Ruppert

by **Dreams End** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:35 pm

Geez, I'm sure I've bitten off more than I can chew with you two! Both very intelligent, wellspoken debaters, and one of you named Wolf Pauli at that! Second, let's back up and say that, Starman, I don't disagree with your analysis of the mess we are in. Oil and the profits therefrom have done some bad stuff. I'm not as convinced we are running out at this moment, and in fact I'm more inclined to view any crash programs we need to have more to do with climate change, which, in itself would involve moving away from oil. But you see, it's Ruppert I don't trust, not your analysis. I accept that the world is in a mess and that the elites have nothing in mind for our future that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. But I'm a bit of a skeptic, especially about people who profit from end of the world scenarios. I just had a look at his site again and his subscribers are up to 20,000. AT 35 bucks a pop...well, maybe I'm just jealous I didn't think of it first. This does not include speakers fees or merchandise and book sales, by the way, nor any 1000 dollar fees he may have collected from ludicrous debate proposals such as to McGowan in the post above. (click on the Mcgowan link...I didn't post the whole letter.) I also got more concerned about the guy when he absolutely lambasted any of us who dared to suggest that Gary Webb may have been murdered rather than having committed suicide, despite the facts that: 1. Webb broke the story about CIA drug running into the US to fund nasty activities in Central America (huge attempts to discredit him, but his story basically stands.) 2. One of his primary sources said he'd just spoken to Webb and Webb had seen suspicious people around his house (actually ON his house if I remember) and 3. Webb was shot TWICE in the head. Now I know none of that PROVES anything, but it seems reasonable that one might entertain the idea of an assassination. Ruppert was extremely adament that anyone who thought this, however, was a fool (not his words...a summary. He doesn't have a search function on his site, so I'm finding what I can.) Ruppert also had an article dismissing the importance of physical evidence in the 9/11 attacks. He said something along the lines of "we never got anywhere with physical evidence on the Kennedy assassination so it won't help here, either. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is the past experience issue that is so diligently ignored by those newly awakened voices of opposition who expend needless energy debating whether explosives were placed in the towers, whether the planes were remote controlled, whether an airliner really hit the Pentagon, or whether maybe Congress will actually do something about any of it. These debates are worse than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They are expediting the demise of people who could otherwise be constructing life rafts. The proof already exists that the government lied.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html">www.fromthewilderness.com...nnedy.html</a> So this makes me question a little. Recently he posted (I'm sorry I can't put my fingers on the link, but I'm sure I'm correct.) that 9/11 was over. A dead issue. We need to move on. He doesn't even have a 9/11 section on his website. All the sections are under the label "Since 9/11" That's interesting, because many of his detractors have said that Peak Oil is a sideshow to divert from 9/11. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that those in the shadows would have followers "co-opt" movements which challenge their interests. In fact, it happens all the time. In the article on physical evidence he opines: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The truth is that the real story - the only story -- is Peak Oil and Gas, and that 9/11 was its first visible manifestation. I fight to expose Peak Oil in part by exposing 9/11 in a way that registers in the public consciousness. That is my obligation to my readers and - as I see it - to my fellow man.<hr></blockquote> And the way his followers are so adament about him, and the way they (or he, himself) go on the attack if someone dares to criticize (I do not include either of you in this category...but read the McGowan diatribe...and that's not the only such incident I'm aware of) reminded me of others. Let me digress for a sec about two such folks that will require their own thread if we aren't in agreement about them! One is Lyndon Larouche. Now, I'm not saying Ruppert is a Larouche. But there are similarities. First off, both provide a lot of good information. In Larouche's case, it often gets some ill-supported conspiracy stuff added on and I tend to take the Executive Intelligence Review with a grain of salt. In fact, Larouche at one point had such a good network of intelligence, he was selling it to the Reagan administration. Larouche also has adopted many different political stripes. Started communist, then decided to beat up all the New York commies during his "Operation Mop-up" (I know people who were there at the time) then went all out fascist...then to supporting Reagan and now to being a perennial candidate for President (I think he runs in the Democratic primaries.) Also convicted of credit card fraud, but I can't say for sure that was not a frame-up. And stories from INSIDE his organization and the techniques he used to keep followers in line...well, we won't go there as I'm certainly NOT putting Ruppert in that category. There's also Fred Newman, whom you may never have heard of. He worked briefly with Larouche then split off and formed what became the "New Alliance Party". You may be familiar with NAP's very visible presidential candidate Lenora Fulani, a wellspoken, African-American who manages to get on all 50 state ballots as an independent. Neat trick. One way they managed this trick was by infiltrating and taking over already existing independent parties. For example, the Peace and Freedom Party in California was a victim of this. NAP bused in their followers from New York to the party convention and tried to vote their own people to be candidates. It got so confusing that the real PandF folks left and had their own convention (or vice versa) and it took the Secretary of State to decide who the actual candidates were! Oh, yeah, and they took over the Reform Party after that. Now I'm no big fan of Ross Perot, but many of his followers were sincere in their desire for change. How convenient that NAP took over. So then you had the odd sight of Fulani, erstwhile progressive and still African American woman working alongside Patrick Buchanan. Here in Nashville, the Reform Party had a convention. I remember seeing the footage on our local news but the sound was turned down. I saw people shouting and walking out. I knew what was going on...Newman (always behind the scenes) and Fulani had taken over the party, and as a result, it was pretty much destroyed. Now why do I go into these events? Well, first, I've clearly realized that I cannot outparse Herr Pauli. He's parsed rings around me (though I have a few more specific responses.) But secondly, the whole Ruppert phenomenon strikes me as pretty much a similar deal, without (I hope!) the coercive, cult-like tactics that the other two groups have employed. Now, onto a few remarks. Let's make this real simple and unparseable, if that's a word. Let's take the phrase "ethical program of population reduction." Wolf, you gave a reasonable suggestion that even a reduction in population growth might have some positive effects within a generation. My point is this: Ruppert wants population REDUCTION. Sure, he wants some vague group of spiritual leaders and philosophers to come up with the plan (like who, the Pope?) but neither of you has addressed his call for population reduction. Not a slow down of population growth...in fact he calls very specifically for a stop to population growth and then population reduction. He says, even though neither of you seem to ask, with me, why, that this will be "painful" for humanity. Clearly, neither of you is coming up with examples which sound particularly painful to humanity. So what's ole Ruppert thinkin about? Speaking of painful, here's something else he says will be painful. And I hate to disappoint you, Starman, because your analysis of the role of standard of living on population growth is correct, in my view. But Ruppert calls for: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It would also include arrival at a painful, but absolutely necessary, plan to implement a global program of “contraction and convergence” whereby consumption, rampant economic growth based on globalization, and corrupt economic practices is reversed in favor of a planned and executed program intended to reduce the size of a world economy which is inherently linked to the consumption of hydrocarbon energy.<hr></blockquote> Now, no capitalist I, I realize that much of what counts for "economic growth" these days is nonproductive growth that does little for average folks. Nevertheless, a global program of "contraction and convergence (I don't know what he means by convergence)" and a reduction in the size of the world economy sounds painful (to use Ruppert's favorite word to describe his own programs) to me, and more likely painful to those already at the bottom of the economic ladder as all such economic contractions always are. I don't think we can hold out hope for standard of living rises for these folks. Keep in mind, that reducing the role of "corrupt economic practices" sounds great to me. That's not the issue. The issue is, Ruppert suggests a group get together (not him, you understand...we'll all vote on who our reps should be, like we voted for Bush, I suppose) and "contract" the world economy and reduce the world's population. Wait a second...let's check with Jeff's friend Maurice to see how he likes this idea...hang on: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists - they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can't close. The rich countries...?<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/04/some-people-call-me-maurice.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...urice.html</a> There are differences here, I recognize. For one, Ruppert once to somehow democratically elect the representatives who run the world and contract the economy and population while Maurice posits a secret society (that probably already exists anyway). I guess I'm not such a believer in elections anymore. But I'm sure they'll be fair...in every country on the planet and that the leaders will be wise and not somehow compromised by the elites either by money or pictures of them molesting little kids and they'll come up with the most ethical way to reduce the population and shrink the economy. Or maybe the whole thing gets manipulated by the elites as was the plan in the first place. Oh, and about the timing. Well, first off, Ruppert posits that the "cliff event" in oil production (he doesn't explain what that is, but you can read the article to see if my assumption that it's cliff as in "over a...") is in 2007. I think any programs we come up with will need to be "crash" in nature, no matter how you parse it! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>These three facts alone dictate a global mêlée over oil and that is in fact what is happening. It seems clear now that the world's major oil consuming nations have decided to position themselves to control as much oil as possible before the now certain 2007 cliff event. The first fact underscores a point FTW has been making for years now. Even if Peak Oil was some fabrication (hard to believe at this point), the world is behaving as though it were quite real and imminent. The fact that there is virtually no exploration or refinery construction means that the majors understand clearly that there is no more significant oil to find and their investments would never be paid off.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012505_ftw_maps.shtml">www.fromthewilderness.com...maps.shtml</a> And I now realize why I never see him discussing alternatives to oil. Well, naturally, if we only have 2 years, then there's no point. But beyond that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>After answering all nine questions (about different alternative energy sources), you will see - from a scientific place, rather than an emotional one - that there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html">www.fromthewilderness.com...tions.html</a> There are four possibilities about Ruppert. 1. He's sincere and simply thinks Peak Oil is coming to destroy the world and no energy alternatives can forestall this. He sincerely believes peak oil is the "only issue" and is doing his best to warn all of humanity. And it has nothing to do with selling subscriptions, books and kits on how to invest in gold to get you thru the troubled times to come (I shit you not, worldwide collapse is imminent, so buy gold. <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/new_prods.shtml#mrog.)">www.fromthewilderness.com...tml#mrog.)</a> (Side note. Here's a little snafu I just noticed. Just below Mikey's helpful CD on how to invest in gold is another investment guide by Catherine Fitts, a contributor to his site. Here's the description: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This lecture with audience Q&A provides a balanced approach to coping with such threats as the falling US dollar, economic warfare, and market manipulation.<hr></blockquote> Now, here's a little quiz. What imminent threat, written about exclusively on a website she writes for and which is bound to cause economic collapse in as little as two years did she leave out of her list? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "seek oil". I guess even SHE doesn't take it that seriously.) 2. He blundered onto a way to make some good money and get some notoriety. 3. He's a shill for oil interests who want to create the illusion of lack of supply so they can justify higher prices. 4. The elites actually want to manipulate a financial collapse ala Maurice and Ruppert, knowingly or not, has been tasked to soften us up for the possibility. His scenario provokes a feeling of helplessness and imminent doom, two states of mind that lead to inaction in the masses. Good god, I rambled on. Sorry. I do NOT expect anyone to try to reply to all this mess. Really just thinking out loud. But I'm enjoying the debate, so reply if you want.

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:04 am

But you ramble so well, Dreams End. <a href="http://www.whale.to/b/ruppert1.html">www.whale.to/b/ruppert1.html</a>

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:33 am

I wish I knew the timing a bit better. Ruppert got accused of jumping on Webb's expose. Webb does all this hard work but Ruppert jumps up on TV about cia crack in South Central. I thought he was going to say that he'd run into info about his on his beat. But no, it was from a mysterious CIA woman he met...not unusual as he was from a CIA family. The CIA had even tried to recruit him, he says (all this in first paragraph.) The whole CIA woman thing was really odd. At the very least she may have been manipulating him...or she was his handler...or he made it up. Who knows? thanks for the link...still reading it.

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:48 am

where I saw Ruppert saying that he had been forced to live on the street at one time. Not that it matters, really.

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:24 am

I was just checking through my Webb file for that bit on Rupert, came across a piece I had forgotten about on Bonacci. I will post it on the Bonacci thread.

by **wolf pauli** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:56 am

Wolf, you gave a reasonable suggestion that even a reduction in population growth might have some positive effects within a generation. My point is this: Ruppert wants population REDUCTION. Let's consider three scenarios: The rate of population growth slows to the point where (1) birth rate > mortality rate by n per year (2) birth rate = mortality rate (3) birth rate < mortality rate by n per year For simplicity, we assume both n and the mortality rate to be constant over time; they could just as well be variable but we'll ignore that. Now, you make heavy weather of the difference between the three scenarios. Why? Suppose n = 1. Then scenarios (1) and (2) differ by one birth worldwide per year, as do scenarios (2) and (3). Care much about that? Well, it's the difference between (1) population growth, (2) zero population growth, and (3) population reduction. Now consider the difference between n = 1 and, say, n = 10,000,000. A difference that ought to weigh more heavily with us by quite a few orders of magnitude, yes? Run the two figures successively in scenario (1), however, and you're looking at the difference between population growth and (... drum roll ...) population growth. Moral: What matters isn't the difference between lowering population growth, zero population growth, and population reduction. What matters is how much, how fast, and by what methods. As to methods, you write: [Ruppert] says, even though neither of you seem to ask, with me, why, that this will be "painful" for humanity. Clearly, neither of you is coming up with examples which sound particularly painful to humanity. So what's ole Ruppert thinkin about? First you want painless, now you want painful? You can have both at once: voluntary birth control through incentives, with Dreams End to lead a delegation to Vatican City to seal the deal.

by **glooperoo** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:42 am

First off, Nice rant Starman! We really do have to look at the kind of predatory capitalistic system that appears to have been created for the benefit of the power elites, and figure out how to turn it back into a hopefully fair and just, and hopefully not very corrupt regular market economy. Sort of like the kind we think we have now, except without the utter insanity. And that's insanity that's had a lot to do with lowering the quality of life of countless people throughout the world, especially the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576753018/qid=1120975190/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-8029429-3329736?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">developing world</a> and one of the reasons we probably do face the kind of mass sacrifice Ruppert refers to. We have to admit that we can be fooled by whoever is running the show, at this point in our history, and that our mainstream common wisdom of just how the world works needs to be re-examined. We need to determine where we are and where we're heading, because even if any of the major reality bombs goes off (<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/6/11/202140/179/29#29">9/11 Truth</a>, <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/04/noreen-gosch-if-this-is-it-were-in.html">the elite pedophile underground</a>, the general behind-the-curtain state of affairs in ultra elite circles, etc), and the public finally wakes up (and most likely freaks out), we had better be able to calmly and rationally talk about just what sacrifices might be in order to avert whatever catastrophes we are heading towards or currently experiencing. Yeah, there are probably plenty of synthetic catastrophes, but when the world is this crazy, there are a lot of real ones too. Humanitarian, environmental, social, it's bad news for a lot of people these days in a lot of places. I totally agree with Starman and Ruppert: Extreme measures just might be in order. Not batshit crazy extreme measures that kill a bunch of people and not any that end up consolidating power in some batshit crazy power elite death cult or whatever the fuck it is. Just whatever sacrifices are required to overcome whatever the challenges are that we'll face at that historic point. I suspect there will be quite of number of necessary sacrifices, but we'll always need to have some sort of "lets make a new golden age" attitude, because there's going to be a lot of rebuilding once everything falls apart and we're going to be building a new age no matter what. Whether it's golden or shit, it's going to be a new age. Let's just make sure it's not a New World Order Age. That would suck. Future generations might be a bit peaved. But common sacrifice is in order. We have a Herculean task ahead of us: if somehow the matrix is broken, we still need to rebuild our shattered reality, globally. Ending the reign of the Globalist will be a global task. They gotten their paws in just about every economic and political system around the world to one degree or another. People all over are part of their empire, and they're going to be experiencing some disruption of the status quo should the shit in the fan. Our job is to experience a period of Truth and Reconciliation, heal our system of government in what whatever way we can wherever necessary, and have a period of real, substantive, and most especially humble debate and discussion about where we are where we are heading. Then we need to somehow psychologically absorb all that and hold elections (There will no doubt be a number of pols that go down in flames), using whatever open-minded, honest individuals and organizations (and maybe even those insiders that are looking to redeems themselves for past transgressions or whatever) we can find that will participate in openly and honestly and effectively assisting in learning WTF has been actually going on. Oh, and we need to do all that while experiencing not just an historic level of political and social turmoil due to the unimaginable number of outlandish and horrific revelations, but we need to do it while the house of cards economic regime (that sure looks like it's being set up for a crash), collapses around us and spreads probably throughout most of the globe. At least in the short term. The elites may not be able to pull their little stunts off much longer without getting exposed, but they did a damn fine job of profiting of the destruction of our economy. Things could get ugly. We appear to be a world running towards the cliff at top speed, and we need to find a way to slow down and avoid a nasty tumble. And if we can do that we need to turn around and figure out how to scale the mountain of despair that's left in the wake of humanity's historic path. We really done fucked up. Like, on the kind of scale that just might be talked about millennia from now regardless of what happens. There is just no good reason for the amount of suffering, human and animal and quite often quite avoidable, that is experienced in our modern world and it's fixin' to get worse. I think it's actually possible for us to make it through that kind of turbulent period without just imploding. We're a resilient society when we're not being horribly mislead. It's really up to "Them", and whether or not they really will destroy everything before they transfer power and just give up the madness. I'm also actually pretty concerned about the number of innocent (to varying degrees) people that will be tarred and feathered and unjustly treated in what could end up being a finger pointing cluster fuck if somehow the reality curtains got pulled back. A lot of people simply worked in a really corrupting system. There are going to be A LOT of scapegoats dangled out in from of a justifiably irate public around the globe. If the "elites" get exposed, we ("we" being humanity) really should try to start off what should be a period of global healing by living up to a higher set ideals than we have been quietly led by up to now. It shouldn't be too hard to find those ideals. Just about any major religions contains them (Honesty, kindness, empathy, all that fun stuff). We just better not freak out and destroy anyone labeled an "elite". Because it's just so fucked up a situation that we're in that I could easily imagine a scenario like that. And that would suck. What we are facing is too big and too important for that kind of behavior. It's an historic opportunity to start playing nice with eachother for once, or at least tried, and it would be a shame if we just sort of passed that opportunity up without even trying. Yes, I'm getting quite ahead of myself, but I do think it's important that we all start pondering just wtf we would do if reality crumbled around people and all this crazy shit got exposed. That's a big deal! We need to start visualizing Big Picture solutions, or possible national game plans, about how we get from where we are to where we need to be. Exposing these guys is just the first step in what will no doubt be a marathon.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Moral: What matters isn't the difference between lowering population growth, zero population growth, and population reduction. What matters is how much, how fast, and by what methods.<hr></blockquote> Well, it matters to Ruppert. He specifically says zero population growth and then (at least planning) population reduction. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>(1) birth rate > mortality rate by n per year (2) birth rate = mortality rate (3) birth rate < mortality rate by n per year For simplicity, we assume both n and the mortality rate to be constant over time; they could just as well be variable but we'll ignore that. Now, you make heavy weather (I love that phrase) of the difference between the three scenarios. Why? Suppose n = 1. Then scenarios (1) and (2) differ by one birth worldwide per year, as do scenarios (2) and (3). Care much about that? Well, it's the difference between (1) population growth, (2) zero population growth, and (3) population reduction. Now consider the difference between n = 1 and, say, n = 10,000,000. A difference that ought to weigh more heavily with us by quite a few orders of magnitude, yes? Run the two figures successively in scenario (1), however, and you're looking at the difference between population growth and (... drum roll ...) population growth.<hr></blockquote> Actually for scenario 3, even n=1 is a big deal. What sorts of measures would hold all people of the world to have only one child? What about in subsistence countries where children often don't survive too many years and more are needed to help the family survive? At least now you have stopped talking exclusively about a reduction in growth rate, which is never what Ruppert was suggesting in the first place. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>[Ruppert] says, even though neither of you seem to ask, with me, why, that this will be "painful" for humanity. Clearly, neither of you is coming up with examples which sound particularly painful to humanity. So what's ole Ruppert thinkin about?  First you want painless, now you want painful? You can have both at once: voluntary birth control through incentives, with Dreams End to lead a delegation to Vatican City to seal the deal. <hr></blockquote> Well, the joke about the Vatican does indicate how n=1 in scenario 3 presents problems that only some sort of international coercion could overcome. So I respectfully decline your offer! However I don't WANT painful. Please pay attention: 1. Ruppert wants population reduction. 2. At first, you and Starman provided examples of how a reduction in growth rate would be helpful. Great. Tell that to Ruppert. 3. Now you suggest that population reduction is no big deal (n=1 in scenario 3). 4. Ruppert disagrees with you. HE says that the measures for population reduction will be a painful choice for humanity. 5. If your example is not "painful" then it must not be the same thing as what Ruppert has in mind. I'm not sure why I can't make this clear. Now, please add to this that the "cliff event" in peak oil is going to happen, according to Ruppert, in 2007. What does n have to equal to make a difference in two years? I swear that another writer on his site was talking, seriously, about how cannibalism will result. Wait, I have to quote it. Gosh....it was hard to find. It's not Ruppert, but he posted it: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I did not ask you if you could live without food, because you can't. Not for long anyway. You can read my fasting treatise if you like, Culture Change Letter #92 April 8, 2005. Maybe the experience of a long fast will have an unexpected advantage, that of appearing sick and emaciated to those looking for fresh food in the form of human meat. There will be cannibalism for a few months at most, I figure, as the dust settles from petrocollapse. I am not supposed to say this, many readers say, even if it appears certain.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070105_world_stories.shtml">www.fromthewilderness.com...ries.shtml</a> So once again, here's my worry about MR 1. He has a big following. 2. He says some true stuff. 3. He says peak oil is the only issue. Forget about 9/11, stolen elections, etc. In fact, do NOTHING but work on Peak Oil. Don't even consider other elites, because the petro guys are the only elites. 4. He says collapse is imminent (within 2 years). 5. Alternative energy exploration is a waste of time. It will do no good. 6. We must select a group of representatives from all countries of the world to plan out a way to get population reduction and economic contraction. 7. I get nervous about a group of representatives from all countries planning out a way to get population reduction and economic contraction. 8. Elections don't work anymore, says Ruppert, (I agree) so it is unclear how these folks who will plan population reduction and economic contraction could be chosen. I have a feeling my input won't be that important. Nor the input of a farmer in Chiapas or kids picking scraps out of dumps in Bangladesh, nor the input of....you get the idea. There is simply no way that such a group could be chosen free of manipulation and control of the elites. None. 9. So if we accept his proposal, a small group, heavily influenced or outright controlled by elites or the wealthy, get to make these decisions. Great and my Illuminati membership expired last year. Damn. 10. So Ruppert's "analysis" discourages activism of any type but the peak oil variety, prepares us for an inevitable and imminent collapse that is unavoidable, and suggests a small world body (to be fair, he excludes Cheney and the neo-cons for membership in this body) to decide how to stop population growth (and that is on a "crash basis" we agree) and reduce population (which we parsed as not being on a crash basis though with a collapse only 2 years away, I'd say he expects the plans to be hurried along as well.) 11. He's making a good living for himself in the process. And the very insightful analyses by Starman and glooperoo do not affect my argument at all. My view is that Ruppert and others before him have latched onto some real information and analyses and are using that information for purposes of which I'm suspicious. If I'm right, we'll see Ruppertians actively attempting to disrupt any sorts of organizing that does not meet with his peak oil perspective. Time will tell, but that's the pattern. "Corner the market" on the correct perspective and then disrupt activities of those who don't share that perspective. I've seen it with Larouchians, certain hard left groups like the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party, who seem to have only one mission, to disrupt the organizing of other leftists. Even a friend of mine who is a Japanese Buddhist monk from the FBI told me, "I think they are FBI!"), pseudo left groups like the New Alliance Party, etc. Christic followers did some of the same stuff during organizing against Gulf War 1 when I was part of a coalition in Los Angeles. We'll see if the Ruppertians turn out the same way. He certainly goes on the verbal attack against critics...we've seen that already. And I STILL say someone with access to his book can get more details on what he actually has in mind. His presentation for his plan to deal with the collapse is admittedly sketchy but he simply says read his book for the full treatment. Once again, he'll help save the world, but only for a price. If someone reading this has the book, check out the sections on what we are supposed to do about all this mess and get back to us.

by **Harley** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:30 pm

Sorry to butt in, but...here's my two cents (currency negotiable). Peak oil and the political measures which seem likely arise there from sound kinda like "weapons of mass destruction". I grew up in fear of the nuclear apocalypse --- (a whole shit load) weapons of mass destruction. Nice way to numb the children. I know I loved it. Why doesn

by **wolf pauli** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:39 pm

Nashville, we've got a problem. And at this point I'm not sure I can help, because I'm unable to diagnose it. Actually for scenario 3, even n=1 is a big deal. Sure, yet somehow -- and I'm completely flummoxed as to why -- you seem not to grasp that exactly the same goes for scenarios 1 and 2. For example, in scenario 1, we're not talking about each family increasing by one member per year, we're talking about the entire planet increasing by one inhabitant per year. Surely you didn't think my example of n = 10,000,000 meant each family increases by 10,000,000 members per year. But then, just as surely, you must see that where n = 1, the difference between scenarios 1, 2 and 3 is a net gain of 1, a net gain of zero, and a net loss of 1 respectively for the entire planet. To take some specific numbers (invented, but not wildly wrong): suppose at this very moment world population stands at 6,500,000,000 people. Then, where n = 1, exactly a year from now the population would stand at 6,500,000,001 in scenario 1, 6,500,000,000 in scenario 2, and 6,499,999,999 in scenario 3. If you get the previous paragraph but still fail to take the moral, then I'm afraid our outlooks are so profoundly incommensurable as to render any further attempt at communication futile. Quite frankly, I'll be astonished if that turns out to be the case, but at least I'll be able to say I gave it my best shot. If you don't understand the previous paragraph, however, then maybe I can try again. In that case, it will help if you pinpoint for me exactly where you're having trouble.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:55 pm

I did interpret n as replacement rate. My bad. And of course, I thought the 10,000,000 or whatever was intentional hyperbole. (Actually, I done thought you was makin' fun of me) Sorry to have misread you. So are you suggesting that Ruppert wants the population reduced by 1? Of course not. That's indistinguishable from "stopping population growth". Actually, what ARE you saying? You agree he calls for population reduction? Or you don't? You think that's a good idea? Or you don't? Or you think he means to reduce the population by such a small number that it's not even an issue ( I understand "1" is hyperbole, now...not the ten mill.) But to be statistically different from a halt to population growth, don't you imagine that he had a somewhat higher number in mind? Otherwise, why even make the distinction? You are comfy with some international body making these decisions for all countries? Or you aren't? Or you don't think Ruppert was serious when he called for that? Honestly, I think we've somehow gotten lost in minutia here. Ruppert wants to reduce the population. He says this will be a painful choice for humanity. I don't know that reducing the population by 1 is that painful, so, again, I don't think that's what he had in mind (though a reduction of one at the end of some longer period of time means zero population growth, and that, in fact, could be painful for reasons I've outlined: necessity for coercion, natural inequalities in enforcement among differently privileged groups, etc.) It seems like people on this forum, of all such fora (forums?) would be wary of any plan to put any small group of people in charge of such an earth shattering agenda. This forum often assumes that a small group is ALREADY in charge of earth shattering agendas. I guess you are simply more trusting that the people who end up on this international body will somehow be free of the influence of that small group that USED to be in charge? I dunno. Ruppert says they would be "political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders". Well, does that mean the current such leaders who got us into this mess? The Pope and Alan Greenspan. Again, who knows? In any event, for what it's worth, I just wrote Ruppert and asked what he meant. I don't expect a response, but the email was calm in tone so I don't think it will piss him off. Still, you never know.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:45 am

If you guys have not read about Ruppert's story of the girlfriend who turned out to be a CIA agent who was involved with mafia types, it's a great read (surprised it's not a movie.) Here's part one: <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about_Mike_part_one.shtml">www.fromthewilderness.com..._one.shtml</a> This woman would "admit" to being an agent and then later on, deny it. She sounds a lot like a Candy Jones type manchurian candidate, but whatever the case, it is QUITE clear that either Ruppert is nuts, or else the intelligence community has REALLY done a number on him. I suppose it's possible that she was simply an agent who happened to fall in love with him, despite how her dealings for the CIA involving Mafia drug deals MIGHT present a problem while dating a cop, but I think something deeper was going on. Read the story. I'm not sure it supports or undermines my position on Ruppert, but I'd be interested to hear people's take on it.

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:14 pm

Ohmygosh! I just found this in a link from another thread here. Incredible! <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/#night">www.cbc.ca/sunday/#night</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>TOO MANY OF US? Tomorrow is World Population Day, as designated by the United Nations, and maybe you're feeling a bit crowded. In the seven days since our last program, the number of human beings on the planet has jumped by more than one-point-five million. In total, we've apparently exceeded six-point-five billion people, according to new research by the German Foundation for World Population. It suggests that humans are multiplying faster than we thought. Are the world's problems doomed to multiply in the same way?<hr></blockquote>

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:22 pm

......as for reading about him, these words come to mind: hyperbolic, exaggerated. Also, the question that popped in my mind as I was reading was, "How smart does one have to be to be the smartest cop in LAPD?" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

Ruppert

Ruppert

rambling

ruppert

Just trying to remember

Ohmygosh

Re: Ruppert

re:

Ruppert

Re: Ruppert

Re: Ruppert

My bad

Slighly OT

population explosion

As for Ruppert

Who is online