* David McGowan : Beware the ‘Peak Oil’ Agenda *


Richard Moore

Thanks to Max Grudzien for bringing this material to my

David McGowan presents us here with not only an impressive
critique of the peak-oil phenomenon, but an unusually broad
and well thought-out perspective on the state of the world

I think you will notice parallels here, between McGowan's
views, and my own "Apocalypse' article. There are also some
significant differences, but those are irrelevant to most of
McGowan's main points, which I do agree with.

This is a very important article, and I hope you folks help
spread it around.



The Center for an Informed America 

October 12, 2004 

Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda 
David McGowan

[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

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 (
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 guard over?

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
oil infrastructure.

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.

(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html )
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.)

    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
    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 much
    longer ."

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

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

    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

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

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 the industry. 
(http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=92871&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=27194 )

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 barrels.
    id_nota=6110&tabla=miami )

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 its existence.
(http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=15958 )

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 we?

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 these days.

[For more on oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and various other
issues directly related to the 'Peak Oil' debate, see:
http://www.pnl.gov/er_news/08_95/ER_News/oil1.kb.html ]

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. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm )

The $182.00/barrel figure was provided by Matthew 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.

Nevertheless, the Peakers just adore Mr. Simmons, who was
described by Michael Ruppert as "the de facto star of the
[Peak Oil conference]." 'Peak Oil' pitchmen just love to quote
Simmons, says Ruppert, "because his voice is refreshing." 
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html )

Simmons 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?
(www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf )

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

    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 it?
    [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 stooges?

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

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.
    (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml )

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!
shtml )

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 levels ...
    The G7 gathering comes ahead of weekend meetings of the
    International Monetary Fund and World Bank Š
    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 spigotsŠ
    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 areas."

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

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 children."

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 on hand."
(http://www.ritalindeath.com/blumenfeld31.htm )

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.


"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"

List archives:

Subscribe to low-traffic list: