I find your articles debunking "peak oil" very interesting, however,
none of these articles seems to adress the issues of climate change
asociated with the massive use of combustion fuels (and other negative
aspects of petrochemical usage such as the inclusion of byproducts in
food, toxic decomposition of plastics left in landfill, toxic products
of incineration of plasics, damage to gaias chemical processes (eg
nitrogen cycle, not to mention carbon emmissions) caused by
petrochemical combustion, petrochemical pesticides etc.
So I am left questioning the point of these articles- apart from
that as free thinkers we would all like to see less restriction of
global resources by governments, banks, and multinational companies. On
the whole, the presentation of "peak oil" warnings by the mainstream
media (Peddlers of half cooked conspiracy theory and blatant
disinformation that they are) has had a number of positive effects.
These include a greater public interest in recycling, permaculture,
reducing individual energy consumption (surely one of our greatest tools
in altering the course of climte change and helping Gaia to keep planet
earth inhabitable for us, her onciousness) by such simple means as lift
sharing and turning off lights when not in a room. Greater research into
alternative energy sources has been generated - wind farming, geothermal
heating, solar showers etc- all fairly pleasant means of making our
lives easier which produce none of the harsh orgone that spills out of
nuke plants. Recycling, and the interest in reducing packaging, means
less plastic dirt to pack into those wounds in mother earth we call
landfill sites (or by the PC thought police, "waste management
parks"-see how they changed how the same reality felt?), which produce
easily as much negative energy as nuke plants (I know, having had
encounters with several- direct perception hurts near these).
Furthermore, most people now realise that the gulf wars were
something to do with oil profits, people are questioning the riddles
their governments spin them- does it much matter whether they think the
wars were fought to get the oil, or control its distribution? Its a
subtle difference, shouldnt we be pleased that more people are
Considering that your website criticises current pharmaceutical
medicine (with justification- my medical dictionary says that WHO have
no power, and that it is the World Bank that sets the health policies of
nations, the facts are out there), I'm surprised you dont mention that
most of the pharmaceuticals are synthesised from oil (at enourmous cost
and ecological impact) and that hospitals are one of the greatest
producors of petrochemical waste- all the disposible plastics items used
(apparently cheaper than sterilising tool and re-using them).
I'd appreciate if you could explain some of these omissions- they
seem rather obvious, but perhaps I'm missing the point?
Well yes, you are missing thepoint. I would have thought that the point of the Peak Oil articles was fairly obvious, but I'll clarify further: 'Peak Oil' is a disinformation operation designed to convince the world that we are rapidly running out of oil which therefore will result in higher prices for oil derived products, gasoline shortages, and OTHER limitations and restrictions that, we will be told, are necessary and justified because of the 'dwindling oil' supply. That's the 'point' of exposing the scam.
If you take the time to investigate, you will find that there is ample evidence of vast quantities of KNOWN oil reservoirs that make the Peal Oil fantasy look ludicrous by anyone's standard. Chaplin Lindsey Williams reported a little known item that he learned directly from American oil exectutives in the early 1970's. Namely, a small Island in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, called Gull Islandhas enough oil beneath its surface to meet ALL of the energy requirements of the e United States for the next200 years. That's a direct quote from a top oil company exectutive. And Gull Island is just one of many such unannounced and unreported oil deposits that are KNOWN and measured by oil companies.
Reporting the Peak OIl scam doesn't mean that I favor the continued dependence on oil, since there have been plenty of free energy technologies discovered in the past 118 years that could easily replace oil as an energy source. But of course free energy technologies are viciousl suppressed by oil interests. Even something as innocuous as an electric car, introduced in the early 90's by GM, was sabotaged and taken off line by GM after the Oil Boys got the Califonia legislature to water down their vehicles emmsions mandate. The one thousand or so people who got to lease GM's electric car (they wouldn't let you buy it) said that they loved it, noiseless, pollution free, good speed, etc.
Your 'omission' charge is inaccurate, since I've mentioned the fact that pharmaceuticals are manufactured from coal tars in numerous articles, often in my introductory remarks, as well as in the main body of my Forbidden Cures article: This sentence is taken from the third paragraph of that 1998 article:
"Abraham Flexner was engaged by John D. Rockefeller to run around the country and 'evaluate' the effectiveness of therapies taught in medical schools and other institutions of the healing arts. Rockefeller wanted to dominate control over petrolem, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals (which are derived from 'coal tars' or crude oil).".
The Peak Oil disinformation campaign is a stand alone issue. "Global Warming" or the other ecological issues you raise are separate topics which should be discussed on their own, but they should not be proffered to muddy the waters or deflate the importance of exposing the Peak Oil sham.
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.