. To the contrary, it would appear that the
call for 'transparency' is a signal that the puppeteers have control of
enough of the global chessboard to begin implementing the 'Peak Oil' scam.
They are not meeting behind closed doors to discuss how to contend with
a global oil shortage; they are meeting behind closed doors to discuss how
to manufacture a global oil shortage.
As I said earlier in this post, these people are deadly serious
about staging this apocalyptic scenario. And the stakes, for all of us,
are very high. Consider that, for many years now, concerted efforts have
been made to program our children to passively accept death as a mundane,
routine occurrence. Do not make the mistake of assuming that that is a phenomenon
unrelated to the 'Peak Oil' agenda.
Television, movies, and video games dwell relentlessly on
death, frequently violent death. Each and every year, the volume and intensity
of such propaganda is cranked up higher and higher. By the time our kids
reach adulthood, they have processed through their malleable minds thousands
of graphic images of death. Many of those deaths they may even have caused
themselves, as operators of graphically violent "first person"
computer and video games.
The next in the series of "Harry Potter" books -
promoted endlessly as the best thing to happen to children's books since
Dr. Seuss - will reportedly feature the death of one of the beloved characters.
One of the new features of the latest version of the wildly popular "Simms"
computer game is that the virtual characters that our children create to
populate their virtual worlds will now die virtual deaths.
Our high schools for some time now have offered students "death
education." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has noted that,
"For decades, schools around the world have used 'death education,'
a psychological experiment in which the children are made to discuss suicide,
what they would like placed in their coffins, and write their own epitaphs
in an effort to 'get kids more comfortable with death.'" (http://www.cchr.org/topics/educators/violence/)
Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld writes that "Death education has
been a part of the progressive curriculum in virtually every public school
in America for at least the last fifteen years. Yet no one in the establishment,
let alone the U.S. Department of Education, has sought to find out what
death education is doing to the minds and souls of the millions of children
who are subjected to it. But we do have plenty of anecdotal information
Why are our children being conditioned to accept death? How
thorough will this depopulation program be? How long will it take to shatter
all remaining social bonds -- to instill in the masses an "every man
for himself" mind set? How quickly will we collectively descend into
barbarism? If the masters of our collective illusion can convince us that
we live in a "kill or be killed" world, how much of the dirty
work of depopulation can they get us to do ourselves? What would we all
do to stay alive in a high stakes game of global Survivor?
The architects of 'Peak Oil' hope to find out soon.
(Permission is hereby granted for this material to be widely
distributed and reposted, in whole or in part, provided that the content
is not altered.)
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.