Mike Ruppert is a stooge

by **human** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:36 pm

so maybe we should put the camel jockeys first in line for sterilization? better yet, lets just burn their children.

by **human** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:02 pm

^^^ sorry about that last post. frustrating. please shed the propaganda. weve all been ritually abused, or confused. the remark that they were running around riding camels & living in tents was racist and ignorant. it was a derogatory remark, as if European Oil interests civilized these nomad savages.... come on...... and thats the manipulatable part of the American conscience that should worry everyone about peak oil, the American knack for totally dehumanizing entire races, and once Rupperts crash plan is put into effect.... somebody will get to be the scapegoat. sorry for being harsh. its just serious business, and i think... well, i think i will just stfu. ive made my points. one human?

by **sparkinthedark** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:18 am

I was listening to Jeff's interview on the Vyzygoth site. Great interview! Vyzy has an interesting take on peak oil in his article "Peak Oil Scam". <a href="http://www.vyzygoth.com/Peak.pdf">www.vyzygoth.com/Peak.pdf</a> He says- "Well, first, understand that if the oil-oligarch branch of the globalists was telling the truth about the imminent end of black gold, it would have already created a monopoly controlling the next fuel source." When I read that I knew he was right. If these people are the evil, manipulative demons we all know they are, why would they just ignore their ultimate doom? I think this is the key truth that unlocks everything. Their actions don't match their words. Why is W speaking peak oil now and doing nothing to prepare the country? Because he knows it's good for oil companies bottom lines.

by **Starman** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:50 am

Like wind and solor and nuclear, as well as exhausting the world's remaining reserves, an amount approximately equal to the oil produced and consumed in the last 130 years? WHO do you think controls the biggest companies re: solar collectors, wind-turbines, nuclear plants, and oil refining-production? The oligarchs. DuH. The evidence here refuting the calculations of public oil trade and financial data which support the conclusions that Peak Oil is an extremely serious issue are little more than specious and entirely circumstantial, based on little more than 'If-then?' suppositions. Jeez -- What ever happened to the standards of critical thinking? Really, I don't think you understand what Peak Oil means at ALL -- The question you rephrase has absolutely NO corraboration. It's amazing the lengths folks will go to avoid coming to grips with the legacy of cheap, plentiful oil -- But then, numb denial is the majority position, so you're in pop-culture conformity with the US's major disinfo fairytale emphasizing continual growth as a way of 'spending' the nation out of its enormous, unprecedented trade deficit -- the very same PR Propaganda which has directly caused the death and suffering and impoverishment of many millions through wars, regime-change coups, election frauds, resource-conflicts, economic and environmental collapse, and other consequences of the US's irresponsible superpower ambitions leading to ruinous petrodollar-hegemonic foreign-policies -- and you STILL think the past 25-year validation of Hubbert's predictions based on rigorous analysis of oil reserves, supply and demand-trend figures is nothing but a MYTH??????? Are you entirely oblivious to the significance of the Bush Administration's popular decision to extend tex-credits for gas-guzzling 6000 lbs+ SUVs? MOST Americans are willingly oblivious or indifferent of what Peak Oil means -- They'd apparently rather cultivate the cool-chic 'What ME Worry?' look than come to terms with America's history of duplicity, irresponsibility and neocolonial pillaging; They've become numb and dumb, quite addicted to convenient comforts and well-practiced in finding security by nestling their heads deep into their well-stretched, much-filled colons ... But, whatever; Might as well enjoy your indulgences -- You've sure earned 'em.

by **human** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:22 pm

Starman. please address the "crash" program, and Mike Rupperts suggestions.

by **maggrwaggr** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:21 am

which means running around the desert on camels living in tents. No racism intended whatsoever. I live in LA. You can't be racist here, you'd be exhausted. (I'd give credit to the comedian who said that about LA but I can't remember his name)

by **Starman** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:00 pm

Human: Ruppert is NOT the only person who can --or has-- read oil industry and production/consumption reports to put 2 and 2 together, to realize the impending crisis of serious shortfalls in supplying oil to a world that has been made addicted to --and dependant on-- the convenient myth of relatively cheap and plentiful oil. In other words, the Peak Oil thesis is totally independant of Ruppert -- there are numerous scientists and experts in many fields who have read the data and come to the same conclusion. Besides, your apparant blanket criticism of Peak Oil = Eugenics is nothing but a strawman flunkie unsuitable for serious consideration. And anyway, why should I 'address' something you've only provided the most incidental, offhand reference to? I'm not going to do YOUR research!! The information supporting the trend of oil-resource depletion isn't based on anyone's ideas of how to prevent it (or postpone a final reckoning) -- Can't you see THAT? (Can I be blamed for concluding you can't debate because you don't even have a passing familiarity with how the scientific method works?) How silly. But, do you think it is somehow more ethical and moral for the world's peoples to do NOTHING about population pressures, than try to achieve a wise balance? Animal and even plant populations have their own natural population-control feedback mechanisms, to prevent many of the worst consequences of unregulated population increase. Humans, having far greater physical control over their environment and resources, aren't as subject to natural population-expansion limits, thus creating the conditions for crisis when the fact of unrelieved population demands cause breakdowns in the natural or social systems that humans depend on -- resulting in disease pandemics and the consequences of wars, famines, massacres, genocide, ecocide, democide, and other major life-threatening events (economic, political and environmental refugees, neocolonial exploitation, diversion of resources to war-making preparations, resulting pollution from war-making poison by-products, etc.) -- This should all be quite obvious and self-evident, and necessary for someone considering the moral issues of allowing disasters to occur versus taking pro-active steps to prevent such serious imbalaces from occurring in the first place. I think THIS issue is central to what your position boils down to -- even if you can't form a coherant and supported argument that CAN be rationally debated. The past twentieth century has seen unprecedented loss-of-life from deliberate human-caused violence or indirect causes, of more than an approx. 188 million (<a href="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm),">users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm),</a> all directly or indirectly linked to humankind's inability --or failure-- to come to terms with population pressures on resources, denoting the evident benefitl of self-regulating population-growth so that basic human needs are met responsibly and humanely, in order to prevent the kinds of severe imbalances and instability that lead to famines, wars, genocide, war-crimes and pandemics. It stumps me how ANYBODY can claim it is somehow better to do nothing than something, viz, your apparant obsession-fixation to criticize, oppose and condemn discussions and suggestions toward achieving regulated balance of population growth with critical resources and infrastructure. It takes a dedicated lack of awareness and attention to blithely disregard how much of the world's political and economic instabilities contributing to the horrible legacy of wars, low-intensity conflicts, strife and terrorism of the last 100 years are intimately tied to the west's quest for economic growth and hegemonic power fueled by cheap oil and credit expansion -- which in turn is tied to the US pushing the dollar as the world's trading currency. These three factors -- abundant cheap oil, credit debt and Federal reserve dollars-- are the basis for the US's ruinous, devastating Imperialist foreign policy that has contributed to enormous suffering and instabilities that have been exploited by military, political and corporate elites for wealth and power. It's impossible to seperate these factors from world events, as they're intricately part of the last century and have set the terms for the world we live in today. IMO, your reactionary opposition to the issue of population management is immensely flawed, abdicating the responsibility society should have to prevent natural and more-human-directly-caused catastrophes, thereby helping to cause the eventual consequences of humanity's inability to live on earth in balance. Do you really think it is morally 'better' for the world's biggest powers to continue their resource wars, including the US's four nuclear wars since 1991, having killed, seriously injured and caused dislocation and economic indenture of many hundreds of millions of people, including the gradual radiation/heavy metal-poisoning of the entire planet as part of the oligarch's agenda to profit-from and defer the consequences of oil depletion leading to an eventual supply-demand crisis? One thing that really strikes me is your facility to discount science and verified facts to suit your narrow conclusions, framing your criticism of Peak Oil's thesis --based on empirical evidence-- on the unargued and incredibly tenuous premise of an unsupported moral superiority. Essentially, you haven't even bothered to establish let alone support a position that can be argued and defended rationally. Your 'response' to abundant cited source data from a wide range of public records including trade, industry, academic and geologic publications, is (apparently) to simply deny them as evident fabrications. As far as I can gather, your 'position' is a) Theory of Peak Oil is a fraud by oligarchs (on behalf of the corporatocracy) to legitimize high prices and greater profits. b) Peak Oil is a fraud because it is used by extremists (ie, Ruppert) to legitimize Eugenics. As I've seen, your 'method' of debate is, when a) is rebutted by reasoned argument and cited evidence, you say (to paraphrase) 'the evidence is false, and anyway there's b), which is so terrible that Peak Oil MUST be false'; And when b) is pointed out as being a strawman that doesn't even bear on the data supporting Peak Oil, you simply revert to asserting your point a). I can't help but conclude you don't know the basic principles of debating an issue using reasoned argument and supporting evidence. There are numerous holes in your position that people have taken time and effort to point out which you haven't even acknowledged let alone begun to competantly address. So again -- Why should I give you the benefit of doubt and address something you claim is relevant to the issue (a claim I don't see any basis for, and which you haven't shown by any stretch of logic), when you've casually dismissed dozens of reasoned arguments backed-up by highly-credible evidence put-forth by me and others? I've extended the benefit-of-doubt to point-out what I see are big flaws in your 'method' of discussion-debate, which confounds opportunity for reasoned argument. "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century." <a href="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm">users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm</a> Umm, I respectfully suggest you might wish to check YOUR facts and become better informed as to what the past, current and likely future-consequences are of the west's seriously-flawed assumptions about its 'right' and obligation to assume increasing control of the world's oil resources in order to 'protect' its interests. I find your apparant moral outrage over the issue of managing population growth to be entirely misplaced and uninformed, evidently overlooking the far-greater horrors and misery that have resulted from society's complacency with war, famine, pandemics, genocide and similiar brutalities as defacto methods of population control imposed by circumstance. I believe you are sincere and well-intentioned, but for whatever reason you just can't look at the issues of Peak Oil and population pressure from a sufficiently wide, impartial and objective (detached) perspective to see clearly, or connect them to what's actually happening in the world today. Perhaps it's as 'simple' at having such a visceral reaction to the truly awful indications of what now is essentially inevitable, as the crisis is too far advanced to substantially prevent some of the worst from happening to much of the world's people. Living in the west, you have options which billions of the world's people don't have, to minimize some of the more horrible consequences caused by the enormous failure of our political and corporate leaders to act responsibly and humanely, in their allowing such an immense vulnerabilty to 'easy' and immensely profitable energy source. Essentially, our future has been squandered and 'stolen' by elites' concern for short-term advantage. While you and I might possibly agree on this you probably don't think it's all that significant. I actually hope you're right -- but I can't suspend reason to put my faith in a fairytale happy-ending. Too much Karma and blowback and all that. Starman

by **heath7** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:41 pm

Starman, you still haven't explained how it is that you know all about everything oil. -Still trillions of barrels in the ground... fact! -you don't know everything there is to know about sucking it out of the ground- fact! So why do you continue to behave as if you have a more reliable perspective on this issue? I don't doubt that you're well versed on Peak Oil, but you can't see the nose on your face. If anybody is tied down by what they believe, its you; you are only hearing what you want to hear.

by **human** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:08 pm

Human: Ruppert is NOT the only person who can --or has-- read oil industry and production/consumption reports to put 2 and 2 together, to realize the impending crisis of serious shortfalls in supplying oil to a world that has been made addicted to --and dependant on-- the convenient myth of relatively cheap and plentiful oil. In other words, the Peak Oil thesis is totally independant of Ruppert -- there are numerous scientists and experts in many fields who have read the data and come to the same conclusion. Besides, your apparant blanket criticism of Peak Oil = Eugenics is nothing but a strawman flunkie unsuitable for serious consideration. 2+2=5 And anyway, why should I 'address' something you've only provided the most incidental, offhand reference to? I'm not going to do YOUR research!! The information supporting the trend of oil-resource depletion isn't based on anyone's ideas of how to prevent it (or postpone a final reckoning) -- Can't you see THAT? (Can I be blamed for concluding you can't debate because you don't even have a passing familiarity with how the scientific method works?) How silly. okay, title of thread... "Mike Ruppert is a stooge" you CAN be blamed for being a dick. passing familiarity with scientific method? i invented it for all you know... its like saying, "Dont criticize the Catholic Church if youve never been to mass" , how do you say, unsuitable for serious consideration... But, do you think it is somehow more ethical and moral for the world's peoples to do NOTHING about population pressures, than try to achieve a wise balance? Animal and even plant populations have their own natural population-control feedback mechanisms, to prevent many of the worst consequences of unregulated population increase. Humans, having far greater physical control over their environment and resources, aren't as subject to natural population-expansion limits, thus creating the conditions for crisis when the fact of unrelieved population demands cause breakdowns in the natural or social systems that humans depend on -- resulting in disease pandemics and the consequences of wars, famines, massacres, genocide, ecocide, democide, and other major life-threatening events (economic, political and environmental refugees, neocolonial exploitation, diversion of resources to war-making preparations, resulting pollution from war-making poison by-products, etc.) -- This should all be quite obvious and self-evident, and necessary for someone considering the moral issues of allowing disasters to occur versus taking pro-active steps to prevent such serious imbalaces from occurring in the first place. I think THIS issue is central to what your position boils down to -- even if you can't form a coherant and supported argument that CAN be rationally debated. so essentially what you are saying is that rather than wars, famines etc.. there should be scientific population reduction, which is what Eugenics is... The past twentieth century has seen unprecedented loss-of-life from deliberate human-caused violence or indirect causes, of more than an approx. 188 million (users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm), all directly or indirectly linked to humankind's inability --or failure-- to come to terms with population pressures on resources, denoting the evident benefitl of self-regulating population-growth so that basic human needs are met responsibly and humanely, in order to prevent the kinds of severe imbalances and instability that lead to famines, wars, genocide, war-crimes and pandemics. It stumps me how ANYBODY can claim it is somehow better to do nothing than something, viz, your apparant obsession-fixation to criticize, oppose and condemn discussions and suggestions toward achieving regulated balance of population growth with critical resources and infrastructure. lol. acheiving regulated balance of population growth? dangerous shit. It takes a dedicated lack of awareness and attention to blithely disregard how much of the world's political and economic instabilities contributing to the horrible legacy of wars, low-intensity conflicts, strife and terrorism of the last 100 years are intimately tied to the west's quest for economic growth and hegemonic power fueled by cheap oil and credit expansion -- which in turn is tied to the US pushing the dollar as the world's trading currency. These three factors -- abundant cheap oil, credit debt and Federal reserve dollars-- are the basis for the US's ruinous, devastating Imperialist foreign policy that has contributed to enormous suffering and instabilities that have been exploited by military, political and corporate elites for wealth and power. It's impossible to seperate these factors from world events, as they're intricately part of the last century and have set the terms for the world we live in today. those three factors? last hundred years? you must be kidding. tell that to the Native Americans peoples, black African slaves... this country has since day one been all about imperialism, war & genocide. and this whole peak oil BS is nothing new. IMO, your reactionary opposition to the issue of population management is immensely flawed, abdicating the responsibility society should have to prevent natural and more-human-directly-caused catastrophes, thereby helping to cause the eventual consequences of humanity's inability to live on earth in balance. really? this is classic take what im saying, and for no reason reverse it & throw it back at me. Do you really think it is morally 'better' for the world's biggest powers to continue their resource wars, including the US's four nuclear wars since 1991, having killed, seriously injured and caused dislocation and economic indenture of many hundreds of millions of people, including the gradual radiation/heavy metal-poisoning of the entire planet as part of the oligarch's agenda to profit-from and defer the consequences of oil depletion leading to an eventual supply-demand crisis? what? i bet you voted. One thing that really strikes me is your facility to discount science and verified facts to suit your narrow conclusions, framing your criticism of Peak Oil's thesis --based on empirical evidence-- on the unargued and incredibly tenuous premise of an unsupported moral superiority. Essentially, you haven't even bothered to establish let alone support a position that can be argued and defended rationally. Your 'response' to abundant cited source data from a wide range of public records including trade, industry, academic and geologic publications, is (apparently) to simply deny them as evident fabrications. As far as I can gather, your 'position' is a) Theory of Peak Oil is a fraud by oligarchs (on behalf of the corporatocracy) to legitimize high prices and greater profits. b) Peak Oil is a fraud because it is used by extremists (ie, Ruppert) to legitimize Eugenics. hmm, seems to me like you make big long posts and you think it proves you smart. i never said shit about high prices. or profits. thats all illusion. what i think, is that there is a small group of twisted fuckers who feed off fear & death & misery. psychic vampires with no honor, like i said before. As I've seen, your 'method' of debate is, when a) is rebutted by reasoned argument and cited evidence, you say (to paraphrase) 'the evidence is false, and anyway there's b), which is so terrible that Peak Oil MUST be false'; And when b) is pointed out as being a strawman that doesn't even bear on the data supporting Peak Oil, you simply revert to asserting your point a). huh? this is just i guess where me and you have different outlooks on reality, life, the universe and such...... now that ive said that, im gonna just end my comeback... you are posting at me with all kinds of nonsense. the stuff you are saying im saying is either NOT what im saying, or some twisted misunderstanding... or, quite frankily, you are doing that on purpose. if you dont want to make clear your opinion on Mike Rupperts position....whats YOUR position? do YOU believe in Eugenics?

by **fool on the swill** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:38 pm

"what i think, is that there is a small group of twisted fuckers who feed off fear & death & misery. psychic vampires with no honor, like i said before." if only PO were the mendacious machinations of a small group, it would make possible the toppling their house of cards. asking the question, if oil is not in danger of both decline and scarcity, what would be the reason to proffer that scenario, you reply PO=E. do you accept that oil, nay really the panoply of substances described as petroleum, is what makes modern life possible? would not the vampires be better served by continuing the status quo, thereby insuring a constantly expanding population by which their pockets can be lined and further supplying a vast source for psychic sucking? the math of PO=E only works if PO is fact, hence the need to shed some of the population to levels where the source for trickle up economics and victim supply can be sustained.

Mike Ruppert is a stooge

locigally

sorry

Vyzygoth's take on peak oil

re: Oligarch's controlling 'next' fuel source ...

fact check.

racist? They were nomads

Say WHAT??? Check facts... right.

Re: Say WHAT??? Check facts... right.

dude, long post = proof? lol

PO=E only if PO is ture

Who is online