Moonshadow
Trouble in the water, trouble in the air
Go all the way to the other side of the world
You'll find trouble there - Bob Dylan
About a year and a half ago (here and here), I referred to Sun Myung Moon's purchase of 600,000 hectares of Paraguay's Chaco for the stated intention of erecting an "ecological paradise." Moon's land sits atop the Guarani Aquifer, the Earth's largest resource of fresh drinking water, and also happens to be an "enormously strategic point in both the narcotics and arms trades," according to Paraguay's drug czar from 1976-89. "The available intelligence clearly shows that the Moon sect is involved in both these enterprises."
Now, apparently, the Reverend is again keeping familiar company:
The Governor of Alto Paraguay, Erasmo Rodríguez Acosta has admitted to hearing that George Bush Sr. owns land in the Chaco region of Paraguay, in Paso de Patria. Acosta says that rumor has it that Bush owns near to 70 thousand hectares (173,000 acres) as part of an ecological reserve and/or ranch. However, the governor said he had no documents to prove the rumor. Acosta said that some stories credited the land to the Fundación Patria, which Bush would be a member of. The spokespeople of the organization were not available to comment. Supposedly, Timothy Towell , the U.S. Ambassador in Asunción (the capital of Paraguay) is the present administrator of the land. First accounts signaled that Bush had acquired 40,000 hectares (99,000 acres) in the Chaco zone of Fuerte Olimpo, near the Bolivian Border. A spark of the interest in this property may have been Jenna Bush's private visit to Paraguay with Unicef, which started Saturday, October 7, 2006. Supposedly Jenna will travel to the ranch to "observe" several indigenous villages are located on the property.
The original Oct 11 story from Paraguay, in Spanish, can be found here. There's a second story from Prensa Latina that identifies the purchaser as George W rather than George HW Bush, but the Chaco purchase strikes me as more likely an initiative of the father than of the son. Bush Sr, let's remember, tootled around Latin America in 1996 as Moon's lapdog and praised him in Buenos Aires as "the man with the vision." (Moon's foresight might have included blackmail, specifically the office of the then Vice President with the Craig Spence call boy scandal. Influence, by any means necessary.) Still, keeping Moon's company is a Bush family enterprise, as Neil accompanied the Reverend last year on his 100-day "global peace campaign."
Paraguay, of course, has been a recent source of alarm to the region for its allowance of its tri-border territory to become a US military beachhead. Now, with the reports of the Bush purchase of an "ecological reserve" alongside Moon's, we have good reason to suspect that US national security has again been seconded to the Bush family business.
posted by Jeff Wells at 10/16/2006 09:30:00 AM
91 Comments:
Nice post Mang!!
I think that the P.T.B. are grabbing Areas of Future Importance and as time goes by they are figuring out which ones to grab.
Mr.Fiji
Great post Jeff! People need to be aware of this. However, I sure would like to hear more about similar happenings 'North of the Border'.
The big land grab in Canada must be WELL under way.....
The question is, though, what *is* the Bush family business?
(I'm reminded of an S.J. Perelman piece involving a mad scientist and a gorilla that ends with the punchline, "Just what business is this guy in?" -- but never mind.)
This is not a frivolous question. If the Bush family business is merely "having a finger in anything that looks profitable," then there's no particular purpose in looking into it. But if it's something more focused, we ought to be trying to assemble the pieces and connect the dots -- if only for our own self-preservation.
And Jenna Bush just happens to be in Paraguay meeting with the President right now. A coincedence, to be sure.
If I were an oligarch, here at the sunset of the worldwide capitalist-industrial empire, with record profits flowing into my and my friends' coffers, I might look around the world for vast tracts of land, strategically placed with access to fresh water, where, after the collapse, I might set myself up as a local feudal lord to protect my dynasty's elite status for the future.
And if I already had historical ties to/involvement in the nexus of drugs, arms, money laundering, "Al Qaeda", and US military shenanigans in a place like Paraguay, where could be more convenient?
Perhaps the environmental interests the Moonies and Bushes profess in the area are convenient covers with a grain of truth at the core: establish "model cities" (ecotopias) as refuges for the elite, who will then have access to a local police force comprised of the drug and arms runners, "Al Qaeda" warriors, orphaned US military "advisors", and no doubt private mercenaries, who can then enforce the serfdom/slavery of the local populace.
having listened to this:
http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/03/more-able-danger-rep-curt-weldon.html
i wonder about this:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15772927.htm
Jeff? Anyone?
Wayne Madsen Reports:
October 16, 2006 -- WMR was the first to report on UN Secretary General-designate Ban Ki-moon's possible connections to the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, an enigmatic South Korean power broker and billionaire whose funding originally came from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA). Based on Ban's Friday press conference, his answers about his views of religion appear quite "Moonie-like." For example, Ban would not even answer a pointed question from the Financial Times whether or not he believed in God. Ban, who states in his biography that he is a member of a "non-denominational Korean Christian" sect, had an answer one might expect from a Moonie:
Question: "Do you believe in God? And to what degree does God or that religious belief inform your decisions?"
Answer: "Now, as Secretary-General, it will not be appropriate at this time to talk about my own belief in any particular religion or God. So maybe we will have some other time to talk about personal matters. Thank you."
Ban was asked another question about his views of religion and politics. Again, his answer was vague:
Question: "Many people who believe that the Enlightenment in Europe brought about reason against superstition are worried about the rise again of religion, especially extremist religion and its involvement in politics. I wonder if you could give us your views about politics and religion in the age we live in."
Answer: "Now, we have all differences of religions and ideologies. It is, I think, very much desirable, therefore, to engage in dialogue. We need to have a deeper understanding and appreciation for culture and history and ideology of the other, different cultures and the other side. That is why the United Nations has been holding many conferences and special meetings among the different cultures and interfaith dialogue. And, as the Secretary-General, I'll try always to encourage that kind of dialogue among different cultures."
The fact that the UN Secretary General feels it is the place of the UN to hold conferences of interfaith dialogue at the same time he refuses to say whether he believes in God is a worrisome sign. Interfaith dialogue has usually been the purview of the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Holy See, the World Council of Churches, and other international religious organizations.
Unification Church adherents believe Sun Myung Moon is their "god" and Sun Myung Moon has been working over the years to infiltrate the UN and he has already been successful in receiving UN non-governmental organization (NGO) recognition and consultative status for his front organizations: the Women's Federation for World Peace (Economic and Social Council - ECOSOC -recognition), the Family Federation for World Peace, and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (WANGO). In 2001, Moon held a mass wedding in a UN conference room and he is on record as stating, "our movement and the UN are completely connected."
Sun Myung Moon has close connections to the right-wing of the Republican Party, Jerry Falwell, and the Bush family. He has also infiltrated a number of UN missions, including those of Indonesia, Gambia, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Comoros, Iran, Mozambique, Tajikistan, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference. Although Sun Myung Moon has established many footholds inside the UN, the election of Ban Ki-moon as Secretary General may be his greatest prize.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
I wonder if the indiginous villagers will be comeing to "observe" Jenna in her native environs
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bljennawild.htm
I happen to know a relative of Mr. Moon. This person's parents won't talk about their Famous Cousin, or so I'm told. (Haven't met this person's parents) They consider him to be a con man of the worst sort.
that photoshop of Bush is an instant classic, by the way
glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I saw it
Shit....Jenna looks more like Mr. Moon's than GW's in that picture. The eyes are a dead give away.
Since there is a discrepency in which George Bush purchased the land AND a discrepency on the number of thousands of acres of land purchased, perhaps there are two tracts of land and each of them bought one.
Besides the obvious shadow power play behind supressing reports of global warming whilst buying up fresh water sources for the future, another use of all this land might be as a place to flee. With no stated plan regarding the coming sweep of both house and senate, and the likelihood of impeachment and indictment on the horizon, setting aside a place of refuge would seem an imminent and pressing need for the criminal soon to be exposed.
Slightly OT (but what is and what isn´t these days?)
Still wondering if some of these names are not fabricated. ie. Bush, Fox, Cli(n)ton, Dick, etc...and now...
Ban Ki Moon, next UN Sec. Gen.
What will ´Moon Ban´next?
...and...
Axis of Evo ¿ y Arroz
:)
The Ballad of Carlos Lehder
Carlos Lehder is not a Colombian legend. He is an American legend. It is America that created him. America that made him rich. America where he began his criminal life. America where he was imprisoned and America that, it now appears, has set him free. It is America's shame that Lehder's freedom, if established, and alleged employment by the U.S. Government, are hidden behind lies told, not by Lehder himself, but by the American government to its own people.
With a fondness for all things german,even nazism.
That would place him in the company of many of the elite.
...........
A base of operations
Carlos Lehder chased away the local population and began to assume total control of the island, Bahamian Prime Minister Lynden Pindling, believed to have taken massive amounts of money in bribes from Lehder and associates, did nothing. Norman's Cay became Lehder's lawless private fiefdom. By this time, George Jung had been forced out of the operation, and international criminal financier Robert Vesco had allegedly become a partner. Jung used his prior connections to take up a more modest line of independent smuggling for Escobar, and stayed out of Lehder's way.
From 1978 through 1982, the Cay was the Caribbean's main drug smuggling hub and a tropical hideaway and playground for Lehder and associates. Cocaine was flown in from Colombia by jet and then reloaded into the small aircraft that then distributed it to locations in Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas.
Lehder built a 3,300-foot runway protected by radar, bodyguards and Doberman attack dogs for the fleet of aircraft under his command. In the glory days of his operation, 300 kilograms of cocaine would arrive on the island every hour of every day, and Lehder's personal wealth mounted into the billions.
Who can you trust?
While other major Medellin players fled to the protection of Manuel Noriega in Panama and began plans to establish an even larger operation there, Lehder, distrusting Noriega, sought protection in Nicaragua, paying the Sandinista regime for the privilege.
Later, still a fugitive, Lehder re-entered Colombia and hid among leftist guerillas in the jungles of that country, even appearing briefly on television in 1985 to deliver a message that denounced American imperialism and extradition treaties, and played upon Colombian nationalist sentiment.
Lehder was captured in the jungle, and lost his fight against extradition. In 1987 (by which point his net worth was in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion), he was sent to the United States, where he was tried and sentenced to life without parole, plus an additional 135 years.
Information developing around the then pending Clinton impeachment had led me to suspect an alliance between the Medellin Cartel's genius of transportation and Arkansas' genius of money and political power, Bill Clinton.
In 1992, in exchange for Lehder's agreement to testify against Manuel Noriega, this was reduced to a total sentence of 55 years. Three years after that, Lehder wrote a letter of complaint to a Jacksonville federal district judge, complaining that the government had reneged on a deal to transfer him to a German prison. The letter was construed as a threat against the judge.
Vanishing Act
Within weeks of sending that letter in the fall of 1995, Lehder was whisked away into the night, according to several protected witnesses at the Mesa Unit in Arizona. While many believe he could have been released, others consider that this is not true.
According to journalist and author Tamara S. Inscoe-Johnson, who worked on the Lehder defense during the time in question, Lehder was simply transferred to another prison and has continued to be held in WITSEC, which is the Bureau of Prisons' version of the federal Witness Protection Program.
Inscoe-Johnson argues that she has confirmed that Lehder has not been released, despite Internet rumors to the contrary.
Carlos Lehder's ongoing legal battles confirm Lehder remains imprisoned in the US, and that he is not likely to be released anytime soon. On July 22, 2005 he appeared in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to contest his sentence. Lehder appeaered pro se, arguing that the United States failed to perform its obligations under a cooperation agreement he had entered into with the United States Attorney's Office, after he held up his end of the deal. (United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 136 Fed. Appx. 324; 2005).
wiki
..................................................
Money Trail
The extract attached to the e-mail described a suspicious relationship in 1987 between AIG, the Arkansas Development Financial Authority (ADFA) and Goldman Sachs, then headed by Rubin, to found an offshore (Barbados) reinsurance company named Coral Reinsurance. (Reinsurance is simply the insuring of one insurance company by another to spread risk).
According to a confidential Goldman Sachs stock placement memorandum dated December 1, 1987, which I have since obtained, Coral Re, as it is known, was founded by AIG. All potential investors, including the State of Arkansas' ADFA, were bound to return or destroy the memorandum if they did not participate. Coral Re was clearly an AIG progeny and ADFA has been voluminously linked to allegations of drug money laundering in the 1980s. Moreover, there are also longstanding published links, some confirmed by CIA documents, between drug smuggling, Barry Seal, the Contras and the Medellin Cartel. All of those links joined at the Mena (Arkansas) Regional Intermountain Airport.
Coral Talavera
In 1987 (when she was 23) -- the same year that Lehder was captured and would have begun hiding his assets -- Talavera had founded a "Bohemian" company called Capital Investment Group (CIG) with an initial capitalization of $10 million. By 1997 the estimated worth of CIG was listed as $132 million. In financial parlance a "Bohemian corporation" is a company founded by two parent companies, located in two different countries, in yet a third country. This is usually done for the purposes of avoiding regulation by tax or legal authorities. The first thing I had done after receipt of this document in the summer of 1999 was to ask my researcher to pull the files on Capital Investment Group at the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento and send them to me.
Among other things, the Treasury report says that Carlos Lehder was an employee of the Treasury and a free man.
In a number of e-mails, phone conversations and one face to face meeting Talavera consistently denied that she, her husband Carlos Lehder, or their good friend, fugitive financier Robert Vesco, had any connections of any kind to Coral Reinsurance. Notwithstanding that my investigation into that possible connection continues. If she is officially labeled as a fraud what then does one make of her denials about Coral Reinsurance? Of AIG as her confirmed employer? On June 12 she e-mailed, "Carlos is in no way, shape or form had/has anything to do with Coral Reinsurance and or AIG's involvement in same.
"Let me save you the next question. Robert Vesco had/has nothing to do with the above either. [I had never mentioned to her that I knew about Vesco.] Let me go one step further. No one that I know had/has anything to do with Coral Reinsurance and/or AIG's involvement in same.
Coral later agreed to meet me for lunch on Wednesday June 20, across the street from her San Francisco office. Before leaving for San Francisco I had occasion to speak to an AIG spokesman, Michael Murphy of Bermuda, said by many in the insurance business to be Hank Greenberg's right-hand man. To my question regarding Coral's status as the wife of Lehder Murphy responded, "I asked her the question whether that was her past and she said that she really preferred not to discuss her personal affairs in a company situation. I didn't want to pry into her life."
"I remember that I was introduced to her by Fourmy," says the retired DEA agent who has served in Peru and Central America. "She said, straight out, that she was engaged to Carlos Lehder.
I couldn't believe it! What was she doing here?
I asked her, 'What's Carlos doing now?' and she said, 'Oh, he's out of jail and selling drugs to the Russians for the CIA.'
"I mean it just knocked me for a loop. It scared me. And then the next day she was out by the pool. Patrick [Fourmy] was there. Joe Bosco was there. She came down and sat with us. She was quite open and she said that her company -- a company she owned that I later found out was Capital Investment Group -- was owned by five of the largest drug dealers in South America. She was very agitated at the government and she said that the government had contacted Carlos and told him to 'put that bitch on a leash.' That, said Castillo, was probably because of her openness in talking about the fact that Carlos was out of prison and her public appearances with Webb. I have confirmed that Baca made at least one other public appearance with Webb at a book signing in Los Angeles.
The relationship with Lehder (the employee) and Talavera (the subject) was at least 18 years old. She breathed a sigh of relief to read the information showing Capital Investment Group having been founded by her in 1987 and agreed with the statement that she and Lehder were the only shareholders. An entry indicating that in 1995 she had been instrumental in negotiating Lehder's release from the Bureau of Prisons drew a nod. She made no comment about the fact that the report showed that she had been investigated by the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Defense and the CIA by means of traditional investigation, "wiretaps" and informants." She also did not question the fact that the report showed her and Lehder as having multiple residences in Oakland California; San Francisco; Boca Chica, Florida; Salinas Ecuador; and Great Exuma, the Bahamas. Her net worth was conservatively "estimated" at $7,369,024.
Official Responses
The FBI -- A spokesman for the San Francisco Office of the FBI stated that he is unaware of any such (wiretap or e-mail) investigation."
The Department of Justice -- Asked on June 28th to state whether or not Carlos Lehder is still in prison and/or a member of the Witness Security program or whether he was an employee of the U.S. government, spokeswoman Susan Dryden stated that she would look into it and have someone call me back as soon as possible. As of press time a week later, no one has called me back.
The Treasury -- After three phone calls and voice mail messages resulting in no response, Treasury spokesperson Tasia Scolinos stated on June 29th that she did not know the John D'Angelo whom I had spoken to last November and did could not find the material I had sent him then. I found this strange since she gave me the same phone number I had used to reach D'Angelo and she had replaced him. She asked me to write a detailed request for the information I was seeking (which I did) and send her another fax of the document (which I did). She then suggested that, because the document had been stamped "Sealed by the Court" that I visit each court house in the San Francisco Bay area to see if I could find the file. She would consult an attorney at Treasury and get back to me. As of press time I have received no further response.
Question: If, after this story breaks, the Department of Justice holds a press conference and invites CNN and TIME into a prison to interview and photograph Carlos Lehder, will anyone believe that he will still be there the next day?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/part_1.html
HOSTAGES: A Multi-Part FTW Special Investigation - Carlos Lehder
If I can remember, Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when the CIA was using that State as a base for drug and gun running to South America. Bush Sr. was head of CIA before he became President. Clinton stood in for Bush Sr. , enjoyed a few female interns , had a plane crash into the WhiteHouse then Bush Jr. took command.
Now the circle meets once again at the snakes head and it's Hillary's turn.
Considering there are 300 million American citizens and thousands of people who want to be President it would seem Washington jumps around in a very tight knitted game of hop-scotch. Quite an interesting mafia type club you have there in America, and when folks like John F. Kennedy and his brother don't play by US military rules they end up in the ground.
When the natural monument broke apart in New Hamsphire, it took it's motto, "Live Free or Die" along with it. Plus the chunk of dental molding that recently fell from the Supreme Court, just above the word "Order".
I believe it wasn't just a sign where America is headed. It was an omen.
If any of you follow Elaine Supkis's site, she thinks the purchase is a sign that the PTB plan to let loose the nukes in the northern hemisphere and are setting up a haven in the south where fallout will be relatively limited.
Didn't the Nazi's make plans to hightail it to South America if the shit hit the fan? Maybe this is the Bush familys hedge against
the truth being told about 9/11.
I wonder how much cash was in the bag that Jenna brought to
El` Presidente??
lots of interesting stuff on this blog, but i think we do best to keep our eyes on ecology and the politics thereof, as in this post.
dennis meadows said recently, "I think [peak oil] will develop in a way which is catastrophic. In theory we could use peak oil as an opportunity to reconceptualise our society, and rethink our reliance on the military and so forth. In practice we’re not going to do that. In practice what will happen, as it becomes clear that peak oil is a reality, the rich and powerful will grab as much as they can, and not worry much about the poor and the weak."
How do I locate it?
I tried to find Supkis's interesting theory but couldn"t.
Jeff writes:
"The original Oct 11 story from Paraguay, in Spanish, can be found here. There's a second story from Prensa Latina that identifies the purchaser as George W rather than George HW Bush, but the Chaco purchase strikes me as more likely an initiative of the father than of the son. Bush Sr, let's remember, tootled around Latin America in 1996 as Moon's lapdog..."
Actually, this is a pattern. Bush and Porter Goss and other of Yale and the CIA owned a huge 25,000 acre 'estate' in Belize, useful simultaneously for running drugs to North America from hop points further south; useful for the secret wars of the CIA in Central America like Nicaragua (as a training base and supply transshipment point). This can be read about in various places--one place recommended is the Hopsicker web information about it, as well as it being mentioned in print in his magnum opus Barry and the Boys (for those who really want to know how the Fourth Reich started its beachhead in the United States...: MKULTRA, state drug trades, secret military experiments, wars, Nazis, organized crime--it's all there.)
I would suggest that all we are seeing is just the attempt to create a territorial 'hop point' further south for the Bush desired invasion of the entire South American continent--to remove Chavez/Frias's Venezuela, Morles' Bolivia, and all nations entirely--helping to shut off the oil in Peru and Bolivia as well as per the mass global fakery of keeping the oil in the ground and then claiming a 'crisis' when they stop pumping it, instead of when they (fake story) 'run out.'
Peak oil? Sheesh.
Peak oil is only an empty concept. It's peak fascism. It's going to be a studied political shut down of oil, instead of it 'running out.' That's the cover of the operation only.
Read Palast on it (on keeping oil in the ground in Iran for decades--hard to say you are without an example of this fakery about 'oil running out' before.
They've only been doing this on a small scale for profit enhancement and Third World control in the past.
Keeping Iraq's Oil in the Ground, Since 1927: Did U.S. invade to tap oil or to sit on it? As they did before when they invaded in 1950, it was to engineer 'sitting on it' once more--that's what the Iranian invasion from the US/UK/CIA/MI6 was all about: stopping the pumping of a plentiful substance--something that Iran threatened when they figured out that the 'oil majors' were lying through their teeth and refusing to pump all but around 1% of the 'concessions' in Iran, to keep the international prices up.
It's the extra $89 billion a year question
Detailed history of administrating the price of oil with some extra comments. Instead of pumping it, what is key is making money off it which can be completely opposed to pumping it as the case may be...This is an excerpt from Palast's lastest book of investigative journalism, _Armed Madhouse, with extra comments to some previous IMC links.
"The oil majors had a better use for Iraq's oil than drilling it--not drilling it. The oil bigs had bought Iraq's concession to seal it up and keep it off the market. To please his buyers' wishes, Mr. 5% spread out a big map of the Middle East on the floor of a hotel room in Belgium and drew a thick red line around the gulf oil fields, centered on Iraq. All the oil company executives, gathered in the hotel room, signed their name on the red line -- vowing not to drill, except as a group, within the red-lined zone. No one, therefore, had an incentive to cheat and take red-lined oil. All of Iraq's oil, sequestered by all, was locked in, and all signers would enjoy a lift in worldwide prices....This systematic suppression of Iraq's production, begun in 1927, has never ceased."
Presently, they want to extend the entire 'Project No Pump' to the world--for the same purposes of profit enhancement and total world control, enhanced with global population genocide and disruption of their military enemies, as the Fourth Reich consolidates the planet, with its capital in Washington D.C.
i'm always willing to consider the arguments that peak oil is a scam, but it's very important to understand that many people wish that there were unlimited oil, so there is a great deal of wish-fulfillment in peak oil skepticism. i think the truth about oil supply is probably close to the most negative scenarios.
This link can only confirm everything you ever thought about the Moonies but were afraid to ask.
http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/06/this-really-happened-at-senate-office.html
The link to Weldon really makes me quiver.
All the classic elements of our collective sunset-of-the-West image: illegal arms, illegal drugs, survivalist compounds hoarding precious resources, strong-men on the run...the dissonance, if there is still any, comes from the fact that it's our leaders, the protectors of our political and spiritual freedoms, who are engaged in these Waco of the Elite activities. But lawyers, guns, and money is such an old song by now that we of the rigorously intuitive persuasion (and, increasingly, many of our less rigorous or intuitive brethren) aren't really surprised at all by this Moon/Bush/Koresh montage.
Here's the plainest of facts: governments lie. The reasons they give for their actions (when we know about their actions) are never the "whole truth" and are often the opposite of the truth. Drugs are not illegal to protect us; they're illegal to protect them, the people who profit from their illegality. Organized religions don't foster spirituality; they muzzle, pervert, and channel it to their own purposes, mostly having to do with power, authority, and the suppression of enlightenment.
The first step in breaking the Narco-Pedophilic-Authoritarian Syndicate is the legalization of all drugs. Very scary for some folks, since drugs can kill you, but so can alcohol and guns. Statistically, these legal dangers are far more lethal, and after all, what do their supporters advise their users? "Drink responsibly." "Practice gun safety." This, however, is precisely what the present power structure does not want: if people were responsible, they would need to be informed. If they were informed, they would be able to think for themselves and would become immune to argument by sound byte. Ultimately, they would take charge of their own destiny, possibly even finding god along the way, since the old sacraments would finally be legal again. This is the worst nightmare of the NPAS and our brightest hope.
Fun reading in the unraveling of prohibition and suppression:
"Better Living Through Chemicals"-- by Punkerslut
"Go Ask Alice: Mushroom Drug Is Studied Anew"--by Ron Winslow
and the big one: Entheogen Related Web Sites--a major, if not quite comprehensive link list
Quoting Oarwell quoting a link I offered for public consumtion:
"It was Willie Nelson who first suggested to me that hemp is 'not just for breakfast anymore.'"--Jim Hightower
Peak Oil is the biggest scam since the Federal Reserve. Even a cursory dip into researching will expose this fraud for what it is. Funny that it does not take into account any technological advances, isnt it? Wonder why.
In any case, it is Peak Water that you should be worrying about.
Ban is not a Moonie (he's a Christian Mukyokai and all-purpose US lackey, probably not in that order)
If peak oil is a scam, then the men who's heart's are as black as crude oil will no doubt go all the way in their desire for control of Middle Eastern supplies. I think it's alot harder though to scam the natives who are witness to American style of "liberation." I'm sure some hearts were in the right place to help these people as others say it would appear you kicked the doors in, plowed through the bodies and kept the others at bay so you could quickly hook into the main line and kill anything that comes near to keep the hose hooked up.
These people are praying their guts out as they truly believe satan is on their doorstep. The angel of light and mercy has returned to reclaim the Garden of Eden once again, only this time his tail is showing.
"..but it's very important to understand that many people wish that there were unlimited oil, so there is a great deal of wish-fulfillment in peak oil skepticism."
Look at yourself this way. For me, the difficulty is getting people to stop wanting an apocalypse on the gullible left.
When "peak oil" the empty term is mentioned that's where the real nutters are--peak oilers are nutters thinking that any oil running out is going to make them a utopia or 'thankfully' killing people off. Guess what? Only having another technology lined up will get you a utopia.
And killing people off has never been a solution to anything, unless you are Nazi.
The pro collapse pro apocalpyse 'can't wait' syndrome has become a "leftist escatology" sadly pitched successfully to the left to equate environmentalism and 'peak oil' phrase. Wrong. the "Peak oil" phrase comes straight out of the Nazi collaborators of WWII.
First, a little physical reality to intrude on us:
Title: Natural Petroleum: NO Connection With Biological Matter; abiotic oil noted by oil industry
Author: Gas Resources.net
Date: 2005.05.09 01:12
Description: Seems oil industry publications up to four years ago got around to exposing the intermixed depopulation/artificial high-price structure of the oil market, as an energy scam on their own! Good for them. However, of coruse in a society run by spin, that's about the time when people began to trumpet the unscientific peak oil concept... Published in Energia, 2001, 22/3, 26-34. http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm "The claims which have traditionally been put forward to argue a connection between natural petroleum and biological matter have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and have been established to be baseless." ...
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/317075.shtml
and there are examples of abiogenic pathways of limestone, water, iron oxide, and high pressure to get petroleum products (i.e., non organic typical oil):
NOBEL PRIZE WINNER publishes data on Abiotic Pressured Rocks into Methane Hydrocarbons, published in Harvard Magazine, data from professor of the Chemistry department,...research coauthored by Dudley Herschbach, Bai1rd research professor of science and recipient of the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry, questions that thinking.
Published last fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study describes how investigators combined three abiotic (non-living) materials -- water (H2O), limestone (CaCO3), and iron oxide (FeO) -- and crushed the mixture together with the same intense pressure found deep below the earth's surface. This process created methane (CH4), the major component of natural gas.
...assertions about methane and oil really caught Herschbach's attention. "He said there wasn't much chance that you could do a laboratory experiment to test this," Herschbach reports. "And I thought, 'Holy smoke! We could do this with the diamond anvil cell.'" And they did. Poof. Methane.
and there are examples of oil areas refilling:
Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke
Staff Writer - Newsday.com
4-10-2005
Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints
that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes
rapidly.
Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf
of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by
petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean
that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were
changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from
below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical
oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak.
But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know."
Also not known, Kennicutt said, is whether the injection of new oil from
deeper strata is of any economic significance, whether there will be
enough to be exploitable. The discovery was unexpected, and it is still
"somewhat controversial" within the oil industry.
Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear
that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in
terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been
detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not
suspected that oil fields can refill because it was assumed the oil formed
in place, or nearby, rather than far below.
According to marine geologist Harry Roberts, at Louisiana State
University, "petroleum geologists don't accept it as a general phenomenon
because it doesn't happen in most reservoirs. But in this case, it does
seem to be happening. You have a very leaky fault system that does allow
it to migrate in. It's directly connected to an oil and gas generating
system at great depth."
What the scientists suspect is that very old petroleum -- formed tens of
millions of years ago -- has continued migrating up into reservoirs that
oil companies have been exploiting for years. But no one had expected that
depleted oil fields might refill themselves.
Now, if it is found that gas and oil are coming up in significant amounts, and if the same is occurring in oil fields around the globe, then a lot more fuel than anyone expected could become available eventually. It hints
that the world may not, in fact, be running out of petroleum.
"No one has been more astonished by the potential implications of our work than myself," said analytic chemist Jean Whelan, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts. "There already appears to be a large body of evidence consistent with ... oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally," she wrote in
the journal Sea Technology.
"Almost equally surprising," she added, is that "there seem to be no
compelling arguments refuting the existence of these rapid, dynamic
migration processes."
...
and there are examples of intentionally shutting off huge fields to keep profits up--in addition to the whole Middle East strategy of the oil majors which has been this "shut off oil to make money" strategy since the 1920s.
A typical caveat here:
(1) there is only scientific evidence that oil is abiotically created, period--there is no evidence physically ever gathered for 250 years for oil being of a fossil-fuel origin--see first links; that has always been a total scam to justify the high prices of oil, it came from theories of 250 years ago--that never ever gathered any evidence for their justification. The total scam of the "fossil fuel theory" were just carried over from the 1700s ideas because they alone among ideas about oil were the only convenient ways to frame (abiotic) oil falsely as a "scarce and unreplenishable resource." This was a John D. Rockefeller Standard Oil monopoly adverstizement strategy by the way, instead of a scientific statement of the late 1800s you are still swallowing.
(2) the "tragedy" they keep softening people up for is entirely their own design. The dislocations are not going to be an accidental oversight or are going to be the effect of some physical reality of the issue of "supply and demand" etc.--all information about oil of course is entirely private anyway, why trust anything they say as for their motivations particularly when the whole framing is designed to make something social like production seem entirely neutral? moreover, they want you to believe that your life dislocation will be "damned bad, though not our fault!". However, the dislocation will be their fault. This is because they are (2a) intentionally and socially shutting down oil production currently--even from profitable California refineries to make it look like "oil is peaking naturally." Even other oil companies that want to buy these refineries are being denied them! And the corrupt U.S.A. is looking the other way. Links above. (2b) the other part of the intentionality is that they are keeping other technological frameworks of energy offline to faciliate the dislocation they want POLITICALLY. (2c) What backs up (2b) is that oil companies in the past 10 years have been buying up the "alternative energy" market patents. However, you don't hear about them seriously using these patents. What you do hear about is the repressive attempt to confiscate all of this alternative technology, like that Ford electric car/truck that was in the news recently. There are markets for these alternative technologies out there. However, they are intentionally not being filled for a political purpose of dislocation. (2d) This dislocation will suit them politically to usher in and justify a police state crackdown after they created the "oil shock" context for themselves. (2e) The 21st century "oil shock" will be just like their practice run "oil shock" in the 1970s. (2f) There were Congressional investigations of their artificial 1970s "oil shock" mass social manipulation tests then (in the 1970s). There are none now. Oil men are in the White House. And they are the same regrouping from the late 1970s. Thus, what these people were working on in the 1970s--all those plans--are being dusted off.
(3) Environmentalism is one large movement. However, there is a corporate-fascist wing within environmentalism. (3a) This is the totally unpunished Rockefeller-oilcorp-media-eugenics wing--the same connections since the early 20th century! Their discredited and very openly discussed 20th century eugenic and depopulationist goals are still there: they have only been now "green-coated". These people (not all people) are using the cloak of environmentalism to justify fascist consolidation and eugenics in the Third World--and soon the First World. Military bioloical warfare techniques will be utilized as well on civilian populations. See above discussion and links to that book. There are of coruse other books on this topic. It hardly takes a genius to note that if you are a fascist and you have the strangehold on the world's oil based energy, and you are in the biological warfare research as well, you would utilize your corporate and military institutional advantage to promote your political eugenic goals--even against your own economic interest--if what you really were after was political power. (3b) The depopulationist Club of Rome for instance was filled with the same people (and oil company people) who were helping the Nazis in WWII.
(4) It is important to understand the physical reality of what is going on (abiotic oil) COMBINED with the political issues of these die-hard fascist-eugenecists in the oil companies. Not one or the other. Both. Without thinking about both, you are unable to seriously make plans for what to do or know what is really going on. Instead, remember to always ask the question: "Is what I am being coached to want, really someone else's interest?"
(5) My advice is get yourself set with non-oil based technologies of energy, perhaps a group-friend investment in something good. Oil is being POLITICALLY NOT ECONOMICALLY shut down, because it is on their political schedule. Your mass disloation reactions are going to be managed, similar to the 1970s. Don't let that happen and you will be less manipulated and held hostage to them. (5a) My additional advice is to protect yourself the best you know how (healthy foods, vitamins, don't trust mass "innoculation" campains) from their coming (it's already here) military biowarfare on the world's population.
(6) If getting more information out about these high level criminal behaviors helps to slow or stop it--or even get the real actors in jail--you can bet I or others are going to do our best.
(7) I never even suggested that abiotic oil would be GOOD. I have always thought that abiotic oil that puts up tons of atmospheric carbon is a foolish energy choice. I'm not supporting abiotic oil's continuity.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315745.shtml
and excerpt of:
NEWSLETTER #64
August 17, 2004
Whoa, Dude! Are We Peaking Yet?
by David McGowan
"The Club of Rome, a non-profit global think tank, said in the 1970s that we'd hit peak oil in 2003. It didn't happen." So said Kevin Kelleher, writing for Popular Science magazine in August of this year. But it did indeed happen, according to Michael Ruppert and his band of resident 'experts,' who collectively insist that the planet is now at the point of 'peak' oil production. (Kevin Kelleher "How Long Will the Oil Age Last?" Popular Science, August 2004)
It appears then that today's 'Peak Oil' crowd has some pages in their propaganda playbook that were lifted directly from the Club of Rome, which raises the obvious question: what exactly is the Club of Rome?
Who is it that has handed Michael Ruppert and company the baton?
The initial membership list of the Club of Rome, as it turns out, contains some interesting [American Nazi] names:
DAVID ROCKEFELLER: Bilderberger, cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, scion of the world's most prominent oil dynasty, and all-around bad guy.
JOHN J. McCLOY: Former advisor to the Mussolini regime who had the honor of sitting in Adolf Hitler's private box at the Berlin Olympic games; later served as High Commissioner of Germany, during which time he signed an order freeing the majority of the Nazi war criminals that had been convicted at Nuremberg; still later, served on the infamous Warren Committee.
AVERELL HARRIMAN: Skull and Bonesman and high-level political operative through several presidential administrations; together with members of the Dulles family and the Bush/Walker family, established various business entities engaged in providing funding to Nazi Germany, even after the United States had entered the war.
Katherine Graham: Longtime publisher of the Washington Post and longtime CIA asset who once famously said, while speaking at the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters: "We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
Quite a distinguished cast of characters, I have to admit -- although not necessarily the type of people whose lies and spin most dissidents/progressives would accept as good coin.
But guess what?
If you are buying (or selling) the 'Peak Oil' bullshit, then you already have.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313305.shtml
and here's what the boardrooms say, which is completely different from the nonsense they foist through the CIA/Mockingbird media:
refining the articial problem 22.Sep.2005 20:39
Cui Bono Fide link
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf
L.D. Hoopkins
TEXACO, March 7, 1996
"...the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant EVENTS NEED TO OCCUR TO ASSIST IN REDUCING SUPPLIES and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." [my emph.]
According to Ministry of Homeland Security don Michael Chertoff, “disaffected people living in the US may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet, something that can present the next major security threat to the nation and to the world,” reports Reuters.
“We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet,” he told a meeting of the International Association of the Chiefs of Police. “They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to [a CIA-ISI created] training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination,” Chertoff said. “Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites.”
I know it's offtopic but I found that over at Kurt Nimmo's. You know what this means? The great internet purge is building and fairly shortly our own loved ones will report us for reading this blog.
mp3 audio
Alfred McCoy on the Military Commissions Act, Operation Phoenix, Tiger Force (101st Airborne), Death Squads in Iraq, the “black camps” being operated in Europe, “enhanced interrogation techniques”, psychological torture, the definition of torture and how it has evolved and been redefined in US law to allow “severe mental pain”, and Gitmo as an “ad hoc behavioral laboratory for the perfection of the CIA’s psychological torture paradigm” and its signal that “the gloves were off” around the world. “This is all part of a comprehensive doctrine.”
Under the Military Commissions Act, coerced testimony is allowed and may be entered into evidence. [Why did the Founding Fathers ban self-incrimination?] “The weak will say anything to end the pain.” McCoy tracks how this type of “information” found its way into statements made by Colin Powell before the UN about how Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda to use WMD’s. “When you allow torture inside your intelligence practice, you are polluting the entire integrity of the intelligence practice: nothing is credible.” Four senior JAG’s appeared before Congress asking that the Military Commission Act not be passed.
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/171006mccoy.mp3
or go to http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
and look for "Miltary Commissions Act: Alfred McCoy"
Here's the solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ&mode=related&search=
Note the radio team, and the impaired rocket launching team: they seem to be ... laughing!
How horrible this must be.
No matter what the odds are you must never give up hope. The wealthy people who own this world, they who have the power and influence over great nations only see profit as a means to an end. They are in panic mode because people are using the internet and taking the shortcut to the facts and every day thousands more stumble into the truth and see the corruption for what it is and realize the people who want to throw away the key and lock up free-will are for the most part working for masters of puppets.
Ordinary people have realized the world does not rotate around those men who only want more zero's added to their banks when in fact they are just that, walking zero's.
They have sharp tongues, but notice how often those people cut themselves with their own lies.
Those who fear losing control over the masses often use fear as their greatest tool. The ultimate oxymoron.
Wesley Snipes and the real Minute Men
"Actor Wesley Snipes was indicted Tuesday on eight counts of tax fraud for allegedly failing to pay nearly $12 million in taxes and failing to file returns for six years.
The actor [...] has not been arrested because authorities don't know where he is, the IRS said."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061017/D8KQIL4O0.html
It appears that Snipes has decided to no longer play by the rules. I remember reading of him setting up a private security firm right after 9-11. This will be interesting.
"About noon today, a group of 17 protesters arrived outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying signs and the kind of foam hands usually seen at sporting events to proclaim "Number One." But these rose-colored hands said "Caught Red-Handed.""
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15772927.htm
Just hours later, protestors are on the spot with custom props--neato.
The worst arguments I hear against peak oil are that it's all about people "hoping for apocalypse," (and how dare they, and how irresponsible...)
As if wishing something made it true.
It reveals a lot more about the worldview of the person making those accusations than it does about the validity of the theory.
As for abiotic oil, the theory of a handful of dead Russian cranks and countless wishful thinkers... it's a completely moot point. I don't care how the oil originally got in the ground, there's NO evidence to suggest it is going to come back in time for it to do us any "good."
"Good" in quotes- because an unlimited supply of petroleum plus human "ingenuity" equals the fast train to Venus.
So are the perceptions of the world oil supply being manipulated for political gain?
Well yeah, no shit they are. What isn't?
But it's quite a leap in reasoning to go from there to- "there is no real energy crisis- never has been, never will be, oil is a renewable resource, and there is a vast global conspiracy by the frickin' Illuminati to hide this fact from the entire world. Except for the fact the I know about this, and am free to post about it on the internet."
Got EROEI?
"But it's quite a leap in reasoning to go from there to- "there is no real energy crisis- never has been, never will be, oil is a renewable resource, and there is a vast global conspiracy by the frickin' Illuminati to hide this fact from the entire world. Except for the fact the I know about this, and am free to post about it on the internet."
?
We await your edifying counter-evidence with great eagerness and endless patience, since you have equal access to that internet. It's enough to show the Club of Rome is Nazi eugenics 'part deux' to connect them to Illuminized interests and population cull interests--then and now. And the medico-petroleum-military- international banker interface is Illuminized. Ask Svali. Ask the 11 or so Bonesmen that George W. Bush has appointed to his administration.
It only works out for them when it's a secret. And it ain't no longer.
A secret cabal ruling the world--building a North American Union, organizing the European Union, setting up fake revolutions, peddling and consolidating drugs and porn at the same time as sponsoring people like the Moonies--works only when it is secret.
Peak oil is a dead campaign. No one believes the oil majors, given recent American polls about price fixing, Enron electro-piracy, etc. And 9-11 as "Al-queda" is a dead campaign as well.
And there's always Dave McGowan's posts I recommend for your misconception that it is a "handful of dead Russians" that made up abiotic oil over a tainted bottle of potato vodka.
Can you read? Check out:
NEWSLETTER #70
October 12, 2004
Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda
[Due to recent developments in the 'Peak Oil' scam, I decided to put Act III of the new September 11 series on hold for a couple weeks.]
It has become apparent that many people have misinterpreted my 'Peak Oil' rants. I know this because I get e-mail with messages like, "thanks for giving me hope," and "thanks for changing my view of the future." I am sorry to have to report here that the newfound optimism of some of my readers is entirely unwarranted. After reviewing my past writings, I realize that the fault for this misunderstanding lies with me, since I haven't done a very good job of articulating exactly what my position is.
This, my friends, is the harsh reality, so pay very close attention: the fact that 'Peak Oil' is an entirely manufactured construct does not mean that the doomsday scenarios painted by the 'Peak' crowd will therefore not become our new reality. This is not just another scam to further pad the pockets of the oil industry and other financial elites. The stakes are much higher than that. Much higher.
In order to clarify my position on 'Peak Oil,' it would be instructive to briefly review the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement, that I have with those who are selling the scam.
...
here
and
NEWSLETTER #40
July 29, 2003
There have been many attempts made, by both the legal and mental health communities, to define "insanity." But it seems to me that that term can be most succinctly defined as: "a disconnection from reality." And the severity of any individual's insanity is a function of the degree of that person's disconnection from reality.
That definition, of course, is entirely dependent on how "reality" is defined. From the point of view of the state, "reality" is whatever the shapers of public opinion say it is. Anyone who disagrees with the voices of authority is, therefore, insane. From that perspective, people such as, for instance, yours truly, are completely bonkers.
But if we base our definition on a relatively objective reality, then most of the people that I know are, without question, insane. Most of my relatives are insane. Most of my friends are insane. Most of the people that I work with are insane. Damn near everyone in the country is at least mildly insane. A very large majority are moderately to severely insane. And according to polls, at least a third are stark raving mad.
These people hold beliefs that are clearly delusional -- that have absolutely no connection to reality. And they persist in holding these beliefs even when not a shred of evidence can be produced to support them. And no, I'm not talking about people who believe in UFOs, reincarnation, and the Loch Ness Monster. And I'm also not talking about people who believe in some supreme spiritual entity.
I'm talking about people who believe that 'weapons of mass destruction' have been uncovered in Iraq ... who believe that 'weapons of mass destruction' were used against our troops over there ... who even believe that 'weapons of mass destruction' is something other than a arbitrary term cooked up recently by Uncle Sam to describe weapons systems possessed by our 'enemies,' regardless of the actual destructive capability of those systems.
[And we should add believers in 'peak oil' among the insane.]
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr40.html
and he's not a Russian and not dead, pop goes that bubble twice:
From "The Global Energy Outlook for the 21st Century," a lecture delivered on May 21, 2003 by Peter R. Odell, Professor Emeritus at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where he was the Director of the Center for International Energy Studies:
"Finally, a word of caution on the essential fragility of a study on the very long-term future for the world's energy supply which accepts without question the validity of the original 18th century hypothesis that all oil and gas resources have been generated from biological matter in the chemical and thermodynamic environments of the earth's crust. There is an alternative theory - already 50 years old - which suggests an inorganic origin for additional oil and gas. This alternative view is widely accepted in the countries of the former Soviet Union [AWAY from the oil majors psyop campaign of advertizing slogans that has passed for 'science'--hardly to accept everything (like Lysenkoism), though only this point here] where, it is claimed, "large volumes of hydrocarbons are being produced from the pre-Cambrian crystalline basement". Recent applications of the inorganic theory have, however, also led to claims for the possibility of the Middle East fields being able to produce oil "forever" and to the concept of repleting oil and gas fields in the gulf of Mexico. [Where a huge plot was just found, once more, ooops...further belying the previous line in the sand estimates...that led to a firing of the Mexican oil company executive who was positively crowing about it, he failed to get the Club of Rome's memo on depopulation and was spoiling the show; same as Saudi Arabia that kept announcing it had more than the West said it did and then suffered from two 'terrorism' incidents back to back within weeks on its oil infrastructure--then they changed their line; and the same with the firing of the Shell Oil CEO who belied all the Club of Rome like prononcements; I'm sure Ruppert fired off an email and made him so jittery he quit (not; heavy sarcasm); and Venezuela is messing up the global depopulation operation it all up with the largest plot of oil outside of the Middle East according to the U.S. itself; the U.S. has alrady cut off its own oil production; the coup against Chavez was organized out of the state oil company working with the U.S. CIA and NED; Bolivia and the first indigenous President Morales' have sizable oil as well, assured to expand it to fund their Chavez style social distribution programs; SO THEREFORE, WE HAVE "Reverend Moon-land" being created in the midst of South America. It seems well staged to take all these areas on to 'convince them' of the peak oil agenda once more. Back to the quote:] More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved."
...
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html
And if you fail to believe in the Illuminati, well, there's a cure for that. Open your wide shut eyes. Perhaps this will help:
http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/
[particularly his personal close relative background on George H. W. Bush and his ilk]
or
Title: Once In The Bowels Of The Vatican And Illuminati, Svali speaks of Illuminati double life
Author: repost
Date: 2006.01.19 03:08
Description: A RARE INTERVIEW, and it went out over the radio. "Svali" (pen name) was a programmer in San Diego for the Illuminati. She was from a rich family completely in the Illuminati, raised in it from birth. She got out 10 years ago, at age 38, and they left her penniless and had the State take her childen back--for the Illumianti. However, now, she is now 48 years old, a nurse with her own life, regained custody of her children who are 'out' as well, and helps ritual abuse victims. Svali represents in many ways a success story in escaping occult sexual ritual abuse cults--in her mental solidity and her personality security. She has written a book that doctors attempting to treat ex-Illuminati or ritual abuse people have declared "invaluable" for its insights on how to help someone--since she was a regional programmer herself. Below is an interesting feel for her double life--and the double life her children are born into so they know nothing else--in the timeline she wrote up and gave the interviewer. NOTE THEY MEET ON A SECURE MILITARY BASE AFTER MIDNIGHT, just waved in like all the others in the darkness of early morning. They put on uniforms that represent different hierarchies, speak German and English as lingua franca, chit chat, drink coffee, and then get to work on programming people or "tuning up" leaders already in power. Some are rewarded in comfort sessions afterwards like her example of a military leader being given a "tune up" and then a comfort session with a young child to play with because he's a pedophile. They build people's alters/split personalities from birth to suit the Order's cult atmosphere and desires for airtight secrecy (all are multiples), and keep heavy documentation on just what they do to each other to make them all the more controllable.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332206.shtml
Svali used to be a programmer and trainer in the cult of the Illuminati. Both she and her entire family were involved in the cult group until several years ago, when they finally broke free. She has been a consultant to an on-line survivors group that helps people dealing with issues related to cult programming and ritual abuse. Svali, a writer and a registered nurse, has self-published a book on breaking free of cult programming, which several experts in the field have said has "invaluable information" for the survivor of ritual abuse [which many still deny exists]. Her articles are published online at http://www.suite101.com. She is now married to her second husband and has two children.
The New World Order of an old world dream: being an exposé on a transgenerational, international, secret ritual-abuse & occult society with traceable bloodlines of thousand of years--a small nexus of families that have been powerful for millennia, publicly and privately, riding the waves of history.
Svali: "Weishaupt did not create the Illuminati, they chose him as a figurehead and told him what to write about. The financiers, dating back to the bankers during the times of the Templar Knights who financed the early kings in Europe, created the Illuminati. Weishaupt was their "go fer", who did their bidding."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310049.shtml
Moon is small fry compared to this. Nothing he could ever be could exist without his high level sponsorship:
"It's only a paper Moon,
sailing over a cardboard sky..
but it wouldn't be make believe,
if you believed in me..."
Peak oil is "supply side" economics. If it were even the remotest possibility, the have not governments would be "stockpiling". As it is, we are all at the mercy of trying to resupply with supply lines totally exposed.
As far as the left is concerned, what does that mean? As far as "waiting for the next tech to come along" we've always had that. It's called hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Wondering what to do? Compost and save seeds.
an unlimited supply of petroleum plus human "ingenuity" equals the fast train to Venus.
This one's going on the refrigerator.
Great quote, my friend with the Polish Father.
Speaking of Energy Needs, the following link is for Jules, since he mentioned on the forum that Australia is seriously considering Nuclear. You must do everything you can (as a people) to stop them, Jules.
http://www.hanfordwatch.org/archive/Nuke_Waste_Site_Calamity.htm
Excerpts from the link:
"The DOE has a culture of putting the nuclear business over the environment, and I don't think they can overcome it," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit organization that works to demystify the nuclear industry. "Their heart isn't in it. This is a nuisance to them. They have restarted their weapons business and they're very eager to build new reactors. They think that making weapons is like cooking and the clean-up is like doing the dishes. It's much lower on the totem pole."
Nearly two-thirds of the country's nuclear-weapons waste is stored at Hanford, most of it in 177 underground tanks. One million gallons of the waste has already contaminated the groundwater and is threatening the Columbia River.
So, I suppose the Anony who is a Peak Oil Skeptic will tell us next that Colbalt, Uranium and Cesium in our drinking water and fruits, vegetables and meat and grains is good for you, perfectly harmless, and anything to the contrary is a lie concocted by the Illuminati....because, otherwise, we wouldn't even know about this. I smell a disinformationist, don't you all?
As far as the left is concerned, what does that mean? As far as "waiting for the next tech to come along" we've always had that. It's called hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Ah, you hardly know your allies, do you? Think outside the thermodynamics box (though it should be up to different local areas to decide on energy policy that fits them, instead of this airy debate that we "have to" have a novel single choice; if you want to exclusively be a "hewer of wood and drawer of water" you have that right):
# Forget Peak or Veg Oil, go Water Engine: plans, video, politics of zero point excited H20
07:52 May-24 (9 comments)
# More Water Engine, Inventor Danny Klein's HHO water car and patented HHO welding torch
12:11 May-31 (8 comments)
# Water Fuel Experimenters Ken Rasmussen & Team in CA Threatened with Death by Hired Goons
15:33 Jun-04 (8 comments)
# A History Of 52 'New Energy' Technology Invention Suppressions That Demote Consumer Choice
20:22 Jun-19 (1 comment)
and
Shrubageddon said...
Nearly two-thirds of the country's nuclear-weapons waste is stored at Hanford, most of it in 177 underground tanks. One million gallons of the waste has already contaminated the groundwater and is threatening the Columbia River.
So, I suppose the Anony who is a Peak Oil Skeptic will tell us next that Colbalt, Uranium and Cesium in our drinking water and fruits, vegetables and meat and grains is good for you, perfectly harmless, and anything to the contrary is a lie concocted by the Illuminati....because, otherwise, we wouldn't even know about this. I smell a disinformationist, don't you all?
Actually, Shrub, that is the characteristic of the disinformationalist to invent something that was never said and harp on it like it was, though I know that you are harmless by now so I'll let it pass.
For the distraction that is and always will be Shrubageddon to say that--always baiting and picking a fight on something you invented in your head and expecting everyone to call it selfless trouncing and wanting petted for it--what a psychotic...
psy·chot·ic (s-ktk) adj.
Of, relating to, or affected by psychosis.
n.
A person affected by psychosis.
psy‧cho‧sis /saɪˈkoʊsɪs/
1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.
2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.
psy·cho·sis (s-kss)
n. pl. psy·cho·ses (-sz)
A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.
Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-'kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural psy·cho·ses /-"sEz/
: a serious mental disorder (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions
psychosis
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted
------------------
If you limit yourselves to discussing energy choices and technologies in terms of a non-debate in which the global corporations set it and rig all the choices of debate, then you will always do exactly what they want.
Moreover, since the nuclear issue has been introduced, let's talk about it. I'll start then you chime in a bit more:
There are nuclear waste remediation technologies. The U.S. DOE has categorically demoted them, via Spencer Abraham corruption (he's inserted into everything), because certainly it wants to keep oil in place for the criminals in power and everyone captive of this false energy non-choice.
It wants to keep nuclear technology from expanding (which has been U.S. policy from the 1970s onward). This is hardly out of a kind heart--they just fear that their authoritarian nightmare occult corporate banker global state motif would be untenable if people everywhere worldwide actually had decisions of their own about energy policy or materials policy outside of their captive corporation monopolies.
And they are correct.
Ponder on that. More on that in Engdahl's great book: A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, by F. William Engdahl.
And on technological repression about nuclear remediation technologies:
"Have 3 people been assassinated because of the Cincinnati Group's discovery of a low-energy nuclear transmutation process that can be used, e.g., for radioactive waste remediation?"
...
"Could it be that powerful people within the US government are implementing covert policies to keep new energy inventions suppressed that would threaten the oil fuel and nuclear power industries? Copious evidence says yes, and that Lantz' troubles really started after he began making new-energy system prototypes for other inventors in 1977 culminating with his 1989 discovery of an "overunity" energy generation system which combines his System 77 with a ultracentrifuge so the overall device not only purifies any kind of water but also produces sufficient heat to produce megawatts of electricity without any fuel at all, perhaps by "tapping the zero-point energy" with a kind of device the DOE in 1998 called "the Holy Grail of energy research".
"How else could it be possible for this bogus fraud case to even be prosecuted after expiration of statute of limitations, with falsified evidence and the apparent collusion of prosecutors who lied and and public defenders who refused to contest the lies and offer documentation of innocence? Why else would Boduncan have brought this "gold certificate scheme" to Lantz as a funding mechanism for his invention? The Lantz Water and Power System was first tested in 1989. It can solve our global energy and water quality problems. And what does he get for it? An unacceptable "deal" offered by prosecutors and pushed by two successive public defenders who each claimed he "would die in jail" unless he took the plea bargain acknowledging guilt and forfeiting his assets (over $100k of that confiscated was not even in his name), a "raw deal" which this War Veteran refuses to accept.
"Are we to sit by and let this happen or will concerned citizens and media bring his story out so he can get the legal help he needs to get his bogus conviction reversed, his name cleared and his money back so he can pursue development of his New-Energy System?
NUCLEAR WASTE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SUPPRESSED
Subject: Remediating Nuclear Waste Materials - UNLV
Dear Mr. Tetreault:
After reading your article in the Review Journal entitled "Nuclear Project Draws Interest," I thought it may be of interest to you to know that the DOE has played this game with university and privately funded laboratories for many years.
Perhaps the most comprehensive review of this subject ever undertaken was prepared by Mr. Richard Shamp, President of Nuclear Remediation Technologies, headquartered in Hyattsville, Maryland (301)559-5057. Beginning in 1997, NRT and its chief scientist S-X Jin [once the highest ranked particle physicist in the People's Republic of China, until he escaped to the US in 1994 while addressing the Institute of New Energy symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah] have been submitting critical laboratory documents to DOE, demonstrating the effectiveness of known technologies used to remediate radioactive emissions generated by nuclear fuel waste materials in both solid and liquid form.
After being finessed into providing all the definitive laboratory data to Dr. Frank Goldner of DOE's nuclear remediation division, then-Secretary of DOE Spencer Abraham attempted to confiscate, classify and impound NRT's technology while at the same time pretending to be considering providing grant money to support its continued development. The fact that the technology in question had already been awarded six patents [K. Shoulders et al] was the only thing that prevented him from succeeding. Instead of providing grant funding, Dr. Goldner [of DOE's nuclear remediation division] was instructed to put an end to NRT's pursuit of DOE funding for the development and deployment of its technologies.
And that is precisely what he did.
During a conference call held on November 15, 2003, I was informed by Goldner [of DOE's nuclear remediation division] that not only did DOE not intend to ever provide any funding to anyone for the purpose of remediating radioactive emissions in spent nuclear fuels, he insisted that it is and will continue to be DOE's policy for the next 40 years to encapsulate and bury every ounce of high-grade nuclear waste material stored in the US under ground at [earthquake prone and water leak prone] Yucca Mountain. Further, he told us that [this extends to scientific research repression by the DOE and that] any attempt to obtain any high-level nuclear waste materials for testing by anyone, including government funded laboratories, would be arrested and jailed without access to legal counsel under the Export Administration Act.
I still don't know what the EAA has to do with remediating radioactive emissions, but that is what he said.
In 1999, while Elliott Richardson was Secretary of DOE, NRT was awarded a discretionary grant of $2,000,000 for the purpose of advancing its test schedule. The work was to have been undertaken in concert with Dr. George Miley, physicist in residence at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana - Dr. Miley's laboratory at the Champaign-Urbana campus was level 2 accredited by DOE, and was therefore acceptable as a test and development site.
However, within less than 90 days after the announcement of the grant had been published, pressure from within the Department rose to such extraordinary levels that Secretary Richardson was forced to withdraw the grant, albeit grudgingly.
The only similar technology ever contemporaneously developed in the US for the remediation of radioactive emissions in high-grade nuclear waste materials was developed in the late 1990's by Dr. Paul Brown and his colleagues at World Atomics in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
After being granted several patents for the 'Nuclear Spallation Device' he designed, Brown contracted with several Japanese contractors to build three successively powerful prototype versions of his device.
He had them built in Japan because DOE actively intervened more than a dozen times to prevent US companies from building it.
[Japan is without an oil regime like the U.S. or most other pseudo-First World countries--which makes a huge difference]
The problem with Brown's device was that it was little more than a small, semi-controlled nuclear fission-powered device designed to continuously bombard nuclear waste material targets with a highly charged gamma ray field.
Because it was so dangerous to operate, Brown was never able to obtain the necessary State Department or UN transport clearances to have it shipped across international waters into the US for further testing and development.
As you may recall, [the same] Dr. Brown was killed shortly thereafter under the most questionable of circumstances, just as the utility of his nuclear spallation technique was about to be publicly demonstrated in Japan. (Only a month before he died, Dr. Brown met with me and a few of my business and science associates in Henderson, Nevada to present his method of neutralizing radioactive waste.
His method is No. 13 in my list of [U.S. suppressed] methods of neutralizing or disposing of radioactive waste in http://iiic.de/docs/GVComparison.htm .
We have known how to safely remediate radioactive emissions from spent nuclear fuels, both liquid and solid, for nearly a decade.
We have the test data and prototype apparatus to prove it.
That data, including all the protocols, policies, procedures and experimental design criteria associated with our work have been submitted to DOE many times over - Dick Shamp can tell you all about it if you want to go to the trouble to ask him - with the net result that DOE will not allow the US Postal Service to deliver our proposals any longer.
If you want to see what is really going on with nuclear remediation, this is a very good place to begin.
Thanks for writing your article - you're about to find out how big Pandora's box really is.
[signed] David G. Yurth, Ph.D. Director Science and Technology Nuclear Remediation Technologies, Inc.
---
and it's the same network recycled into different things:
Technological suppression seems to be one of the many 'part time day jobs' of the U.S. intelligence services, due to the explicit 'authorization' for it in the 1947 Act that created the CIA.
Here's the law:
Text of Generic Patent Secrecy Order
SECRECY ORDER (Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188)
NOTICE: To the applicant above named, his heirs, and any and all of his assignees, attorneys and agents, hereinafter designated principals:
You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material information with respect thereto, including hitherto unpublished details of the subject matter of said application, in any way to any person not cognizant of the invention prior to the date of the order, including any employee of the principals, but to keep the same secret except by written consent first obtained of the Commissioner of Patents, under the penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186.
Any other application already filed or hereafter filed which contains any significant part of the subject matter of the above identified application falls within the scope of this order. If such other application does not stand under a security order, it and the common subject matter should be brought to the attention of the Security Group, Licensing and Review, Patent Office.
If, prior to the issuance of the secrecy order, any significant part of the subject matter has been revealed to any person, the principals shall promptly inform such person of the secrecy order and the penalties for improper disclosure. However, if such part of the subject matter was disclosed to any person in a foreign country or foreign national in the U.S., the principals shall not inform such person of the secrecy order, but instead shall promptly furnish to the Commissioner of Patents the following information to the extent not already furnished: date of disclosure; name and address of the disclosee; identification of such part; and any authorization by a U.S. government agency to export such part. If the subject matter is included in any foreign patent application, or patent, this should be identified. The principals shall comply with any related instructions of the Commissioner.
This order should not be construed in any way to mean that the Government has adopted or contemplates adoption of the alleged invention disclosed in this application; nor is it any indication of the value of such invention.
(The punishment for a violation of this secrecy order, should an inventor exploits or even simply discusses his or her invention which is classified by a patent secrecy order, is 20 years in federal prison. The unlucky inventor would then lose everything he had invested in his invention.)
One example of the overlap of job duties and activities loaded onto the same intelligence networks (like pedophilia, drug running, and MKULTRA 'separate' operations) we see so clearly here at rigint:
"Seventy-five year old retired chemist and engineer Bob Lantz of Reno, Nevada, fought for the United States as a Navy pilot in WWII, but Monday the US Government is set to imprison him, to "die in prison" according to his "public defenders", in an apparent scheme to suppress his new-energy invention to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power. Perhaps paralleling the case of Horst Jeske, jailed for years in a bogus fraud conviction set up by wired funds transferred by Frederick van Boduncan years after Jeske introduced him to Lantz as a CIA agent, and the case of San Francisco investigative journalist George Williamson who identified Boduncan from his research as a CIA operative previously involved in smuggling drugs into the US via oil rigs in the Gulf."
And in closing,
US Patent Office Holds Secret Approximately 4000 Patents
Tom Valone is a former Patent Examiner who was fired about six years ago for producing a conference in Washington DC on these new energy technologies. Valone recently won a lawsuit against the US Patent Office and was awarded reinstatement and six years of back pay. In a 2001 email to Gary Vesperman, Valone wrote in part:
"As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of "secretized" patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention."
The U.S. Patent Office has a nine-member committee that screens patents for national security implications. A hidden purpose of this committee is to also screen energy-related patents which could threaten the power and fossil fuel companies, etc.
Stop being such a technological serf...
Does anyone else find it more than a bit curious that this joker had an answer for me in a mere matter of moments?
Dude, you don't fool me for a second....cuz you're not even a dude...as in singular. You're plural....an Intelligence Task Force assigned to Various Internet Sites....and you're armed and ready with any and all disinformation.
You all (meaning you and your task force pals) are the Psychotic Ones....that's plainly obvious.
A bunch of cowards, as well.
Tell Gannon/Gosch we said hello....and tell him to post more often....he's been sucking W's dick way too much lately.
Correction:
due to the explicit 'authorization' for technological supression in the 1952 Act, in which the 1947 CIA creation quickly found it part of its job duties to defend its late 19th century oil company monopolies from 20th century legal competition.
Most of the history of the 20th century and into the 21st could be written from the point of view of increasing forms of repression on all levels as they attempt to keep their corporate state strategy of global consolidation via materials policy control operative...
That 1952 Act should be repealed or at least judicable instead of run by the corruption of the infiltration of the oil majors into the CIA, since the oil majors fail to have the U.S.'s interests in mind, only their own--and then they force the CIA to work for them instead!
Shrub, take your meds.
The psychosis shows you harmless little bully.
Gee, I'm glad you corrected that, Mr. Poindexter's Task Force. It changes my view completely.
Next, the Task Force will tell us that there is no such thing as Global Warming and Environmental Degradation....that it can all be easily mitigated with a humongous Dyson clandestinely stowed away in an abandoned Nevada Military Compound.
Why take Meds? According to you, they're not real because what we see and read and hear is all false.
It's just a placebo effect, afterall, and only the Illuminati has the real Meds.
Where are you guys (The Task Force) going for group lunch this week? I bet those are special. What do they serve at The Whitehouse?
*YAWN*
Get a room, you two.
I know what you mean about the Illuminati and their sociopathic pathetic pups, look at the pope. The guy always looks he just finished devouring the bowels of a baby, and that smile of his!? Eeech!! They all, Bush, Blair, Harper, put on plastic smiles but their eye's are elswhere. It's in there eye's, they never lie.
Nuclear waste got you down?
Brown's gas has been demonstrated to be an effective nuclear waste treatment, simply through burning the radioactive material for a number of minutes with a simple Brown's gas torch, the measurable radioactivity of the material will drop exponentially to safe levels, even lower than cosmic background radiation.
All this and expedited healing too for the low low price of $3,700. I've personally seen (and filmed) their equipment in action, fusing wood and metal, burning holes through steel, torching magnets without demagnetizing them, and then being safe to pass your hand through the flame. I have not personally seen a radioactivity reduction demonstration, but the documentation of such work appears very dramatic and fairly simple to reproduce.
Billy Shears said...
*YAWN*
Billy, I told you to have that Sleep Apnea mitigated....otherwise, you wouln't be yawning all day long.
That, and you need to go on a diet.....the flap in your throat has become so innundated with blubber it's clogging your airway at night.
The Illuminati can do something about that, you know.
Yeah, that Brown's Gas is all the rage. If people would just realize they could eliminate plastic diaper use by using Brown's Gas to neutralize their little tyke's dung, we could significantly mitigate Environmental Degradation.
Actually, those Plastic Diapers aren't really bad for the environment at all. In fact, what most people don't realize is that they are edible....and....you can grind them up and feed them to cattle wihtout fear of Mad Diaper Disease.
The Iluminatti does not want us to know this....spread the word.
Shrub,
Way to contribute meaningfully. Don't know what we'd do without you, saide from engage in useful dialogue.
And here I thought you were joking about the Brown's Gas.....and it turns out you weren't?
And you say I need the Meds?
Holy Cow!!
Come on, you fruits!! I'm going to call Bullshit when you start telling me that it's okay to live in disharmony with the universe because technology to mitigate any harmful effects is being suppressed.
Such disinformationist crap as you and Anony are pilfering is suppose to be meaningful?
To who, may I ask?
And who the hell is the "we" to which you refer?
I, too, own a stronghold in Paraguay. When the feces hits the fan and all of you reprobates are being rounded up and sent to Camp Halliburton, I'll in my compound, watching it all on youtube.
Jenna will be my sex slave, and together, we will birth baby demons who will grow up to be the chief tormentors of your own children.
Peak oil? There's bountiful oil in the Arctic region, and shipping lanes are opening up, thanks to global warming. What a happy coincidence that is.
FWIW shrub, you sound ignorantly skeptical, and that's a stupid thing to be out loud. If you want to scientifically refute transmutation using Brown's gas, knock yourself out. I brought it up for people to check out and decide on for themselves, like everything else that gets posted here.
We need to look over all our options and decide for ourselves what makes sense, because if the answer to a burning question like how to reclaim our environment from all the nuclear waste that's been dumped and will be dumped in it is just sitting under our noses waiting to be disseminated and put into use, then wouldn't that benefit humanity?
There are over-unity electrical generation technologies being developed, such as Kiril Chukanov's, which has the real potential of replacing all the nuclear power plants in the world, so I'm certainly not suggesting that Brown's gas is an enabling device for the continuation of Western-style SUV-driving Nuke-burying excesses for crying out loud.
I also wasn't implying my contribution regarding Brown's gas was a meaningful discussion, but I expect the collective contributors to this comment section ("we") could be having one if you would just calm down a little. Hysterical pessimism just makes you look like an unwitting, impersonal tool of TPTB, a product of fear conditioning, and needlessly disrupts the otherwise-enjoyable and informative flow of conversation here.
Why have you taken this turn recently?
ooops! my bad..
ericswan said...
Peak oil is "supply side" economics. If it were even the remotest possibility, the have not governments would be "stockpiling". As it is, we are all at the mercy of trying to resupply with supply lines totally exposed.
The U.S. gov't stockpiled 5.5 million barrels of oil just last week.
Jeff wrote:
Moon's foresight might have included blackmail, specifically the office of the then Vice President with the Craig Spence call boy scandal. Influence, by any means necessary....
Interesting note on those large Washington Times front page stories about the Reagan/Bush Senior White House pedophila scandals--that tied right into the Republican party then as now (as well as Bohemian Grove; drug muling; snuff filming; child prostitution; child sex slavery, etc). That's the values that the Republicans use to hold themselves together: they all got criminal blackmail on each other. I remember reading at Wayne Madsen about systemic corruption from illcit hush money/drug money as well (aka Abramoff). And this was even before this pedophile scandal resurfaced like the white whale Moby Dick-- squelched in 1994 because pedophilia it IS THE CORE of the U.S. political networking culture and the GOP took the U.S. Congresses both houses that year so covering up their pedophilic apotheosis was the #1 plank in their agenda in 1994 which they did).
Well, even before that, according to Wayne Madsen's summaries, a huge assortment of Republicans in every one of the 50 states were already a major corrupt network. Then heap on the pedophila, blech....here it is:
STATE BY STATE GOP SCANDAL SCORECARD
WayneMadsenReport.com 10/18/2006
check it out
If no one can see that the only thing holding the Republicans together is a common pedophilic mafioso clique they all belong to, then you deserve every toke on the 'opiate of the asses' that the Republican party has become.
And it's probabaly understandably true that the Moonie rag was attempting to parlay influence with the Bushes by later using it as leverage and agreeable coverage or lack thereof in the Washington Times in other words.
It seems like it worked.
Soon Bush Senior taking second fiddle to Moon trips.
So does Neil Bush.
Then Moon is crowned by Baby Bush's Administration, with lots of Republican Senators in a coronation squad.
Church and state merging is the origin of most political corruption and coverups, and church, state, and sex make for a heady combination of corruption--whether you watch the BBC film about the Vatican pedophiles international 'Priest juggling' operations, on down to the Republican pedophile networks that claim true to form zero responsbility for their own members--that Foley was some "lone nut." Suuurrrre....a lone nut who they loved to have around is hardly a lone nut.
I would love to get Craig Spence's opinion about this "pedophile long nut" spin, as he was the "Republican Madam" for arranging Republican sex parties with young kidnapped orphans and teens--except he died soon as the story broke. Another "lone nut" suiciding I guess. High white collar criminality always seems to break out in lone nuts, eh?
To really know the origin of Bush/Moon you would have to show exactly when the Bushes and the Moonies starting hanging out together.
Still, keeping Moon's company is a Bush family enterprise, as Neil accompanied the Reverend last year on his 100-day "global peace campaign."
How appropriate. Neil was the one who admitted to having high priced prostitutes delivered to him as "part of the business package" on some of his international trips--for what, the Mafia?
And Neil's angle in Silverado stolen billions was part of the drug money laundering of the Bush family CIA operations. That's why the Bush crime family still protected itself after Neil stole all those billions from Silverado.
And if Moon indeed is part of all this narco-relgio-terrorism (as indicated by Jeff's quote from thteaming up with the Bush crime family ["according to Paraguay's drug czar from 1976-89: "The available intelligence clearly shows that the Moon sect is involved in both these [narcotics and arms trades] enterprises."] as it seems they are, it would hardly be surprising development there for them to be tight with the Bushes...
Anyone who can point my way to a short capsule history of the Moonies for explaining the origins of these connections in it, would be appreciated.
I guess Moon and Bush linking up and swallowing each other in the limelight is just the international level of the Stephen Colbert Republican Russian Dolls at work--watch his short analysis here of scandals getting larger and larger and having a strange effect of disappearing into each other. Colbert suggests that only Hastert committing sex murders with piano wire--combined with cannibalism---might just remove the latest Russian Doll about systemic pedophilia in the Republican party that has finally been outed after, say, 20 years of guilty knowledge by all involved?
However, in this Foley scandal, I'm sure people are concentrating on the 3/4 of the iceberg still below the surface. And I think they've run out of Russian Dolls with cracking the 20 year old Conspiracy of Silence about GOP pedophile networks--that Jeff linked to above.
Conspiracy of silence: and that silence has become deafening.
Seems like false flag terrorism is the order of the day perhaps?
What else could swallow such Republican irresponsibility and bullshit?
Regarding the Abiotic Oil Production theory, I think the jury is still out on this one - I seriously doubt it, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.
But I wonder wether it's relevant at all. It is clear from oil companies reports, as well as from reputed geologists reports, that 1) discoveries of new oil fields are becoming fewer and far in between and 2) major oil fields have peaked. The US is the clearest case, having peaked in the early 70's. If oil is produced abiotically, then it's rate of repletion is too slow for the demands of industria, civilization. I personalyy know one top administrator at PetroBras, Brasilian state company, and a leader in extracion of deep sea oir. He basically told me: Do you think we'd be stupid enough that to go looking for oil at these depths if there were oil to be found in easier locations?
The fact is that oil companies are going looking for oil in more and more expensive out of the way locations, and that known oil fields are declining. The fact is that for the last 40 years the trend has benn going down.
Additionally, regarding Club of Rome book: while I will not comment on your views about the membership of the Club (they may very well be true, although I somewhat doubt it) I have read the book. Have you? It does not say that oil will peak in 2003. It presents various scenarios, argues that a number of important resources will soon decline, argues that the most important factor is demand, due to population increase, and basically presents a more or less optimistic view that fi we are to solve these problems, stabilize the eartn pop. and bring some of the really poor to a decent level of life (which may mean bringing the really wealthy down a little), the we had better start now. In the 70's. No one started, so more recent reports have been, shall we say, less than optimistic (the Club of Rome still exists). Most of the people you mention are "honorary members". The working group was a very limited group. Obviously, if one seriously believes your arguments, this means nothing at all (and again, I neither believe in them or disbelieve them).
In any case, Peak Oil theory doesn't really bother too much about the fact that oil is running out. As Colin Campbell says, "if we believe it is finite, it started running out the day the first barrel was extracted". Also, they state unequivocally that it will last for a lont time, perhaps forever. Simply not at cheap prices. The point is rather that demand is outstripping supply, and this will drive prices up. There wil be cycles of prices - up and down - due to recessions (which will bring demand down) followed by expansions (due to lowering oil prices because of lower demand triggering demand again). But the curve will be definitely upwards.
Here's an interesting article by Matthew Simmons which you will undoubtedly see as confirmation that I am part of some vast Peak Oil conspiracy. I found interesting and a good read.
-----------------THE PRICE OF PROGRESS
When each of us as an individual decides to buy something, we first consider
the price. Yet society at large has long bought the idea of continual growth
in population and production without adding up the final reckoning.
Now a team of M.I.T. scientists, with the aid of a giant computer, has
completed a study of the future if present growth continues. Their
inescapable conclusions are beyond anyone's grimmest fears. Possibly within
as little as 70 years, our social and economic system will collapse unless
drastic changes are made very soon.
The Limits to Growth has made headlines the world over. Its shock waves have
caused our most cherished assumptions to come crashing down. It is a book
that we can ignore only at our peril.
"If this book doesn't blow everybody's mind who can read without moving his
lips, then the earth is kaput."
- Robert C. Townsend
Author of Up the Organization
In the early 1970's, a book was published entitled, The Limits To Growth, a
report of the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. Its
conclusions were stunning. It was ultimately published in 30 languages and
sold over 30 million copies. According to a sophisticated MIT computer
model, the world would ultimately run out of many key resources. These
limits would become the "ultimate" predicament to mankind.
Over the past few years, I have heard various energy economists lambast this
"erroneous" work done. Often the book has been portrayed as the literal
"poster child" of misinformed "Malthusian" type thinking that misled so many
people into believing the world faced a short mania 30 years ago. Obviously,
there were no "The Limits To Growth". The worry that shortages would rule
the day as we neared the end of the 20th Century became a bad joke. Instead
of shortages, the last two decades of the 20th Century were marked by glut.
The world ended up enjoying significant declines in almost all commodity
prices. Technology and efficiency won. The Club of Rome and its "nay-saying"
disciples clearly lost!
The critics of this flawed work still relish in pointing out how wrong this
theory turned out to be. A Foreign Affairs story published this past
January, entitled Cheap Oil, forecast two decades of a pending oil glut. In
this article, the Club of Rome's work was scorned as being the source
document which led an entire generation of wrong-thinking people to believe
that energy supplies would run short. In this Foreign Affairs report, the
authors stated, "....the "sky-is-falling school of oil forecasters has been
systematically wrong for more than a generation. In its dramatic 1972 The
Limits to Growth report, the group of prominent experts known as The Club of
Rome wrote that only 550 billion barrels of oil remained and that they would
run out by 1990."
This past May, Rice University's Baker Institute held an energy forum
entitled "Running on Empty?" where the topic of future energy reliability
was carefully addressed. John Lichtblau, Chairman of the Petroleum Industry
Research Foundation (FIRING) made reference to this work in his keynote
remarks. In a comment on how virtually all global forecasts of
resource-constrained oil production turned out to be wrong, he said "Many of
you still recall the widely quoted, very prestigious "Club of Rome" report
of 1972 which predicted a fundamental resource constraint on oil supplies by
the end of the 20th Century."
For a publication that is almost 30 years out of print, it is fascinating
that anyone still even remembers what the book said. I have occasionally
been privately amused at the passion this Club of Rome work still evokes. As
I have heard this study thoroughly discredited, I have wondered whether the
anger this book still creates is the equivalent of getting livid at a
bartender "the morning after," when one's headache was so wicked. Could the
core angst this work still generates result from a backlash or an
embarrassment by these same critics for embracing these shortage concepts
and then being proved wrong?
The first time this "Club of Rome" topic caught my attention was after I
addressed the International Association of Energy Economists at their annual
meeting in Dallas, Texas, on Election Day, 1994. At this program, I spoke of
the pending end of all three "bubbles" which had kept such an overhang on
energy supplies and kept prices so low: the oil bubble, the gas bubble, the
drilling rig bubble (there had been a huge surplus of equipment.) I also
addressed the pending volatility in our energy market now that NYMEX pricing
had taken over (I called it a new driver of the Energy Bus.) I thought it
was a pretty good talk, But, the question and answer session brought forth
not a single question. There was total silence from an obviously
disbelieving audience. So I clearly missed the mark.
As I was leaving the hotel where the program was held, someone approached me
and said, "I listened to your talk!" He paused. I was unsure whether to
answer with "Thanks!" Before I could respond, the person then said, "Your
thesis was interesting. You are obviously a Malthusian; a "Club of Romer" or
a classic chronic believer in shortages!"
I knew then that my message had been totally missed. My talk never made any
reference to any form of shortages. I was merely warning that era of the
vast energy excesses was almost gone. In an attempt to put my talk into more
simplistic language, I responded "No. In fact, I am not a Malthusian at all,
I am an Agrarian. I study cycles of commodities. Most happen to be
agricultural. The patterns are always the same. Demand for a particular crop
ends up growing too fast. Supplies then get short and the price soars. The
farmer quickens his planting cycle to capture these high prices just as
demand is starting to fall due to being too high. This creates a larger
glut. Prices then plunge. The farmer stops planting. As supplies then
dwindle, low prices begin to stimulate demand. As a result, commodities
swing back and forth, rocketing from peak to bottom and back to peak. It
happens to virtually all agricultural products."
I continued, "the only difference between agriculture and energy is that it
takes a few months to plant wheat compared to around seven years to plant
and then harvest a new energy field. So the cycles are simply longer!
Therefore, ten years from now, all you guys will be discussing the
likelihood of $200 oil just as demand is dropping and supplies are on the
rise!"
I was quite pleased with this quick response and thought it also captured
the essence of what I had tried to tell this skeptical audience earlier that
afternoon. But the person to whom I delivered this impeccable logic merely
responded, "I'll be damned, I could have sworn you were a classic
Malthusian!" and then walked away.
Through this humorous exchange, I was accidentally introduced to the whole
Club of Rome notion. While I vaguely remember hearing about the work in the
early 1970's, before this Dallas encounter, I had never focused on what it
was all about.
Since becoming aware of this Club of Rome work in 1994, I continually hear
the "Club of Rome" shortage thesis raised by various energy economists who
thoroughly condemn the work as being absolutely wrong. But I have never
given any thought to what the Club of Rome's specific predictions actually
were, nor have I ever known who this "mysterious" Club plotting the end of
the world even was.
The primary reason I have never pursued more knowledge about this work is
that I have never subscribed to the theory of the world ever encountering a
permanent energy shortage. "Running out of oil" has never borne any
relationship to my growing concern over the past decade that "not all is
well in the energy world."
My energy worries have always centered on the simple prospect that demand
could some day start outstripping supply. This is a totally different
problem than running out of energy. Both are definite problems, they merely
address different issues.
The two problems actually bear no relation to one another. Running short of
daily supply is a little like food and famine. The world has never run out
of food, yet we have suffered regional famines since the beginning of time.
These are merely logistical distribution problems.
My curiosity about what the Club of Rome actually predicted in this The
Limits to Growth book was triggered this past spring after hearing a talk by
James Wolfenson, head of the World Bank, at a Global Harvard Business School
Conference in Berlin. Mr. Wolfenson gave the keynote opening address to a
group of 1200 HBS alumni from around the world, gathered to discuss "A World
Without Walls: The Challenges of a Global Economy."
His talk focused on the acute need for the affluent population of the globe
to never overlook or forget the less fortunate parts of the world. As he
eloquently stated, there are only 1.2 billion people now living in the
highly developed countries of the world. 250 million are in the United
States, 500 million living in the expanded Europe and 350 million in Canada,
Mexico and the Pacific Rim countries of the OECD. For this group, affluence
is not only on the rise, it has also never been better.
But Mr. Wolfenson then warned of the risks inherent by overlooking the 4.8
billion people living in the less developed or transition economies of the
world. An astonishing 2 billion of these people live on less than $2 a day!
One billion live on less than $1 a day! Abject poverty abounds throughout
these less fortunate countries. In our modern global society, with global
telecommunication, Mr. Wolfenson warned that it is not reasonable to even
think that we can maintain this great gap between the well to do and the
impoverished for another 50 years.
In Wolfenson's opinion, the great challenge of the next several decades is
to narrow this prosperity gap. Doing this will not be an easy task. But it
must be done. As I heard these grim statistics, it forced me to re-think an
in-depth research I did in the summer of 1997 on the "Insatiable Energy
needs of China."1
1 China's Insatiable Energy Needs white paper published by Matthew R.
Simmons in August 1997.
The prime conclusion I reached after doing this China research which
entailed an extensive analysis of what happens to energy use when a poor
country begins to prosper, is that energy growth always goes hand in hand
with countries switching from being poor to becoming even slightly affluent.
As I finished this China study, it left me wondering whether the world
really had the sufficient resource base to allow China to achieve its dream
of economic success. From the work I did on per capita energy use, if China
ever becomes the equivalent of Japan in 1960, let alone finally convert its
vast body of people to the prosperity of the United States today, this
transition would consume so much energy that it raises the question of
whether such added energy really exists. At the least, it would strain the
world's energy resources to its limits.
Within months of finishing the China Energy Report, the Asian 'flu invaded
the world. Suddenly, the notion of China (or any Asian country) continuing
to grow began to seem remote. So I unintentionally forgot the primary
conclusions of this China study.
On my way back from Berlin, I kept thinking about the implications of the
poor population of the globe finally becoming normal citizens of the world.
This led me to muse about the whole Club of Rome issue. The more I mused,
the more I began to wonder whether this group might have been correct in
their concerns after all. Perhaps they were only wrong in their timing by 30
to 50 years. Or perhaps this group envisioned that by 2000, the world would
have closed the gap between the rich and the poor, thus creating the
shortages which their report warned would occur.
As soon as I returned to the U.S., I had our librarian find a copy of the
book which the Club of Rome produced almost 30 years ago.
WHAT THE LIMITS TO GROWTH ACTUALLY SAID
After reading The Limits to Growth, I was amazed. Nowhere in the book was
there any mention about running out of anything by 2000. Instead, the book's
concern was entirely focused on what the world might look like 100 years
later. There was not one sentence or even a single word written about an oil
shortage, or limit to any specific resource, by the year 2000.
The members of the "Club or Rome" were also not a mysterious, sinister,
anonymous group of doomsayers. Rather, they were a group of 30 thoughtful,
public spirited-intellects from ten different countries. The group included
scientists, economists, educators, and industrialists. They met at the
instigation of Dr. Aurelia Peccei, an Italian industrialist affiliated with
Fiat and Olivetti.
The group all shared a common concern that mankind faced a future
predicament of grave complexity, caused by a series of interrelated problems
that traditional institutions and policy would not be able to cope with the
issues, let alone come to grips with their full context. A core thesis of
their work was that long term exponential growth was easy to overlook. Human
nature leads people to innocently presume growth rates are linear. The book
then postulated that if a continuation of the exponential growth of the
seventies began in the world's population, its industrial output,
agricultural and natural resource consumption and the pollution produced by
all of the above, would result in severe constraints on all known global
resources by 2050 to 2070.
The genesis of this book was a series of early meetings being held by The
Club of Rome in 1968. These meetings culminated in a decision to initiate a
remarkably ambitious undertaking. The task was to examine the complex
problems troubling "men of all nations; poverty in the midst of plenty,
degradation of the environment, loss of faith in institutions, uncontrolled
urban spread, etc."
"Phase One" of the project of the predicament of mankind took shape in 1970.
The group commissioned a team of Economic Modelers at MIT to forecast, in
approximate terms, what pressures the globe would undergo if the current
growth trends continued for another 100 years. This research was financed by
the Volkswagen Foundation.
At the time, the technique of conducting computer based integrated modeling
was quite new. The technique was called "System Dynamics", where various
inter-related elements and positive and negative feedback loops influence
the various ingredients and outputs of the model.
The initial results of this modeling work were sufficiently alarming that
Club of Rome participants decided to publish them, and call the book The
Limits to Growth. The book was published by Potomac Associates, a
non-partisan research and analysis organization seeking to encourage lively
inquiry into critical issues of public policy.
The book painstakingly acknowledged that the model's work was still
"preliminary." Much more detailed analysis was needed to hone in on the
issues this model raised. The decision to publish the results, as rough as
they were, was driven by a desire to quickly get the issues into the public
domain. This would hopefully command critical attention to the work and
spark debate in all societies about the changes needed to avoid the
catastrophic elements that the model indicated would occur by 2070, absent
any changes.
While many readers concocted various "imaginary" assumptions, the book's
conclusions were quite simple. The first conclusion was a view that if
present growth trends continued unchanged, a limit to the growth that our
planet has enjoyed would be reached sometime within the next 100 years. This
would then result in a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population
and industrial capacity.
The second key conclusion was that these growth trends could be altered.
Moreover, if proper alterations were made, the world could establish a
condition of "ecological stability" that would be sustainable far into the
future.
The third conclusion was a view that the world could embark on this second
path, but the sooner this effort started, the greater the chance would be of
achieving this "ecologically stable" success.
The book, in its entirety, is beautifully written. It takes only a few hours
to read. I would highly recommend it to anyone. It is an interesting mixture
of simple, tried and true economic laws, combined with a terrific dose of
logic. Without a doubt, there are some serious doomsday elements laid out
which our world would face if the conclusions of this modeling work were
ignored, and key trends continue to rise at exponential vs. linear rates.
But, the book essentially lays out an optimistic outlook on how easily these
limits to growth can be altered if a real effort to accomplish this is made
at an early stage, rather than attempting such changes too late.
The most amazing aspect of the book is how accurate many of the basic trend
extrapolation worries which ultimately give raise to the limits this book
expresses still are, some 30 years later. In fact, for a work that has been
derisively attacked by so many energy economists, a group whose own
forecasting record has not stood the test of time very well, there was
nothing that I could find in the book which has so far been even vaguely
invalidated. To the contrary, the chilling warnings of how powerful
exponential growth rate can be are right on track. The thesis that it is
easy to misjudge this type of growth has also been proven by the volumes of
misguided criticism that the report engendered.
The world is now 30 years into this 100-year view. It did grow as fast as
the book warned. The gap between rich and poor never narrowed. Instead, the
gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" grew by a significant measure.
It is interesting to contemplate how horrified the book's authors would be
today, given the population trends that happened post 1972. The current
strain on many of our precious resources is already becoming serious. It
would have been far worse by 2000, given the rate of expansion which
happened to the world's poor population, had these people also begun to
significantly improve their standard of living at the same time. An
accidental safety valve for many potentially scarce resources turned out to
be the widening of the rich/poor gap.
THE WORLD IN 2000
We are now almost one-third of the way around The Club of Rome's 100 -year
track. In 1970, the world population totaled 3.4 billion. Of this, 1.2
billion were living in "more developed" countries while 2.2 billion resided
in "less-developed" countries. The rich/poor split was 35/65.
Eight of the 20 most populated countries were modern industrial societies.
Their combined population totaled 787 million, which then made up 25% of the
globe. Europe's "Big Four" (England, Germany, France, and Italy) had 161
million people. All ranked in the top 20.
Three decades later, the world's total population approximates 6.4 billion.
Given the inaccurate census data for many fast growing poor countries of the
world, it could be even higher. The population growth of Europe's Big Four
was one of the slowest in the world. Yet, even these countries grew by 61%
to 260 million. However, three of the Big Four now rank outside the top
twenty as various much faster-growing poor countries have taken their place.
In 2000, the population of China and India alone are the size of the entire
less developed
population of the globe 30 years ago. In three decades, the rich/poor gap
has widened from
35/65 to 20/80! Since all the poor populations of the globe are expanding
fast, this gap is likely
to grow even wider as the remaining 70 years of the Club's timeframes
unwind, unless measures are quickly taken to change this alarming trend.
The text in The Limits to Growth mentioned the possibility that global
population might total 7
billion by the turn of the Century. The book also contained a graph showing
the exponential
growth of the world since 1690. According to this trendline, the world
population would reach 6
billion in 2000 (see Exhibit 1.)
Exhibit 1
The most up-to-date U.S. Census Bureau estimate for the actual world's
population in 2000 is 6.4 billion, almost equidistant between these two
estimated numbers. (Since the quality and accuracy of the data for the
fastest growing regions of the world could easily be off by 10 to 15%, with
any error likely to be understating the real total, we might be a lot closer
to 7 billion then anyone knows.)
The birth rates in many affluent countries steadily fell over the past
thirty years while China enacted its one-child policy. Otherwise, the world
population would already be about 2.3 billion higher than it is today.
Pakistan and Bangladesh are the poorest countries on the globe. In 1970,
they ranked 9th and 10th as the highest populated countries on earth with
132 million people. Thirty years later, these two impoverished countries
have both notched up, ranking number seven and eight in the world with a
combined population of almost 300 million people, greater than the USA. Over
the past three decades, both these countries have virtually become the
poster children of the poorer countries of the globe.
The book detailed the economic and population growth rates for 10 countries
in 1968 and how this translated into a GNP per capita in each country. The
report then used simple arithmetic to calculate extrapolated values for GNP
per capita from 1968 to the year 2000. While their text states, "the values
shown... will almost certainly not actually be realized. They are not
predictions. The values merely indicate where the general direction of our
system, as it is currently structured, is taking us. The report demonstrated
that the process of economic growth, as it is occurring today, is inexorably
widening the absolute gap between the rich and the poor nations of the
world." Exhibit 2 and 3 detail the 1968 data and the extrapolated GDP to
2000.
While the authors themselves failed to appreciate the power of combining the
extrapolated population growth with industrial growth, it is remarkable to
look at how these numbers finally turned out. 2000 is no longer a forecast,
it is here. As detailed in the following Exhibits IV, several countries'
actual per capita GNP were, in fact, ahead of the extrapolations detailed in
The Limits to Growth. On balance, the ten countries came close to meeting a
projection which the authors of The Limits to Growth did not think could
really happen in just 30 years.
As the authors of The Limits to Growth so plainly said three decades ago,
exponential growth rates can be very powerful. They can create growth curves
which suddenly mushroom, as 3% increments of small numbers suddenly become a
3% increase of a much larger base. This mushroom growth can quickly become
almost overwhelming until powerful forces of physical limits, the finally
unseen consequences of such growth rates, suddenly appear "out of nowhere",
bring these trends to an abrupt halt.
From an energy perspective, the world was consuming 111 million barrels of
oil equivalent (BOE) per day in 1970 as The Limits to Growth was being
written. The world's energy growth had already soared from under 30 million
BOE in 1940 to 67 million BOE in 1960 and almost
doubled that in another 10-years. By 1980, energy growth totaled 147 million
BOE per day, in
1990 it reached 164 million BOE per day and is fast approaching 180 million
BOE per day in
2000. Table 1 below illustrates this growth.
While the world has clearly not run out of energy by 2000, this past energy
consumption growth
occurred while the FSU, third largest energy user on earth in 1970,
ultimately collapsed, with its
energy use falling by one-third over the past decade. Had the FSU continued
its consumption
growth of the 1980's, the world would be approaching a daily energy
consumption of 200 million
BOE per day as we enter a new century.
As shown in Exhibit 5, many of the developing countries had growth rates
between 3% and 6%
over the past 30 years and many of these countries still barely use any
energy in per capita
terms, relative to the prospering parts of the world. Had the gap between
the rich and the poor
narrowed over the past 30 years, and the FSU prospered at the same time, the
world could
have easily reached an energy consumption rate of between 220 to 240 million
BOE per day by
2000, assuming such vast energy additions could have been supplied.
Given the massive increase in total energy use that actually occurred in
just 30 years, it is also enlightening to examine the world's energy mix
over this same period. Exhibit VI details the various components of the
world's energy mix in 1972, 1980, 1990, and 1999. Oil use fell from 46% of
total energy use in 1972 to 41% in 1999, but almost this entire decline
happened between 1972 and 1980, as the price of oil grew ten-fold. Since
then, oil has remained in a relatively stable band.
Natural gas use increased from 19% in 1972 to 24% in 1999, coal fell from
29% to 25%. Nuclear had an explosive growth, as this new energy source was
just being introduced in 1972. By the end of the 20th Century, nuclear
comprised 8% of the world's total energy use. Though this affected only a
handful of countries that actively pursued a nuclear energy plan as part of
their long-term energy strategies.
It is also interesting to contemplate the possible strains on our oil and
gas resources had nuclear not been commercialized, particularly if the gap
between rich and poor been narrowed over this period of time.
Exhibit 7 details the growth in the world's petroleum use over the past
60-years as oil's use grew from just over 5 million barrels a day in 1940 to
75 million barrels a day in 2000. Since petroleum is still the only energy
that creates transportation fuel, it should continue to grow well into the
middle of the 21st century.
While it is staggering to see a non-renewable energy such as petroleum grow
in use from 5 to 75 million barrels per day, just think what this number
would have been in 2000 had the rich/poor gap of the world merely stayed at
the 35/65 rate of the 1970's.
There are lots on non-energy facts and figures that highlight the remarkable
progress the world made between 1970 and 2000, and how many more goods and
foodstuffs we now consume.
Technology has made the greatest strides imaginable over the past 30-years,
creating inventions never even dreamed of in 1970! But the number of
malnourished people living below poverty lines has also soared over this
same period. Globally, the net amount of land under crops is growing far
more slowly than population. As the world's population grows, less renewable
fresh water is available for each person. Desalinized seawater has so far
kept this issue from becoming a crisis.
The role of fish in the human diet is also noteworthy. Fish have
historically served as an inexpensive and widely available source of
proteins and essential nutrients, including a type of fatty acid critical to
the development of infant brains.
Over the past 30-years, the global fish catch has managed to remain quite
stable. But much of this apparent stability came through a widespread use of
aqua-culture which now provides one fish out of every three the world now
consumes. Meanwhile, the composition of the world fish catch is steadily
shifting to smaller and less appetizing fish. Some high protein species
already seem headed for commercial or even biological extinction.
So the world made it safely though the end of the 20th century. But various
signs in all the trouble areas which The Limits to Growth spoke of are not
terribly comforting to a premise that the world can safely glide through
another 30 years, let alone to 2050 or 2070.
The most profound message which The Club of Rome passionately urged people
to consider is the power of this type of exponential growth and the danger
of the gap that existed between the world's rich and poor. That message is
still alive and well. On September 26, 2000, the World Bank's top economists
issued yet another warning of the urgent need to begin reducing what used to
be a rich/poor gap but has now evolved into a rich/poor gulf.
According to these economists, while the global economy grew by 2.3% a year
between 1965 and 1990, the gap between rich and poor countries is 10 TIMES
wider than what it was 30 years ago. Both were measured in per capita terms,
and the gap between rich and poor is also growing within many affluent
countries.
Why is this message so mute to so many? Will it take a hasty wake-up call to
finally create the meaningful questioning of how this enigma is solved? The
Club of Rome got the whole picture right. It was the rest of us who missed
the mark!
THE BOOK AND ITS CONTROVERSY
Why did this book become so controversial and why do so many articulate and
seemingly knowledgeable people still lash out at its content as being wrong,
when in fact, all the major conclusions are precisely on track? So far, not
a single observed trend has emerged to allay the worries and concerns laid
out by the Club of Rome. Why was the book greeted with such a firestorm of
criticism, instead of invoking the thoughtful debate which the authors so
hoped would occur?
I can only surmise at some answers, as I had never followed the debate over
the course of so
many years.
My guess at the answer lies in two areas: First, it is a natural part of
human nature to ignore the impact of events whose consequences fall far into
the future. The here and now dominates the way most people naturally think.
If a seer wandered into a town predicting a massive flood a decade from now,
and the next summer turned out to be particularly dry and arid, it is human
nature to belittle the seer as being wrong, ignoring the fact that his
prediction was still nine years hence. This human nature phenomenon used to
be cartooned in an advertisement run by New England Life. The ad showed two
gentlemen at a prestigious men's club, with brandy in hand. One asks, "Why
would anyone want to buy life insurance?" As this question is raised, a
massive bull moose trophy had already fallen from the club's wall and was
only inches away from crashing onto the questioner's head! We are brought up
to think that cause and effect has immediacy to it. Human nature is not good
at coping with time-delayed reactions, particularly when the delay is
possibly decades away.
The authors of The Limits to Growth deal with this phenomenon of short-term
focus through a
graph depicted in Exhibit 8.
It shows the relationship between "time" and "space". In the lower left-hand
corner, family represents the closest limit for space, while "one week"
being the closest limit for time. The furthest right hand quadrants
represent the world for space and 100 years for time. The author's
contention is that almost everyone is preoccupied by short limits in both
space and time (e.g. what will I eat today?) Few ever think about what could
happen to the entire world in far distant periods of time. It was the upper
right hand corner of space and time that the authors addressed. It seems
clear that few readers of the book focused on this global view and lengthy
time. Instead, they read into the book a different message, letting
imagination drift back to the lower left corner of this graph.
A major event then fueled further confusion about the real issues of the
book. The Limits to Growth ended up being published shortly before the world
experienced the Oil Shock of 1973. In the ensuing panic that the 1973 Oil
Crisis brought forth, the "100-year" message that the authors of this book
tried to warn about (so that meaningful changes in population growth and
industrial consumption might begin in order to avoid the dangers implied by
this work far into the future) got blurred into an immediate panic that a
tiny blip in oil supplies was possibly the arrival of such shortages, some
100 years earlier than this "mysterious" or even clandestine Club of Rome
was trying to discuss.
My other guess is that some of the worst and most vocal critics of this book
were people who most passionately embraced the concept of immediate
shortages facing the world through the 1970's. After all, by 1980 there were
many prominent energy analysts who stridently embraced the idea that $50 to
$100 oil was almost inevitable. When these high prices then failed to
materialize, and as the gap between slipping demand and rising supply
created an oil "bubble", this enabled oil prices to stay within a $15 to $20
per barrel range for the better part of two decades, the embarrassment of
being wrong turned the whole group of energy experts into angry critics of
The Limits to Growth and passionate believers that prices would stay low
forever. It must have been easy to shift part of the blame for why they had
been so wrong to the stupidity of The Club of Rome. This is my equivalent of
blaming the bartender for a hangover!
Sadly, the dialogue and increased in-depth analysis that The Club of Rome so
hoped would begin as a result of their publication never occurred in the
face of growing criticism. Phase One of the "predicament of mankind"
accidentally became the final chapter of this thesis. As the discredit of
this work grew, few even took time to measure the pace of change. Even fewer
remembered the real message of the book.
The Club of Rome still exists. It did not "wither away," although its own
web site acknowledges that most people assume it ceased to function after
the death of its charismatic founder, Aurelio Peccei, in 1984. It ended up
commissioning more than a dozen other reports, since Limits was first
published; though, none ever attracted the widespread attention of The
Limits of Growth.
Membership to The Club of Rome is still limited to one hundred members.
Meetings are still held at the invitation of its members. Its most recent
report was published in 1995 and dealt with the world's unemployment
dilemma. "Interim" reports on the problems of governability or the lack
thereof and on the global warming problem were presented at its last "annual
meeting" held in Puerto Rico in 1996.
So the Club is intact, but the passionate concerns spelled out by The Limits
to Growth have clearly cooled. Lost in time is whether the issues raised in
1972, creating such intense debate when finally published, were actually
correct and lurk as an unseen but smoldering ember.
EXTRAPOLATING THE WORLD BEYOND 2000
30 years have now elapsed since the original research of the book was first
done. The world is now 30% of the way towards the doomsday scenario depicted
by trend-lining the extrapolated growth of the previous 100 years. As the
book accurately predicted, population growth expanded. This was almost
inevitable as most parents of 2000 were already born when the book was first
written.
What can we infer about the state of the world over the next 30 years from
continuing this extrapolating exercise? Is it realistic to assume that the
gap between the rich and poor will never narrow? Could the world remain at
peace if the gap never narrows or even widens? And, if it does narrow, as
the World Bank head warned must occur to keep the world prosperous and
peaceful, are we really certain that the world has sufficient resources in
place to accommodate such changes?
These are the issues that should now be dominating the think tank
discussions of the world's public policy planners. At least the energy
aspects these issues raise deserve close examination. To extend the analyses
embodied in The Limits to Growth out another 30 to 50 years no longer takes
a supercomputer. Any hand held calculator can now do compounding growth
rates. When a simple extrapolation in the growth trends for population,
industrial activity, consumption of both agricultural and natural resources
and the resultant pollution is done, the alarms raised are more
discomforting today, with the benefit of an added 30 years, than the authors
of The Limits to Growth contended three decades ago.
However, we still have "70-years" to go before the 2070 limit, which the MIT
model suggested was an end to more growth, is reached. Perhaps it is
irrelevant that all the mileposts raised as red flags in The Limits to
Growth have so far been met. After all, there is ample time to correct any
seriously dangerous trend. Correct?
In the book's chapter defining the deceptive powers of exponential growth
and the apparent suddenness with which it approaches a fixed limit, the
authors describe the French Riddle of the Lily Pond. In this riddle, the
lily pond has a potentially virulent lily that apparently will double in
size each day. If the lily grows unchecked it will cover the entire pond in
30 days, choking off all other forms of life in the water by the time it
covers the entire pond. If a skeptic waited until 50% of the pond was
covered before taking any remedial action to save the pond, when would he
act? The answer: on the 29th day of the month! But by then, would be too
late.
The world can debate when corrective action needs to begin, if exponential
growth suddenly shows all the classic signs of pending overshoot. But
everyone should agree that waiting until the proverbial 29th day is a
classic and unrepentable blunder of the first order.
THE LIMITS TO ENERGY GROWTH
I have no good data or knowledge about agricultural or non-energy
consumption data. A casual reading of the possible future limits to water,
arable land, fish stocks, etc. causes one to question how the world could
even cope with continued population growth an a narrowing of the rich/poor
gap.
But simply focusing on the energy issues which should concern the world
argues that the world probably cannot wait another 30 years to begin
pondering whether we could begin to experience problems and sheer limits to
non-renewal energy consumption. The lead times for any corrective actions or
alternative energy alternatives are simply too great.
Take the energy needs of China as an example of the problem. This giant
population pool is struggling to remove the shackles of poverty suffered
throughout the 20th Century. There is a case to be made that by 2030, or at
least by 2050, China could become the Japanese Miracle of 1960, or even what
Japan is like today. At the least, China could become the equivalent of a
Thailand, Greece or Turkey today.
If such a transformation were to take place, are the world's resources
sufficient for this miracle to safely occur?
The arithmetic is easy to do. Over the past 30 years, China's population has
grown from 850 million people to 1.25 billion. Extrapolate this growth to
2030 and there will be almost 2 billion people. If China climbs the ladder
from near poverty today to even the lowest end of the OECD countries' energy
consumption, this means that China's energy consumption would grow more than
six-fold to over 100 million BOE per day, or two-thirds of the entire
world's total energy use today.
If China's population nears 2 billion by 2030, and China retains its current
energy mix, where almost 75% comes from using a particularly dirty coal, its
coal usage would increase to a level 50% greater than all the coal now
consumed by the entire world! The implied pollution this would create is
precisely the type of pollution dangers implied by the Club of Rome 30 years
ago. Since China's enormous coal usage already irritates eyes throughout
Japan when the winds blow eastwards, using so much added coal could
literally darken Asian skies.
If China weans itself meaningfully from its high rate of coal use, and
simultaneously improves its economy, the growth this implies for added
consumption of oil and gas is simply staggering. Even the most avid "cheap
oil forever" advocates would have a hard time convincing themselves that
such an explosive growth could really happen. This is a classic example of
System Dynamics working as they should.
If India also made a similar climb up the ladder of economic success, the
numbers for added energy use would rocket off the charts. But China and
India are but two of many countries that still qualify as genuine "energy
pigmies."
Exhibit 9 shows the power of energy extrapolation from seven of the leading
countries that qualify as "energy pigmies." The seven include China, India,
Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines and Egypt. In 1970, the
population of these seven countries was 1.7 billion. In 2000, they now
represent 2.9 billion people. Their total energy consumption now totals 25.4
million BOE per day. While this is a lot of sheer energy volume, it amounts
to a miniscule 3.2 barrels of oil equivalent energy per capita each year,
one thirtieth of what the U.S. now consumes.
If the 1970-2000 growth in population for each of these pigmy countries is
extrapolated to 2030, the population of these seven "pigmies" will exceed 5
billion. If their growth in per capita energy use from 1970 to 2000 is also
extended to 2030, these seven countries, alone, would consume an additional
68 million barrels of oil equivalent energy per day. More staggering is the
thought that such growth could take place and still leave these energy
pigmies on an energy diet of under 5 barrels of oil equivalent per year.
This would leave these countries at only one-quarter of the low end of the
OECD energy use in 2000.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of what the Limits of Growth authors
called "a classic over shoot - where growth finally and suddenly overwhelms
the system," simply assume that by some economic miracle, these seven energy
pigmies find a way to all become the equivalent of the least prosperous
countries of the OECD today (which consume around 20 BOE energy on a per
capita basis in 2000.) This change, alone, would equate to over 100 million
BOE per day of energy consumption in 2030, almost one half of what the
entire world now uses.
Nigeria is another classic example of a 21st century energy pigmy. Its
statistics were excluded from my "group of seven" simply due to limited data
on Nigeria's energy use over the past 30 years. But, good statistics exist
for Nigeria's current energy needs.
As Africa's largest country, Nigeria has seen its population grow from 51
million in 1970 to 123 million today. Despite it's size, Nigeria's current
total energy consumption is less than 500,000 BOE per day. This equates to a
meager 1.3 BOE per person each year. Despite producing close to 2 million
barrels of oil per day, the country is mired in poverty. It faces a serious
energy crisis due to declining electricity generation. Its total installed
electrical generating capacity is less than 1 % of that of the United
States. But in July 2000, only 25% of this tiny power capacity even worked.
The balance is in a chronic state of disrepair.
If Nigeria finally turned its economy around, like so many other role models
have done over the past 50 years, the exponential energy needs of just this
one country are profound.
Here is how Nigeria's numbers work. Assume that Nigeria's past 30-year
population growth continues for another 30 years. By 2030, Nigeria would
have 300 million people. If its GDP and energy use grew to what Mexico now
enjoys (10 BOE per capita in 1999), Nigeria's energy consumption would grow
by almost 20 fold to over 8 million BOE per day.
These numbers also highlight the possible export squeeze which many major
energy exporters could face if their populations continue to grow while
their GDP improves.
Nigeria's total economy is now fueled by its oil and natural gas exports.
For these exports to remain static, Nigeria's oil and gas output would have
to rise almost five-fold in the next 30 years. A handful of other oil
producers have been able to experience such meteoric production growth, but
they all started with an insignificant base. Since Nigeria is now one of the
ten top energy producers in the world, the likelihood of them quintupling
their current output has to be a genuine stretch. More likely is a scenario
where rapid increases in the country's prosperity finally turns the country
from being a major energy exporter to a net energy importer, as China
suddenly experienced over the past decade.
Nigeria is not the only big energy exporter facing this same risk. This
issue could become a problem for the entire group of OPEC producers. All
have seen dramatic growth in their population. In 1970, the OPEC countries'
population totaled 245 million. By 2000, their population grew to 524
million. If each country's 30-year population growth is extrapolated to
2030, these countries will support over 1.1 billion people. Exhibit 10
details the population growth of the OPEC producers from 1970 through 2000
and the population demographics which an extrapolation of these growth rates
produces by 2030.
The implications of this explosive population growth creates an interesting
future energy dilemma. Focus on just one of the OPEC countries as a classic
illustration of some possible limits to future growth.
Saudi Arabia had only 6 million people in 1970. By 2000, their population
grew to 22 million.
43% of Saudi Arabia's 22 million people are 14 years old or less. The
country's fertility rate is
6.3 children per female. If these trends continue, Saudi will have 45 to 50
million people by the
year 2030. If Saudi Arabia's population growth from 1970 to 2000 continues
unabated, the
country will have 80 million people by 2030. On the surface, these numbers
sound impossible
but they merely highlight how hard it is to gauge exponential rather than
linear rates of growth.
Most people still think Saudi Arabia is a very rich country. To the
contrary, its economy is now in shambles as a result of the population
explosion which has already occurred. The July 2000 Foreign Affairs had an
article highlighting the social and financial pressures already facing this
key energy supplier entitled "Saudi Arabia Over a Barrel". Saudi's domestic
debt in 2000 already exceeds more than 100 percent of its GDP. Its budget
deficit in 1998, when oil prices collapsed, was nearly 11% of its GDP.
Saudi's 2000 budget has government expenditures growing by 12%, so even
considerably higher oil prices will still produce a deficit forecast at 15%
of total budget.
Major Saudi cities routinely experience regular power brownouts in the
summer months, and the desalinization plant in Jiddah, the country's second
largest city, cannot keep up with water demand.
If Saudi modernizes its economy to a level which the United States now
enjoys, its increased electricity needs would propel its internal energy use
from just over 2.1 million BOE per day to over 12 million BOE per day by
2030. If Saudi's 50 (to possibly 80) million people also want to drive, the
oil consumption this implies makes it far-fetched to think that Saudi could
also continue to be the rest of the world's swing oil producer too. I
suspect the demographic numbers for Saudi Arabia would truly shock the
authors of The Limits to Growth. But these numbers are real facts and the
future they portend is profound from an energy perspective.
Saudi's demographics are not an exception to the rest of the OPEC countries.
A careful analysis of the OPEC countries' population, their current
electricity use (as a proxy for total energy use) and the age and
"fertility" rate for each country portrays the possible energy squeeze the
world could experience if the population of these countries continues to
grow and eventually narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Exhibit 11
details this data.
With the exception of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, every OPEC
producer has a far lower GDP per capita than any of the prosperous countries
of the OECD. Many still have 25 to 50% of their population living below the
poverty line. Their average electricity use per capita is only 15% to 20% of
what the U.S. now enjoys.
All of these countries have a burgeoning population of people under 14 years
old, and their senior citizens (those older than 65) make up only 2% to 5%
of the population base. Many of the countries also have a current "fertility
rate" of 3 to 6 children per female.
What these numbers suggest is that some, or possibly all, OPEC producers
might end up consuming all of the energy they now export, even if they
vastly increase their respective energy supplies. Some of these countries
will undoubtedly switch from being energy exporters to becoming energy
importers, assuming some other countries end up with enough spare capacity
to still be an energy exporter by 2030!
Is this OPEC scenario a mere fantasy or a "sky is falling" scare tactic?
Only time will tell. But it must be highly unrealistic to assume that
another 30-years could elapse with these struggling countries continuing to
supply the rest of the world with precious energy whilst also still being
mired in poverty.
If OPEC's internal energy use gradually erodes its ability to export, this
raises an extremely serious energy question. Could the rest of the world
ever find a substitute from anywhere else?
Might the world find a host of other countries that become the "OPEC's" of
2020 to 2050? Will new forms of energy easily substitute this lost supply?
Or, will the rest of the world become far more energy efficient by the time
these changes occur? Again, only time will finally tell the real story, but
these are precisely the mind-boggling issues which the Club of Rome hoped
would be resolved.
The Limits to Growth laid out in some detail how abrupt the arrival of a
growth overshoot can be. Imagine the impact on the world's energy markets if
all of the OPEC producers simultaneously became energy neutral and then
potential energy importers, due merely to a combination of rapid people
growth and rising per capita energy use both occurring within a similar time
period.
Energy Mix and Pollution: The Ultimate Limit to Growth?
When The Limits to Growth was first written, man's concern about ecology,
the environment and pollution was in its infancy. The first Earth Day was
held only two year's before the book's publication. As environmental
awareness grew, it remained localized to only the OECD countries for much of
the past thirty years. I understand that Kazakhstan's first appointed
Minister of Ecology, speaking at an energy forum in late 1992, said that
even the terms "environment" and "ecology" were only introduced into the
Russian language in 1988.
There are still enormous gaps in our knowledge of many key pollution issues.
The extent to which pollution results from run-offs into/from river flows,
waste disposal from fertilizers and even from methane emissions like cows is
still barely understood.
Carbon dioxide seems to be one form of pollution creating the greatest
scientific concern for its potential to trap heat close to the earth's
surface.
Population growth clearly enlarges the scale of carbon dioxide emission,
even if per capital consumption rates of pollution emitting items around the
world had peaked and were now on the decline.
Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. There is a tremendous inequity in
today's global emissions. One-fifth of the world's population released over
60% of all measured carbon emissions, while a much poorer one-fifth of the
globe's population released less than 2%. This tiny emission is not the
result of any concise effort to curb pollution. It merely speaks to the
abject poverty and miniscule industrial and energy use from a significant
part of the globe, some thirty years after The Limits to Growth first raised
these pollution issues.
The one area which attracts the highest level of pollution concern is the
globe's energy usage. As issue which gets far less notice is the "energy
mix" which each country now has and the future possible shifts in this
energy mix.
The pollution impact of energy mix is at the heart of the pollutive impact
of a growing population that uses more and more energy. If the wrong form of
energy, like coal, for instance, comprises the bulk of all incremental
energy growth, the probable impact this would have on our atmosphere, absent
some remarkable technical breakthroughs in clean coal energy creation, is
truly frightening.
Because this issue is so serious, it is worth examining the impact on
possible future levels of energy consumption and the impact this has on
pollution, given various scenarios of the world's future energy mix.
If these issues are ignored, this could end up creating a genuine crisis for
mankind, which suddenly shows up in a classic "overshoot."
If any reasonable energy consumption number is calculated for the year 2030,
other than a nonsensical assumption that the poor population of the globe
never improves or grows in number, the resultant volumetric energy growth
will be staggering. If the world is fortunate enough to find a way to
actually produce such vast sums of added energy, a secondary problem
emerges. The pollution created by this added energy could become
overwhelming or even life-threatening.
These added energy volumes put a sharp focus on the type of energy "mix"
that the world will use thirty to fifty years from now. If coal retains its
current mix, absent some revolutionary improvement in the emissions that it
produces, the world's atmosphere will obviously be very different than it is
today. But, every percent decrease in coal use puts an added strain on the
alternate barrels of oil equivalent energy that would take coal's place.
Take natural gas as a prime example since it is currently the cleanest form
of energy that can now be a realistic substitute for coal. Assume no growth
in energy and assume also that coal usage, which now accounts for about 40%
of the world's energy source, drops by only 5% and is substituted by natural
gas. This minor change would require the equivalent of almost twice as much
natural gas as Canada now consumes. If the world's total energy use
increases by 40 to 100 million BOE per day and coal usage drops by even 5%
or 10%, the necessary natural gas supply additions this shift implies start
to go haywire.
While I have never been a believer that the world will face any true energy
shortages in terms of running out, as opposed to allowing daily supply fall
short of daily demand, feeling comfortable that the world could actually
find a way to produce two or five times more natural gas in 30 to 50 years
does arouse some curiosity as to whether the reserve base is sufficient for
this to happen. After all, natural gas is still a "non-renewable" resource.
But these enormous volume additions are precisely what an extrapolation of
some simple trends imply.
As more and more natural gas is used to supply these increases in population
growth and the poor countries are fortunate enough to have meaningful GDP
improvements, and as pollution forces a conversion from coal to natural gas,
there must be a risk that we suddenly use so much natural gas that the
world's supply literally runs out. This is not an event likely to happen in
2005 or even 2010, but if it is even remotely a risk, solving it needs to be
addressed today.
The French Riddle of the Lily Pond is still alive and well. It takes decades
of planning to combat not having enough environmentally friendly energy,
like natural gas. If we wait until "the 29th day" when the lily has one more
day's growth before finally covering the pond, coursing a different path
will take place too late.
Finding solutions to this type of energy dilemma is not an easy task. No
"silver bullets" exist. A simple solution is to ban further energy use. But,
this na�ve assumption leaves too much of the world prematurely trapped as
energy pigmies. As The Limits to Growth pointed out almost 30 years ago,
"One of the best indications of wealthy human population is the amount of
energy consumed per person." That statement is even truer in 2000 than it
was in 1972!
It is simply intolerable and totally unrealistic to ban wealth creation for
the 4.8 billion people not as fortunate as the remaining 1.2 to 1.6 billion
who guzzle energy at a rate of 10 to 30 times the consumption rate of the
poor.
It is also na�ve and even less probable that the affluent people will
voluntarily decide to dramatically reduce their energy use in order to "make
way" for the less fortunate to improve their lifestyles.
The Limits to Growth should have forced these thought provoking, tough
questions to the forefront of current energy discussions. They are real
issues with few realistic answers.
Despite all the advances in technology and knowledge between 1972 and 2000,
there are no better solutions to the dilemmas posed in The Limits to Growth
today than there were in 1972.
The authors of The Limits to Growth pointed to the dilemma surrounding
pollution as a possible restraint to the world's growth in 1972. At that
time there was a serious lack of knowledge about what the appropriate upper
limits of pollution growth in the world's delicate ecological structure
might be. In 1972, man's concern for the effect of this action on the
natural environment was still very embryonic. Scientific attempts to measure
the environmental impact of human consumption had just begun.
30 years later, the environment's debate has become far more heated.
Millions of trees have been cut merely to produce the papers written about
the environment! But clear, solid, scientific "proofs" for where pollution
limits kick in are still unclear. Not much progress was made on defining
what the genuine upper limits are to energy pollution, let alone all the
other forms of pollutants created by people and expanding industrial
activity. Perhaps this void is yet another fallout of the lack of the
"follow-through" which The Limits to Growth authors so hoped would occur.
The only certainty in the current pollution debate seems to fall back to the
improbable assumption that exponential growth can continue on its present
course for quite a few more years before colliding with some immovable
limits. Whether these limits occur by 2030, or even before, or whether the
world can reach the 2070 timeframe, which The Limits to Growth addressed, is
still unknown. Unlike the French Lily Pond Riddle, science has yet to define
the equivalent of the virulent lily's growth.
From an energy perspective, there must be some practical limits to the
pollution fallout from a possible doubling, tripling or even quadrupling
current energy use in today's forms of energy. If the coal mix does not
decline, we must face some genuine doomsday scenarios.
THE NEED FOR NEW ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
This whole topic raises the question of "what other form of energy is next?"
If non-renewable energy remains "non-renewable" and if pollution emissions
are a risk of material concern (particularly from coal), then the world must
begin to find realistic sources of new renewable or alternative energy. We
cannot wait until the non-renewable energy cupboard is either empty or too
dirty to use any longer.
In 1972, The Limits to Growth authors pointed to three obvious energy
alternatives: nuclear, wind and solar. At the time, each held great promise
as the future for clean energy growth.
Nuclear energy became a reality. It was only an energy sliver in 1972, but
by 2000, it has grown to 8% of the world's total energy use. It became the
only significant new energy source "native to the 20th Century." It offered
an even far cleaner way to create electricity than using natural gas.
Sadly, the era of nuclear energy seems to have "come and gone" in the blink
of an eye. Less than a decade after nuclear energy was first introduced, the
Three Mile Island disaster occurred. Within a year, the U.S. saw its last
order placed for a new nuclear power plant. Other countries continued to
expand their nuclear use. But even France, Germany and Japan, the most
progressive nuclear users, are now under fierce pressure to not only drop
any further expansion in nuclear use, but are also debating whether their
existing base of nuclear supply should be maintained.
In the United States, not only have no new plants been ordered in over 20
years, we are now beginning to dismantle our current nuclear base. It has
been decades since any blueprints have been developed for a new generation
of nuclear power. Left to its current course, nuclear energy is being buried
almost before it reached adolescence in the grand scope of energy time.
The final nuclear irony is that no solution was ever found to the one
perplexing problem nuclear energy faced in 1972. Disposing of expended
nuclear waste was an unsolved riddle when The Limits to Growth was
published. It remains as serious of a riddle today. Scientists now debate
how harmful expended nuclear waste might really be, but so far, there is not
even any acceptable permanent burial grounds for this spent waste. Everyone
seems to share a genuine "not in my backyard" concern to disposing of spent
nuclear waste.
If nuclear energy has no growth role in the 21st Century, this puts an
enormous focus on the other three horsemen of renewable energy: wind, water
and sun. Sadly, all three have their own "Achilles' heel".
Water, i.e. hydro-electric power through building dams, is a time-tested
reliable and clean form of electricity creation. However, most of the
obvious dam sites in many parts of the world have already been erected. And,
hydro-electric power also comes at a devastating ecological cost unless
dammed water merely covers non-useable land.
In the current energy long-range planning, few new dams are even envisioned.
The few that are now underway, like China's Three Gorges, are under savage
environmental attack. A growing band of environmentalists are now launching
a movement to begin "breaching" the current dams so fish spawning can better
thrive over the next 100 years. Like nuclear, this form of energy might now
start to wane.
If water like nuclear, also has no additive role to the 21st Century's
energy mix, this leaves wind and solar as the remaining solutions - absent
perfecting new forms of energy like fuel cells and cold fusion.
Wind and solar have been around for a long time as energy sources, even
though both became ways to create electricity only a few decades ago.
Despite a lengthy period of research, both have severe limits to creating
any sizeable energy output. Neither is "dispatchable," a term used in
electricity circles to connote the ability to turn on a generator when
energy is needed and then immediately send the required energy to an energy
consumer. Both are extremely costly on a Btu of energy equivalent. Neither
has been able to "scale" to a level to create meaningful energy pools.
Since the sun does not always shine, nor the winds always blow, their
dispatch will remain irregular until a technology to store massive amounts
of electricity is created. No real research into this energy need is even
taking place today. Despite all the research and development poured into
wind and solar energy, both remain as costly to produce as they were some 20
to 30 years ago. Some critics also claim that both wind and solar use more
energy in merely building each form of power generation than either produce
in a year or two. Both also bring their own form of pollution - visual, and
in the case of wind, noise.
In 1999, all forms of "renewable energy" (excluding hydro) generated only
one-tenth of 1% of America's electricity. Of this tiny amount, geothermal
accounted for almost half. Wood, the world's oldest energy form, and waste
being burned accounted for almost all the remaining renewal energy. As the
20th century came to an end, wind and solar collectively only created
one-tenth of 1% of renewable electricity in the U.S. What this means, in
simple arithmetic, is that the two "promising new energy techniques,"
heralded to hold such promise when The Limits to Growth was first published,
still account for only 1000th of 1% of U.S. electricity generation! To say
that no progress was made in this taxing energy issue since The Limits to
Growth first hit the bookstands is a colossal understatement.
There is always hope that a totally new form of energy becomes commercial
long before any sheer limits begin to curtail the world's growth. Fuel cells
and cold fusion both hold great promise as breakthrough new energy forms.
But neither is close to proving they work on any scale or affordable price.
Fuel cell energy is "right on our doorstep" according to some proponents of
this new technology. But many questions still plague this "new technology"
that was actually invented 161 years ago and was put into space over 30
years ago.
The questions involve safety, cost, and the sheer availability of fuel to
put into the cells. Natural gas is the primary feedstock presumed to create
the hydrogen to then create this new form of energy. Given the other growth
pressures which natural gas faces, the availability of spare natural gas
might be a foolish assumption.
Cold fusion might suddenly become a brand new energy source. But, little is
yet know about how it is even formed. Since it took 30 years to
commercialize the atom, after it became a viable weapon, it would be foolish
for energy planners to assume something like cold fusion could be developed
into something significant in a far shorter time span. It is also worth
noting that even after nuclear became commercial, it took another 20 years
before it grew to only 8% of the world's total energy mix.
When it comes to creating new energy, the only certainty we know, more than
a century after energy technology created the combustion engine and the
refinery system's ability to crack oil into finished products, along with
the great strides of manufactured affordable electricity, is that only ONE
really new energy was commercialized in 100 years. And nuclear then began
dying before even reaching adolescence.
WE MUST NOW TAKE LIMITS TO ENERGY GROWTH SERIOUSLY
The population of the world is still on a projected growth path. Only
widespread war or a massive plague can turn back the fast paced growth still
happening in so many developing parts of the world. Hopefully, technological
advances in water desalinization, agriculture and other areas of possible
limits will allow the world to grow while still avoiding the Limit risks
which the Club of Rome worried about some 30 years ago. But energy limits
must be a genuine concern, if the rich/poor gap is finally narrowed. Whether
the world can continue its current growth path and avoid a serious energy
crunch, squeeze or even chronic shortages through 2010, let alone 2030, is
an issue which got largely ignored over the past 30 years. Whether there is
anyway to guide the world to true global prosperity by 2050 or 2070 is an
issue which should now be taxing all the world's best minds.
It is clear that the skeptics and scoffers of the Club of Rome's The Limits
to Growth got the real message of The Limits to Growth wrong, at least from
an energy perspective. They turned out to be as wrong about The Limits to
Growth as they were wrong about the entire energy picture as the 20st
Century came to a close. These name-plate energy economists ended up
spending too much time criticizing this work and attributing doomsday dates
that were never even part of this written work. They then spent far too much
time pontificating on how energy was gradually becoming less important to
the wonders of a New Economy and would obviously cost less as time went by.
Instead of rolling up their collective sleeves to begin addressing serious
energy issues, these kibitzers spent their precious hours attacking the few
voices of energy sanity. Over the years, the energy economists' incorrect
dismissal of this important work was not only a mistake but their criticism
also turned somewhat mean-spirited and at times even shrill! What a sad
conclusion for such a well-intended work to finally produce.
Lurking in the backdrop of this silly, misinformed chirping was a body of
statistics, all in the public domain, that were proving that many of the key
issues raised by The Limits to Growth were not only serious,but the
magnitude of the problem was growing as the gap between the rich and the
poor widened and the poor population expanded at a much faster pace than the
rich.
Perhaps the ultimate irony capping all the other mistakes which too many
energy planners made as the 20th Century came to an end is that the work
they lambasted so viciously turned out to be true.
There is obviously no certainty that the world will really run out of any
precious resource by 2030. There is also no "magic" to using 2030 as a
"doomsday date." The only reason I keyed so many energy extrapolations to a
2030 date is that it doubles the timeframe already spent since The Limits to
Growth was first published. If you extend the time line towards 2050 or even
2070, the dates which the MIT models found too scary, and any of the current
demographic, industrialization or energy usage trends continue, the numbers
this model creates are almost too overwhelming to even comprehend. The
feedback mechanism described by MIT's System Dynamics Model of the early
1970's is still alive and well. Before any source of energy finally runs
out, or the pollution such vast added volumes or energy use imply suddenly
poisons the earth, some natural break will undoubtedly stop the economic
progress which devours a precious and dwindling energy supply.
Focus on a country like Nigeria, for instance. If Nigeria's rapid use of
energy suddenly transformed the country into an oil importer, the jolting
impact this would likely have on its economy would probably bring its
growing prosperity to a halt, reversing its internal energy consumption.
Negative feedback does work. But these abrupt halts to further growth were
precisely what The Limits to Growth encouraged the world to find ways to
avoid.
Examine carefully the demographics of the entire Middle East and ponder how
any of these countries can safely plan on being energy exporters through
2030, let alone 2050 to 2070. If these countries finally use up so much
energy that they have nothing left to export, is this the "final event"
which The Limits to Growth warned us about?
The Limits to Growth was never meant to be a doomsday book. Rather it was
hoped that it would trigger a change in the flow of human trends to avoid
such a doomsday. But, the sponsors of this project were clear that it was
simply a non-starter to leave the world's wealth so unevenly distributed.
They were equally clear that "short of a world effort, today's (1972)
already explosive gaps and inequities will continue to grow. And the outcome
of this trend can only be a disaster."
They were also clear that the closer we got to the material limits to the
planet, the more difficult this problem would be to tackle. (The old French
Lily Pond Riddle coming back to haunt us once more.)
These civic-minded people who sponsored the modeling work and the authors
who then wrote the book were also convinced that the issues raised by The
Limits to Growth had to be met by "our" generation. The problems were too
serious and the correction time too long to pass these thorny issues onto a
"next generation."
The book closes on a poignant note: "Our posture is one of very grave
concern - but not of
despair......It may be within our reach to provide reasonably large
populations with a good
material life plus opportunities for limitless individual and social
development."
Hopefully this optimism is still warranted, though the challenge has already
been passed to a new generation and NO progress has so far taken place.
It would be na�ve, in my opinion, to assume the gap between rich and poor
could stay as it is now, and even more na�ve to assume this gap can grow
without finally creating massive civic turmoil. If the gap gets too great,
the poor will finally "come over the walls of prosperity" and attempt to
redistribute this wealth. History has shown this to be the case, time after
time. Most of our worst wars were not ideological battles but true fights
over the redistribution of wealth.
But closing the rich/poor gap needs very carefully implementation, as the
exponential changes in both energy resources and a staggering number of
other factors, including the pollution these increases imply, will strain
the world's logistic and resources availability to its limits.
Phase One of the predicament of mankind never really made it to Phase Two.
Instead, rather than merely ignoring this work and forgetting its chilling
conclusions if the issues raised were forgotten, too many "experts" decided
to use this thoughtful work as an easy target of intellectual scorn.
As a serious student of energy for the past 30 years, and a strong believer
that compounding historical trends are often a far more reliable way to
project the future than any alternate method, the world simply cannot
continue the population growth in the poor parts of the world and also have
these impoverished people climb the ladder of affluence. The energy usage
these numbers imply do not match any sound plan for ever supplying the
attendant energy this scenario creates.
Is there time to begin the thoughtful work which the Club of Rome hoped
would take place post 1972? I would hope so. But, another 10 years of
neglect to these profound issues will probably leave any satisfying
solutions too late to make a difference. In hindsight, The Club of Rome
turned out to be right. We simply wasted 30 important years by ignoring this
work.
Seems to me some government employee's are trying to take up alot of space and say absolutely nothing.
If terrorist were going to attack America , do you think they would give you a few day's notice? Rove is going for the big kicker between the fear goal posts.
Bad news for believers in the "singularity". Instead of accelerating us into a race of cosmic superbeings, our reliance on technology will turn humans into a species of domesticated pets: docile and anti-social.
So says Oliver Curry, a sociobiologist attached to the London School of Economics. A technology-dependent human race of the future will be obese, have weak immune systems, and be incapable of socializing, empathizing or performing team work, suggests Curry [ * ]. A bit like the "Web 2.0 blogger" of today.
He also predicted that the human race will split into two species, resembling the future inhabitants of earth in HG Wells' Time Machine. There'll be an underclass of ugly, dim-witted goblins (the Morlocks), and a eugenically-pure species of intelligent, 7-foot tall beauties (Wells's Elois) - each one doubtless capable of landing a tenured post at the London School of Economics - or making baseless evolutionary predictions at the drop of a commercial sponsor's shilling.
For quite how Curry arrives at his predictions isn't explained - but that's the beauty of sociobiology, you can just make this stuff up as you can go along - turning the result into a projection of your fantasies. In Curry's 7-foot tall uber-race, women's breasts will be "pert", he predicts, and men's penises will be larger.
It isn't clear if he submitted his prediction in the format of a superhero cartoon, helpfully labeling the large-willied master race "Adams", and the forlock-tugging goblins as "those bastards". But considering the sponsor, he didn't really need to
The "study" was conducted on behalf of the Morlock TV channel Bravo.
Social division might split humans into two sub-species 100,000 years from now, an evolution expert has claimed.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative.
They would be a far cry from the "underclass" humans, who will have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
The forecast was made by Dr Oliver Curry, who spent two months investigating the ascent and descent of man over the next 100 millennia.
He said, within a thousand years, humans will evolve into coffee-coloured giants between 6 and 7ft tall.
But Dr Curry said centuries of sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality.
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans.
Dr Curry said: "Things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic 'haves' and 'have-nots'."
Other predictions included:
:: Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve.
:: Men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
:: Women will develop lighter skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, even features and smooth hairless skin.
:: Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
:: Improved nutrition and medical science will see people growing taller and fitter, while life-spans are extended to 120 years.
Pert's good.
"...the world simply cannot continue the population growth in the poor parts of the world and also have these impoverished people climb the ladder of affluence."
There's the rub, boys and girls. Despite protestations about Limits to Growth not being the product of "misinformed "Malthusian" type thinking," that's exactly what it is and the reason why we still can't trust these Club of Rome plutocrat scary cats. Some swindles are just too big to wallpaper over with sympathetic sounding lamentations and misleading misinformation. Here's the biggest Malthusian hole: you raise the standard of living and the birth rates go down. Period.
Next, economic growth must be maintained, ot even accelerated. Why, because the World Bank, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and Dick Cheney all agree? Why would we believe anything these people tell us? The whole argument against a sane, sustainable economic policy boils down to "Well, we just don't know how we could do that, because there's no way to redistribute wealth without repeating the failure of socialism." And this from the most blood-stained cannibal capitalists on the planet--the same greedy fucks who directly and indirectly profit from poverty, war, disease (what was the other horseman again...?) Ever wonder why a refrigerator from the 1950s would last for 40 years while a new one only lasts three or four? Planned obsolescence. Cars, phones, televisions, clothing--every consumer good on the "market" has its premature expiration as a key design feature. So the wheels of industry can keep turning...blah, self-serving, blah.
Here's a news flash: we could make everything last practically forever, and we could employ processes which wouldn't harm the environment. Remember the other day's mention of Henry Ford's hemp car? (Composite body 10 times stronger than steel, at 2/3rds the weight, with 1941 technology?) Here's the link on the chemistry of hemp plastic (including more info on Ford's amazing car.) Industry could be made so environmentally friendly while producing far, far superior goods that the "reasons" for not doing so are beyond stupid: they're obvious. Preserving the status quo, right over the edge of the cliff, if necessary.
How about this "unknown" facet of the impending environmental disaster: Did you know that:
"Sustainable design is a broad concept which aims to reduce the adverse effect of human activities on our world. Architecture is responsible for about 45% of the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emissions in the UK.Architects are a large part of the problem, and consequently the solution - sustainable architecture." ( From the definition of sustainable architecture at sustainability in architecture, Royal Institute of British Architects.)
And, the solutions, in their myriad variety, are actually stronger and cheaper? In fact, it turns out that we could be living and working in buildings that actually produced more energy and water than they consumed! (Living Systems Sustainable Architecture, earthship movie.) So, how come all this isn't onn the six o' clock "news"? (Or in the noble-minded report from the lions' den in Rome?) Just a guess, but it probably has something to do with why cars in the US only get 10-30 miles per gallon, or why research has never been initiated (except in token circimstances) into alternative energy sources, or why inventors so mysteriously disappear so close to the date of their breakthroughs, etc, etc.)
But, no, it's sad that there's nothing we can do about the swirling of the big toilet we can all hear now. Maybe the Club of Rome could at least do a report on how best to cull all those non-producing members of society who so stubbornly insist on "climbing the rungs of affluence"...you, know, give the rest of us some breathing room.)
Yet society at large has long bought the idea of continual growth
in population and production without adding up the final reckoning.
Ah, Cuttlefish beat me to it. Yes, that quote above is monotonic populationism, i.e., direct degradation assumptions based on direct population numbers, which no one seriously credits anymore. It's more a distribution/equity sort of degradation, involving technology, material choices, political decisions, instead of static timeless math equations that are inapplicable to historical change issues and a huge distraction. The poor as 'gross numbers' don't degrade the world. The small 10% of the world-the First World rich people-- degrade the world, and then they displace the blame by killing off the 90% who complain about the 10% reaching into their areas and destroying their environment and econonomy and appointing dictators to rule them. Same British Empire anti-camerialist policies 200 freaking years, what a broken record.
Besides population models were updated anyway in early 2000s. Population is already falling below replacement in about 1/3 of world countries. Even pro-eugenics U.N. changed their models.
You though are still stuck in the 1970s with that I'm afraid. Mostly useless.
If the Erlichs of the world are so concerned about population numbers, then they should set the example and kill themselves. I would love to use the blood of the Erlichs in my organic garden--only if they donated themselves willingly of course. Club of Rome is just Nazi eugenicism 30 years later--with first generation statistical computers instead of Hollerith/IBM punch cards.
Now a team of M.I.T. scientists, with the aid of a giant computer, has completed a study of the future...
"A giant computer". That's so quaint. A computer, thankfully, is only as stupid (or smart) as the humans that put the model together that runs on it. Computers are no god-proof of anything, it's like saying "I ran the idea by myself, then asked a computer to double check it to see if I solved correctly the model I put in it"--if your model idea is wrong, it will be statistically extrapolated properly--though the model is useless regardless. Computers fail to help you on issues of internal invalidity which is the problem with Club of Rome and all 'timeless populationism' models from Ortes and Malthus onward. A bigger computer is to be equated with 'more truth' just as a bigger television more 'reality?' I think you see the difficulty here...
I'm surprised there is such an old fashioned 1600s era naive worship of the neutrality of numbers here... Numbers may help you measure things, though numbers are unable to tell you you might be measuring the wrong things.
And all that other talk about speciation of the rich and poor is of course the British eugenics once more--that's how it actually started. Britain was desttoying its population with pollution and endemic polluted cities and zero sunlight, and it was the cupidity or caprice of the countryside rich to think that it was the poor's innate genetic problem working itself out. That's pretty much were you got these dumb ideas, with a true dumb fool (I mean these words literally) Erasmus Darwin and his racist/classist ilk who had the money and power and isolation to enact their stupidity. Another broken record and closed bubble world.
The whole planet has gone downhill since Britain took over everything by the mid 1700s. And it really got messed up by the late 1800s, thanks to Britain once more when the Third World started to form, with global dominance of the British Empire almost alone. Read Late Victorian Holocausts for a real view of why such eugenic theories were opportunistically conveinent religious slogans after the fact, sort of as a cover up of their own actions and self-rationalizations that it was under Britain that famines started to pock the landscape in India systemically for the first time. Same with China, Britain pumping them with opium, etc.
The winners may write history, though an island country ruled by 1% of its population which are inbred upperclass nitwit corporate drug lords repressing their own people and then taking that as the model for the world is poor history regardless of how you spin it.
Britain intentoinally set off famines in Ireland to India to China--to even northern England as late as the 1840s--and started the international drug trades under state sponsorship. They still have their hands in assuring state supported famines and drug trade immiseration is the unwritten constitution of Britain worldwide.
We note of course that US/UK are the places that want to convert the whole world to a police state--off their own intelligence services state terrorism in the first place. Parasites killing off their host in a feeding frenzy is what it is.
They've been doing this for 250 years.
The U.S. North American colonies escaped for a while, though were roped back into the Britsih Empire by the 1898 Phillipines WAr which Britain helped out the U.S. in getting.
A rigint reader should hopefully be skeptical of adopting reactionary global ruling ideologies for your own. It's hardly in your own interest.
Britain is the #1 evil force in world history in the past 250 years.
"Reverend" Malthus (who recommended that it would be beneficial policy to encourage despair and pollution) was first chair of political economy at the British East India Company's 'CEO training school' at Haileybury--they liked him because he suggested that killing off their imperial chrages was the way to go to make money. And what he suggested had a moral imprimateur of "neutral mathemetics", eh? And it was bloody cheap as well.
It's been the same parasitical policy amongst most English speaking people's since, only now they impress themselves using "huge computers" to justify their same old imperial policies.
This is hardly to say that every Britisher or American is evil--there was a 'good fight' put up against Rhodes and his ilk in South Africa for instance--when the Imperial Governor was more interested in protecting people AS people (regardless of skin color) for a generation, until racist Rhodes and his ilk, which was in the next generation the Milner group, took over the place and started to invade northward in Africa--and soon to turn England and the United States toward ruling class ideologies.
Read Late Victorian Holocausts.
IC wrote:
Here's a news flash: we could make everything last practically forever, and we could employ processes which wouldn't harm the environment. Remember the other day's mention of Henry Ford's hemp car? (Composite body 10 times stronger than steel, at 2/3rds the weight, with 1941 technology?) Here's the link on the chemistry of hemp plastic (including more info on Ford's amazing car.) Industry could be made so environmentally friendly while producing far, far superior goods that the "reasons" for not doing so are beyond stupid: they're obvious. Preserving the status quo, right over the edge of the cliff, if necessary.
Exactly. They wanted to protect the steel forced choice regime. Ford hated the oil companies by the way. Later the oil companies took over his Ford Foundation as well, and led to the resignation in protest of all the Ford families. Hardly to make out the mass production anti-semite out as a hero at large of course (Hitler loved Ford, even decorated him), we're just talking materials politics here. I've even read that on some early Ford cars Ford had set up slots for having a magnetic based engine. He really really hated being forced to use oil.
And everyone should know that the "Diesel" engine, by Herr Diesel was to run on corn alcohol. He was about to go into factory production in Britain in the late 1890s. He took a boat over the English Channel to see the factory situation. He mysteriously fell off the boat and drowned in the English Channel. Later of course Diesel engine designs were taken up and 'converted' to oil running engines.
GM and the oil companies have had interlocking directorships since the 1920s. Good policy would keep the technology producers and the material providers separated financially. Otherwise, well, you get a world like we got now, as IC said, "preserving the status quo, right over the edge of the cliff, if necessary."
Mr. Moon has lots of money. He had admitted in the 70's that he wanted to take over the U.S. Supreme Court, F.B.I., that the U.S. government would be his to control. Remember it is known that he has a never ending supply of cash. South American death squads, drugs, space tech, the military industrial complex, newspapers, United Religions Inituitive, the Christian Right, the political Conservatives, major U.N. support, Asian mob, weapons of mass destruction, ?weather control?, this man is untouchable, and he's all about unification. Mr. Pantheism being Jesus of the 2nd and 3rd Israel.
This man is no nut. He is not chopped liver. His plans coincide with all global management systems. Economic, political, and religious. He is one of the most powerful men on our planet. Nobody influential ever bad mouths Moon or dares to expose him.
He was born Jan. 6, 1920. Yong Myung Moon his name (Shining Dragon Moon). He went on a spiritual quest and received a vision of Jesus on April 17, 1936. Moon in a New York Federal Court testimony, on May 27, and 28, 1982, stated under oath during a suit agaisnt a deprogrammer, that he had met Jesus, whom he had recognized from "holy cards". He also met Moses and Buddha. He claimed to have seen Jesus on Easter Sunday, 1936. If he had the date would have been April 12, 1936. Not the 17th.
Father Moon was educated by Elder Baik Moon Kim a founder and/or inspiration to a church called the Monastery of Israel. Elder Kim taught similiar "principles" that Moon's famous book Divine Principle has emulated. He was known as Mister Moon in the 60's. He was sentenced to 5 years in Hung Nan prison, North Korea, for bigamy. Established his church on May 1, 1954, in Seoul, South Korea. He was arrested for irresponsible sexual activity on July 4, 1955. Several Korean newspapers covered the story.
The Church Nazarene Korea Mission reported that Moon's church was involved with an unusual "blood cleansing" rite where a woman was to have sexual intercourse with Sun Moon to cleanse her blood from Satan's lineage. It is a well known fact that Moon was a very "Pentecostal Christian" hooked up with a host of occult practices.
He relied on spirit guides and was close to the spiritist-medium Arthur Ford during the early 60's. He came to America to declare the New Age and new truth. He helped to bail out President Nixon with his "God Loves Nixon" crusade. These men in our government are indebted to him. 1700 clergy men at a formal banquet tried to get President Reagan to pardon Moon when he was imprisoned here in the States. Again he is one of the most powerful men in the world. This not an opinion but a proven fact.
In case no one has noticed this, there is a new book out that is being flogged on Salon -
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375424172?tag=saloncom08-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0375424172&adid=1PNCFYNB7KN5N5P0YEM5&
Laura Kipnis "The Female Thing"
note the cover art
Vox has returned!
www.voxfux.com
There are strong parallels between a current fashionable mainstream economic system - globalizing capitalism - and a current fashionable mainstream disease - cancer.
This was mentioned (perhaps slightly more indirectly) in a posting in a recent past thread.
Mr. Moonie as a child probably was served as a rare butt dish to the Freemason brothers of the Bell. Buttocks to relish as an insatiable love muffin that had turned. Remember Ned Beatty in the movie Deliverance? Just picture the little dragon in his own land being questioned as to what the hell he was doing there? That he had to pull his pants down and squeal like a pig. Raped into submission by the unholy priests of Masonry and instructed as to the correct path he must take in life. If he isn't a honorary high ranked Freemasonic brother on planet earth I don't know who would be. He has Freemasonry written all over his face.
The call boy ring was about the sale of jet airplanes. The powers that be got what they wanted out of that one at the time.
to the poster who quoted Madsen...
Moon and United Nations is a very serious story. As usual, Madsen shits on the story by sensationalizing it with no real investigating tossing in his favorite "reporting" tools "maybe" "could be" and "would if". He chases any good reporter away because they don't want to get mixed up in his bullshit inpet "reporting."
I would not quote Madsen on anything and expect to keep any credibility.
Please read this from Gorenfeld and the link he provides
So, Iridescent, am I to take it that you endorse Anony's views on Peak Oil? Do you subscribe to the theory of Abiotic Oil?
I fully accept, and subscribe to the view that the Multi-Nationals engage in technological suppression. The argument is the the magnitude of the suppression and its implications.
Do you deny, Iridescent Cuttlefish, that a radioactive plume is making its way to the Columbia River....and when it arrives, it will have serious consequences for the entire Northwest? Don't you find it a bit callous that some jackass marginalizes this dire predicament by posting a link to Brown's Gas? I do.....and I bet those who lay straight in the path of the aforementioned plume implications do, as well.
I posted the Hanford Article as an act of Good Will to Jules....only to have it maligned by a disinformationist who wants to contain any real protest and effort. How does your approach, or Anony's who claims Nuclear Waste is easily mitigated going to help the people of Australia? Do you want them to adopt Nuclear?
Even if the people of Australia didn't write you all off as lunatics, and accepted your theories, it would play right into the hands of the PTBs, because it send the message that Nuclear Power can be used safely due to suppressed technologies that mitigate the harmful effects which will now be unsuppressed....but never really will be.
Also, let me get this. There can be no Peak Oil....it's all a scam...but there can be Peak Water....and, for some contradictory reasoning, it's not a scam.
Jesus Fuckin Christ.....if that ain't disinfo and misdirection, then such does not exist.
Shrub sayz:
Do you deny, Iridescent Cuttlefish, that a radioactive plume is making its way to the Columbia River....and when it arrives, it will have serious consequences for the entire Northwest? Don't you find it a bit callous that some jackass marginalizes this dire predicament by posting a link to Brown's Gas?...
psychotic, psychotic,
psychotic, psychotic,
psychotic, psychotic,
psychotic, psychotic,
psychotic, psychotic,
psychotic, psychotic, ...
Hardly. If Brown's Gas is one of 27 different nuclear waste remediation strategies, linked above.
Shrub, take your meds. Your incredible marginality here is something you fail to see due to your megalomania. I pity your family.
I bet you can brush your teeth with Brown's Gas too, can't ya?
How about wiping your ass and preparing a Gourmet Dinner...well, Brown's Gas will do both for you, simultaneously!!
I'll let you in on a little secret, though. An Illuminati friend of mine told me about it.
You don't need to purchase the actual device. All you need to do is fart!! Isn't that great!! So simple!! So easy!! Just load yourself up with Hummus and flagellate your way to paradise.
Shrub, Shrub, Shrub!
Of course I don't believe that nuclear is safe. The first protest I ever took part in was in Germany in 1985 when they were trying to bring shutdown reactors back online two years after Ronnie Raygun was slipping Helmut the shimmering sliver head of wisdom that was the Pershing missile. How can a technology that hasn't figured out what to do with its mind-bogglingly dangerous waste ever be safe? In a related issue, why is there now, on the eve of the "election," such a deafening silence surrounding DU? That is a disaster that is not going away, and yet there is hardly a word of discussion on the topic.
I don't have an opinion on the abiotic thing because a.) it sounds a little fishy, and b.) it's kind of beside the point, which is, as you have agreed and everyone knows, that the oil "market" is no such thing. When you've got allegedly essential commodities such as energy systems in the hands of a few giant corporations which also control the rest of the economic sector and the government, you know they're dicking us, plain and simple. They have a monopoly pie that they share by collusion while giving the appearance of competition to their practices. It's the same in every industry that provides essential goods and services--look at pharma.
Remember when we were talking some months back about what a godsend free energy would be? I post-scripted that comment by telling you that we could fix the mess we're in with current technologies--we don't need the "silver bullets" these peakers make such a point of telling us don't exist. Check out those links I posted on self-sufficient architecture and non-petroleum plastics--the implications are enormous and also patently ignored by the peakers. They make the point over and over again that it's not just for fuel that oil is necessary, that our dependence on petroleum for everything from fertilizers to plastics means that if we don't surrender to the agenda they're foisting on us (which, let's not forget, includes Ruppert's call for the "voluntary suicide" of 2-3 billion of us) then it'll all end in chaos and mass extinction. This is the heart of the swindle. They lied: not about global warming and the impending ecological crisis, but about the alternatives for the petroleum by-products on which they've tried to make us believe we depend. This is the crucial distinction that you always get caught up in, Shrub. It's not so much that the problems aren't real--it's that there really are ways of fixing them.
Do the math yourself. If 40-45% of greenhouse gas emissions are the result of criminally stupid architecture, and alternative designs (and working models) would not only take that percentage out of the mix but also in the process reduce residential and industrial energy demand by a minimum of 75% (2030 Project), the battle's half over. Now add to it the fact that the impact of transportation-related pollution and energy consumption could be reduced at similar rates using available technologies, and pretty soon we'll be scratching our heads asking "What crisis?"
There are other things that should make you suspicious of these people as well. Start with the relationship between oil and national security. If the oil companies who have behind Peak Oil from the very beginning (their statistics are conveniently relied upon by all the peakers) realized in the 1960s that oil production would one day peak, why didn't the national security state respond by making the search for alternative energy sources and reduced consumption the number one long range priority? The reason given by the kind-hearted Club of Rome was that the problem of redistribution of wealth and relaxing the grip of the monopolists was just too intractable--aw, shucks, we tried, but now it's too late (sorry!) and we'll have to commence culling celebrations shortly.
Another clue was the antics of Peakstar Mike Ruppert. How very clever. He writes a shockingly scary expose on the machinations of Darth Cheney and 9/11 to gain street cred and then smoothly transitions himself into mass suicide advocate, when he and Cheney knew in advance that the 9/11 thing would be too big for the public at large to swallow and therefore harmless while simultaneously bringing the only troublesome end of the political spectrum, the so-called "Left," firmly into their control. Beautifully dovetailed plan. And people wonder what Cheney's secret Energy Taskforce was discussing? You don't need a crystal ball when hindsight is this clear.
The fact that they're ratcheting up the fear is a sign, not of the truth or the unavoidability of the impending disaster, but of the desperation of the planners. The thing about limited hang out is that you've got to be able to cash your chips before the marks start to suspect you've rigged the game. It's not too late and they know it. Far-fetched as it might seem in these post-habeus corpus days, it's still possible that change could come from within the system (not that I'm putting any of my personal eggs in this basket...) If Democrats took the House, and if they were forced to conduct real investigations, and if the internet is not shut down as they so desperately want it to be, then there is still a chance that Nancy Pelosi can be told that she can't offer BushCo amnesty just because she works for the same people that Dennis Hastert does.
The corporations can still be broken. You'd have to revoke their personhood and then create comprehensive antitrust legislation while outlawing all forms of lobbying and eliminating all campaign financing that wasn't public, but it could be done. Direct democracy is possible through the internet. Townhall meetings could include high-bandwidth video-conferencing, referenda could be run the same way and even direct participation in the legislation process could be taken out of the closet. All with currently available technology; the phone companies have been paid since the early '90s to build a fiber-optic network capable of this (like in Japan, Korea and much of Europe). They just never quite "got around to doing it."
Instead of disenfranchising, discouraging, and dumbing-down "unreliable" and "undesirable" elements of society, participation could be made mandatory. Shocking as it might seem to prison-mentality Americans, felons are encouraged to vote in other countries as a central part of their re-integration to society. What a concept, huh?
All it would take to start this fantastic ball rolling would be the successful overturning of a conspiracy which would then serve as a template for all the other changes I've mentioned. 9/11 ain't it; it's too scary, too divisive, too violent. Hemp is it, folks. If there were a public referendum right now, even in these repressive, information-distorted and -policed times, the hemp laws would be repealed. When the mechanism of the conspiracy behind the prohibition was revealed, including how the petro-chemical, prison economy, and War On cabal(s) continue to profit from and exploit the 69 year-old prohibition, then the wheels of justice really would start to smoke.
Pipe dream? Maybe, but the arguments against the Doomsday Conspiracy were assembled under no foreign influence, I promise.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_w101937A.xml.html
Does anyone else find it odd, and maybe disturbing, that this couple, who seemed so in love, in the many news pieces they were featured in, moved in above a Voodoo shop, before one of them went crazy?
Jeff, could you do a story on this? It seems to fit in so well with our examination of the links between the military (this guy served in both Iraq and Afghanistan) and the occult (voodoo shop) and brutal ritualistic murder (dismemberment of body, legs in the oven, head on the stove)...
Seems REALLY messed up to me...
American's sure are self absorbed.
It's kinda funny watching your freedoms finally given the write-off and now America will finally get from it's own government what you let it do to others for bloody decades.
And bush isn't the devil, he's more like the devils droppings.
Irridescent Cuttlefish said:
Another clue was the antics of Peakstar Mike Ruppert. How very clever. He writes a shockingly scary expose on the machinations of Darth Cheney and 9/11 to gain street cred and then smoothly transitions himself into mass suicide advocate, when he and Cheney knew in advance that the 9/11 thing would be too big for the public at large to swallow and therefore harmless while simultaneously bringing the only troublesome end of the political spectrum, the so-called "Left," firmly into their control. Beautifully dovetailed plan. And people wonder what Cheney's secret Energy Taskforce was discussing? You don't need a crystal ball when hindsight is this clear.
This is a gross misrepresentation of Mike Ruppert's position. Ruppert has identified overpopulation as a problem. However he has never claimed to have a pat solution for it, never mind advocating something as disgusting as mass-suicide. What he has advocated has been a genuine public acknowledgement and discussion of the problem so that it can be addressed humanely. Certainly it takes a massive leap of faith even to consider that such a debate might still be possible in our age of media manipulation, but I cannot fault Mike Ruppert for saying that such a dialogue is desperately needed.
Irridescent Cuttlefish says that Ruppert has deliberately encouraged us to concentrate our attention on 9/11 because it will lead dissidents into a dead end. This is entirely false. Ruppert has for some time encouraged people NOT to concentrate their attention on 9/11 because, as he sees it, it distracts us from the bigger picture.
I just cannot believe that these malicious and false comments from Irridescent Cuttlefish could be honest mistakes. Therefore, reluctantly, I have to conclude that he/she/they is/are deliberately spreading disinformation. His/her/their contributions should probably best be consigned to the same scrapheap of malicious propaganda as wingtv, webfairy and Dave von Kleist.
And as for all this "Peak Oil Hoax" stuff, just ignore it. It's disinfo. It even sounds like disinfo if you listen to it carefully enough, just as any liar always sounds like a liar. It's crap. It's malicious timewasting crap. Forget it. The world is in a desperate mess and the last thing we need to be doing is pissing our energies up the wall worrying about this kind of nonsense.
Right, what America should worry about is if you can still jerk-off on the web and eat chocolate bars at the same time. Thanks to chertoff's hammer and sickle russian style of justice, pretty soon Americans will end up like Korea and china who also have no clue what is really going on in the world.
ireneshusband,
Don't know what your level of deep admiration of Mr. Ruppert is based upon, but I've obviously caused profound annoyance at my mindless insinuations and besmirchments of his fine character. No room to question, eh? This is the troublesome thing about an age of disinformation, isn't it--that you can't really be sure who's behind what or even what the agendas are.
As to my baseless accusations, St. Ruppert the Modest did state, in no uncertain terms, that the Earth's population must be reduced by between 2 and 3 billion. He even went so far as to speculate on what high-minded motivations it would require to volunteer for the project for the greater good (I'm sure he'll be at the head of that line, too.)
Here's something for you to ponder, ireneshusband (I mean aside from why Ruppert and the other Peakers so uncritically accept the findings of the oil industry they profess to hate): Why is it that the Peak Club so repeated hit us over the head with the phrase "there's no silver bullet"? So as to deflate any unfounded optimism? (The world is just awash in that quality right now, isn't it?)
The effect of repeating this mantra so often is that it pounds into our heads the notion that only some magical solution could save us. Never once does Ruppert address the architectural aspect of greenhouse gas emissions or the fact that adopting the sustainable alternatives would, as a nice little bonus, reduce demand for energy by a very sizable fraction. Ditto for non-petroleum plastics--they say it can't be done, and this is a lie).
In fact, the entire point of the Peak Oil movement can be summed up as "Don't bother trying to fix anything--trust us, it's too late and the best you can hope for is maybe to survive a few more years in the Mad Max world that's coming.) Or is this too outrageous of me as well? How dare I question such noble and brave men who choose to bravely confront fate in their survivalist chicken coops? The nerve, the audacity of some people!
Yeah, I must be a disinformationist, unlike the Unimpeachables pimping the Panic. Just out of curiosity, do they hand out cyanide at the meetings, or do you have to bring in a certain number of converts who've sworn not to think for themselves first?
Iridescent Cuttlefish said:
As to my baseless accusations, St. Ruppert the Modest did state, in no uncertain terms, that the Earth's population must be reduced by between 2 and 3 billion. He even went so far as to speculate on what high-minded motivations it would require to volunteer for the project for the greater good (I'm sure he'll be at the head of that line, too.)
Yes, he did say that after oil the Earth will only support 2-3 billion people. He also said that the plans the elites undoubtedly have to get us there are undoubtedly unspeakable, which is why we need to take control of our society and find a humane way to get there.
Iridescent Cuttlefish slyly insinuates that he did indeed say that people must choose to kill themselves. I do not believe this in the slightest. If I am wrong then I.C. will certainly be able to provide an exact quote and to be able to direct us to a plausible source so we can know whether he/she/they is/are lying or not.
Ruppert says there is no silver bullet (I don't myself know whether this is actually his phrase or someone else's) because there isn't. If we think there is we will act complacently when we cannot afford to do so. Ruppert has never advocated that we sit back and wait for the end. Instead he has advocated relocalisation, infrastructural changes and many other measures by which to address the problem, as have many others concerned about Peak Oil. It is inconceivable that I.C. could not be aware of this.
This kind of attack against Mike Ruppert pops up again and again on various blogs and discussion boards, as well as on wingtv.net. And again and again the format consists of wild mud slinging by those who know that no matter how clearly such lies are refuted, something will nearly always stick. Look at wingtv.net. It is nothing but mudslinging designed to turn dissidents against each other. This is classic cointelpro stuff. Ruppert gets much more of this kind of treatment than some of the less careful and thorough researchers. This is because, like Gary Webb, he is causing a lot of headaches for some people. Ruppert not only pinned 9/11 on Cheney so firmly that no one dares try to refute his argument, but he has also laid bare the underlying long-term political game that is being played. That is why such an effort is being made to destroy him.
As for the idea of replacing oil with hemp, this depends on the availability of agricultural land surplus to what will be required for food production. Without petroleum-based agrochemicals to boost yields there won't be that kind of surplus. Again, this is a point that Ruppert has made very clearly, as anyone familiar with his speeches and writings, such as I.C., would well know.
So I repeat, the Iridescent Cuttlefish avatar is a malicious liar. It is nothing more than a malicious disinformation operation and should be ignored and shunned from now on.
Golly, I'm an avatar now, Mom! Dude, why are you so frothingly indignant about my scurrilous accusations? Is there anyone else you defend with such sanctimony? Personally, I think hallowed figures beyond the approach/reproach of mere mortals is kind of a dangerous thing, but if you need to debase yourself by venerating your heroes, go for it. Now for brass tacks, as we seem to be getting a little closer to actually talking about the issues since you're only screaming about my impertinence for half of your screed.
Here's the major disagreement thus far: I say Ruppert and the Peakers are selling doom and panic, since they say there's nothing we can do about the impending chaos. You say that he "advocated relocalisation, infrastructural changes and many other measures by which to address the problem." That is so specific and wide-ranging--what could I have been thinking!?
I say that they're bashing us with the "no silver bullet" meme in order to suggest that it would take a silver bullet to fix things. You seem to agree: "Ruppert says there is no silver bullet...because there isn't. If we think there is we will act complacently when we cannot afford to do so." What about the possibility that things can be fixed without the magic? You're repeating the Peaker swindle here!
I mention the lie about non-petroleum plastics. You repeat this one, too: "As for the idea of replacing oil with hemp, this depends on the availability of agricultural land surplus to what will be required for food production. Without petroleum-based agrochemicals to boost yields there won't be that kind of surplus." We don't need no stinking petroleum, dude--address the claim instead of echoing your venerated ones!
I mean, look at the internal logic of what you've just "written." Everything collapses, we're living in isolated compounds, and there's no land to spare to grow hemp? Do Thunderdomes take up that much space?
What, by the way, was this suposed to mean: "...this is a point that Ruppert has made very clearly, as anyone familiar with his speeches and writings, such as I.C., would well know." He's your guru, dude, not mine. Yeah, I've read his stuff, but I certainly couldn't quote you chapter and verse; nor do I need to in order to criticize what he or (anyone else) is saying. I find it more than a little ironic that you spend the majority of your words ranting and raving about me peddling disinformation, belonging to "cointelpro," etc, etc (which is just a little teenage, wouldn't you say) instead of just talking about the ideas involved. It's also a bit weird for you to accuse me of spreading lies and all that when I'm not some celebrity pontificator--who's my audience, my following? Are you kidding? Your hero is the dangerous one, mate, not me. I'm just a guy with a ridiculous screen name who doesn't believe every parcel of bullshit he reads.
Lastly, again out of curiosity, why are you so personally invested in Mike Ruppert's honor? Why all the name calling? Do you imagine you'll advance your position by acting like an hysterical ninny instead of discussing the issues like a rational creature? Good luck! You might also want to acquire just a smidgeon of skepticism, friend, as you seem to believe things heart and soul, which is maybe not too smart with all those disinformationists around cleverly pretending to be ordinary people...
Iridescent Cuttlefish has still failed to subatantiate his/her/their claim that Mike Ruppert advocates mass suicide. Then he/she/they claims to know virtually nothing about Ruppert's thinking, as if there were something wrong in expecting someone who makes vicious accusations to have at least a modicum of an idea of what they were talking about. You don't have to read every word someone has written to get a flavour of where they are at. A fairly brief look at Ruppert's site would be enough. I.C.'s claim that Ruppert advocates mass suicide is pure invention. This is grossly irresponsible certainly, but given that it is also consistent with an ongoing pattern of character assassination based on blatant falsehoods directed at Mike Ruppert, it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is part of it. Disinformation, in other words.
I repeat. I challenged I.C. to susbstantiate his/her/their claim that Mike Ruppert advocates mass suicide. I.C. cannot do it. I.C. lied. Everything else I.C. has said in his/her/their last comment is intended to distract us from this fact.
Yeah, I must be a disinformationist, unlike the Unimpeachables pimping the Panic. Just out of curiosity, do they hand out cyanide at the meetings, or do you have to bring in a certain number of converts who've sworn not to think for themselves first?
Let me ask you, Iridescent, do you lump me in with that group? The way you speak to me seems to imply you do, which is actually quite unfair, and insulting, if that is your intent. Perhaps you can clarify that for me.
My cynical outlook is based on the behavior of Mankind and the socio/economic/political systems it has created and perpetuated. I have no doubt, if you remove that obstacle from the equation, that a solution is more than possible, and still further, extremely plausible, but, alas, you cannot remove that from the equation.
I do believe the world is overpopulated, considering the current socio/economic/political system that currently prevails. I don't believe it's the poor's fault and that their numbers must be culled immediately, nor do I agree that a seemingly instantaneous population reduction be implemented, meaning an involuntary culling. However, a pragmatic plan should be enacted to hit population reduction targets in the near and far future controlled through birth rate legislation. I'm willing to do my part. My wife and I have procreated our replacements thus far. We were going to have more, but we've decided to do the responsible thing and keep it at our replacement. The same can't be said for other pigs, though, especially in 1st World Countries.
My wife works at a Montessori School that my children attend. The owner of the School is the worse of the worse of pigs. She has 3 children and is pregnant with her 4th. She doesn't even take care of the three she has. They are neglected when it comes to time and attention, but they have everything they could ever want, materially. This pig buys a puppy a year and when they become a nuisance after several months, she turns it over to the SPCA. She purchases all other forms of animals, as well (Gerbils, Guinea Pigs, etc., etc.). She buys a new SUV every couple of years and justifies the gas guzzler with the comment, and I kid you not "I'm supporting my country's economy by purchasing something that uses a lot of gas because oil is what makes our country great." Juxtapose this with her rabid hatred of taxes. She's trying to force AFLAC down my wife's throat, and to justify it she uses her uncle as an example. See, he has AFLAC, and he has a condition that predisposes him to skin cancers, so, every time he gets a mole removed, he gets a $1,000 check from AFLAC.
Do you see the insanity? Do you think these pigs are going to suddenly change without being forced to, either by authority, or by calamity?
We know so many people who have contracted cancer, and have had it remediated, only to return to the same destructive lifestyle that enabled the cancer to manifest in the first place. They know it's a destructive lifestyle, and they know they were on death’s door, yet they still cannot change their ways.
How the hell do you expect me to be optimistic about our chances when I am faced with this cold, hard reality 24/7?
Nothing....and I mean NOTHING can change, if you can't change what I just described, because that's the majority of people in this quickly becoming a shit hole of a so-called Democracy.
How do you compete with a stealthy Marketing Campaign that proffers greed, lust, apathy, sloth, unaccountability, irresponsibility, and lack of critical thought?
You don't....because to compete is to play its game....but it's the only game the pigs know and understand.
Do you understand why I feel so hopeless, sometimes? I walk amongst this all day long, every day. I touch it, and feel it and smell it.
I was once an Optimist, like you, but reality has worn me down. And, no, I'm not some stupid idiot giving into the propaganda of fear. I'm far beyond that. My views are based on pure observation. I'm a cynical sociologist, and the social systems we have created to prop up civilization will also be the death of us as a species. It was a Faustian Bargain, and the devil is cashing in his chips.
Shrub,
Can you really believe that I would lump you in with Mike Ruppert, or, even worse, that I would either label you a Panic Pimp or the ridiculous "disinformationist"? Shrub, you know that I very much appreciate your views: where you and I find ourselves on the Optimist/Pessimist Continuum is completely irrelevant. You are the ascerbic wit at RI and a very funny guy as well. Many times you marvel at my unwarranted optimism; many times you've asked for clarification. "How can I possibly be so staunchly optimistic in the face of all that's going down?" you always wonder. I've told you a little of my circumstances, Shrub. Remember?
It's very, very grim and this is the reason why I can't afford to be anything else but optimistic. It's a conscious decision and quite possibly a complicated act of self-delusion, but I have found a great deal of information that does give me reason to hope, precisely because I was willing to entertain such possibilities. When I call myself delusional, it doesn't mean I have my head in the sand or that I'm ignoring the ill winds a-blowin'. It just means that I refuse to surrender or concede to the machinations of the Evil Ones. It's fairly obvious that they want us to despair; it makes their plan ever so much easier if the public accepts their "fate". I won't do it and I've found reasons for not doing so. You write very movingly of your kids--do you really just put on a happy face for their benefit when you're with them, or do you still love life (despite the ugliness and evil of these dark times) and desperately want things to work out?
Never doubt my regard, Mr. Shrub. I know you and you know me...
Now on to my hysterical friend, the skilled debater and eminent defender of the honor of Mike Ruppert. Ireneshusband, Sir: do you just not care to acknowledge any question or point I make? What is the point of attempting any sort of "dialogue" if you ignore what I put to you? Have I not addressed everything you've said? I've even gone and researched your hero a bit, which I thought unnecessary, since we should be able to talk about the issues without footnotes, but you seem so adamant on this point of my spreading "malicious lies" about the great humanitarian that I thought, okay, fine, I'm sure there's something out there. Oh, boy is there something out there! But before we get to that (and since I'm fairly sure you won't read it anyway, having evinced all the signs of a completely closed mind), let's geyt back to the real discussion between us.
Please respond to my previous questions, Sir:
--why is it that the Peaker Apocalypse is based on extrapolations of current consumption patterns, when significant reductions in the rates of consumption change the entire "prediction"? Is it written in stone somewhere that gas mileage in American cars has to remain at its artificially maintained low level? Even adopting the fuel efficiency of European cars (which is not anywhere close to the state of the art) would dramatically revise Mike's Doom. Please explain.
--the plastics & fertilizer lie. Your explanation is laughable. There's not enough room to grow the hemp which would replace the petroleum products upon which we've been made to "depend"? Really? Do you know what demanding soil conditions are needed for the frail hemp plant? Are you aware of the labor intensiveness of hemp cultivation?
--what about those energy/greenhouse gas reductions through sustainable architecture, which is not only storm-proof, conducive to a cooperative, non-stratified social construct, but also considerably cheaper? Can you understand how this changes the calculations of the Peakers?
If you do respond, please address these points before you begin your rant about my NSA affiliations, as these sorts of masturbatory fantasies really tend to get in the way of any sort of discussion (if that's what your purpose is--if you don't want to think about these things anymore, why do you even write in fora like these? Are you Ruppert's publicist, his brother-in-law, what is it that motivates you to challenge the expression of my doubts?)
Now we come to the fun part. Ruppert the Eugenicist. Read it and weep, deluded follower. Admittedly, this comes from Dave McGowan, so you're certain to dismiss it out of hand, but maybe inquiring minds might be interested, so here we go. For starters, we've got this small extract of an interesting take on Matt Simmons, the neo-Malthusian quoted here at length, and his connections with Ruppert:Water, Water Everywhere (but not a drop to drink) by Michael C. Lynch, President, Director Petroleum Services February 27, 2004 (Released: 3/6/2004 )
GLOBAL Petroleum SEER Alert:
This week saw a most unusual spectacle, resulting in a spate of news articles
that may be difficult for the uninitiated to understand. Matt Simmons, an
investment banker based in Houston and a longtime oil and gas price bull,
presented an extremely alarmist view of Saudi Arabia’s oil production capacity
and was rebutted by two officials from Saudi Aramco, which historically has been
extremely reticent to release any details of its operations. The arguments
presented are interesting not for their content but for the nature of the debate
(reliance on inference instead of analysis) and the provision of data from Saudi
Aramco about their operations. Much of the work done by Matt Simmons in the
past few years on global oil and gas has relied heavily on inference, suspicion,
and concerns while containing little or no real data. (Read more...)
Interesting as that is, here's the real crux of the biscuit, as Uncle Frank (Zappa) used to say. It's from McGowan's site and is well worth reading the entire esssay
Peak Oil Is a Scam to Promote World Depopulation by David McGowan, October 12, 2004
And make no mistake about it: the future that has been scripted by the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be pretty. Massive population reduction has always been a key component of the 'Peak Oil' agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail to this website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that time:
I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and
scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas)
and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate
destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate
global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth
and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population
reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.
At that time, I accused Ruppert of advocating a eugenics program, and I was, not surprisingly, harshly criticized by the Ruppertians for doing so. Numerous members of the cult of 'Peak Oil' sent e-mail accusing me of "putting word's in Ruppert's mouth." But more recently, while addressing the Commonwealth Club (which apparently just began extending invitations to dissident journalists; who knew?), Ruppert put the words in his own mouth when he quoted approvingly from a eugenics tome penned in 1952 by Charles Galton Darwin. Darwin was, for the record, a rather notorious figure in the American eugenics movement, as were other Darwins and Galtons before him. Are we supposed to believe that there was no significance to the fact that Ruppert referenced a noted eugenicist while addressing such a distinguished audience?
In a previous newsletter, I reported that Ruppert had briefly addressed the issue of population reduction during the speech that he delivered at this year's 9-11 conference in San Francisco. Since then, I have had the opportunity to review an audiotape of Ruppert's entire 'Peak Oil' presentation at the event. Here is a complete (enough) transcript of that presentation:
Look, let's talk about Peak Oil quick, and [sounding clearly irritated] I'm really tired of the debate. I'm really tired of "there's no proof; there's no evidence." I'm not gonna take time to go through this, but if we talk about Peak Oil real quickly, who's been talking about 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 view.
Could it be any more obvious that these people have no interest in ascertaining the truth?Just this week, Ruppert discretely added a new article to his website, which he posted "on an unpublished URL at the FTW web site" -- guaranteeing that none of his readers will ever know it is there, unless they learn of it elsewhere. Asked to explain his previous comments on population reduction, Ruppert does not deny that he advocates some type of forced depopulation program; he only denies having a specific program in mind:
I have no list of people who should be in charge of this. Everyone should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor might best include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in an effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely. (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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, I don't know...maybe because they'd realize he's working for the same people he pretends to be "fighting"? You decide, unless you've already surrendered that function, too...
Forget about the Peak Oil abiotic argument for a minute. This seems to be about drugs and water. Not to mention the possibility of a new and improved Colonial Digudad.
From Upsideworld.com
Counterfeit Rolling Papers and Viagra
Washington has justified its military presence in Paraguay by stating that the Triple Border area at Ciudad del Este is a base for Islamist terrorist funding. In a June 3, 2006, Associated Press report, Western intelligence officials, speaking anonymously, claimed that if Iran is cornered by the United States, it could direct the international network of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah to assist in terrorist attacks. The Justice Department has indicted nineteen people this year for sending the profits from the sale of counterfeit rolling papers and Viagra to Hezbollah. "Extensive operations have been uncovered in South America," the AP article states, "where Hezbollah is well connected to the drug trade, particularly in the region where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet."
Other claims about terrorist networks said to be operating in the Triple Border region include a poster of Iguaçu Falls, a tourist destination near Ciudad del Este, discovered by US troops on the wall of an Al Qaeda operative's home in Kabul, Afghanistan, shortly after 9/11. Aside from this, however, the US Southern Command and the State Department report that no "credible information" exists confirming that "Islamic terrorist cells are planning attacks in Latin America."
Luiz Moniz Bandeira, who holds a chair in history at the University of Brasília and writes about US-Brazilian relations, was quoted in the Washington Times as saying, "I wouldn't dismiss the hypothesis that US agents plant stories in the media about Arab terrorists in the Triple Frontier to provoke terrorism and justify their military presence."
News flash -- 9-11 ceremonies (including Bush's speech) celebrated atop newly-discovered 9-11 bodies.
["Just what business is this guy in?" -- that may be a jumbled recollection of Perelman's description of a filmscript opening scene that had been described to him. They wanted him to figure out the fellow's business so they could write the rest of the script.]
Wonkette has linked to you about this story. I was pretty surprised.
We Hate to Bring up the Nazi's, but...
I'm days late but I just caught this post and wondered if anyone else noticed how much the picture of GW Bush with a black mustache looks like Dick Smothers?
http://www.smothersbrothers.com/dsmocontact1.htm
I challenged Iridescent Cuttlefish to demonstrate that Mike Ruppert and yet again he/she/they has/have failed.
I.C.'s case is based on two facts: firstly that Mike Ruppert quoted from a book by Charles Galton Darwin, and secondly that he has advocated a public debate to find the most humane way to achieve a rapid reduction in global population.
Whether or not the passage by C.G. Darwin that Ruppert quotes did in fact come from a book dedicated to eugenics I cannot say, because David McGowan does not name it. However it is quite obvious that the passage itself is about the trouble we will be in when fossil energy runs out and does not, in itself, advocate eugenics. Ruppert makes it clear that he is quoting C.G. Darwin because his name "might carry a bit more weight in this room than Michael Ruppert"--not an unreasonable thing to do when you are trying to win over a sceptical audience. This particular Darwin was a distinguished physicist and academic administrator. If there were a vast number of equally esteemed individuals Ruppert might have chosen then we might be able to read some particular additional significance into his choice here. But there weren't and there still aren't.
However this is all pretty irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand, which is that Iridescent Cuttlefish claimed that Mike Ruppert advocates mass suicide. C.G. Darwin's eugenics was about giving tax breaks to the rich to encourage them to have more children than the poor. I have not read anywhere that he advocated (for want of a better word) "culling" of any sort. Therefore there is no way that quoting from Charles Galton Darwin could reasonably be construed as a call for mass suicide.
This still leaves the question of whether Ruppert supports less extreme forms of eugenics, i.e. those that say that one elite or another is genetically superior and that this group should be encouraged to breed at the expense of the rest of humanity. The answer is an unequivocal no. On the contrary, Ruppert has, at least from what I have read, consistently taken the side of the poor and the downtrodden against the cruelty of elites. Witness his indignation over the response to hurricane Katrina, or his own decision to move to Venezuela because it is a place where a government is actually trying to help the poor for a change.
So now for I.C.'s second piece of "evidence", that Ruppert advocates a thorough public debate about how to reduce population humanely, with particular care being taken to ensure that the debate is not dominated by politicians and technocrats. What on earth could be wrong with that? For instance in such a debate, if someone suggests that there should be tax penalties for people who have too many children, then someone else will certainly point out that this amounts to discrimination against the poor, and all this in full view of the public. If there is a hidden agenda here it is certainly nothing to do with eugenics. It is, rather, an implicit call for the people to seize power and to create the kind of democratic society in which such a debate could take place.
What is truly astounding about the way that Iridescent Cuttlefish has presented this hopelessly flimsy case is that he/she/they had to do quickly do some research to find it. This means that when he/she/they made the "mass suicide" claim, he/she/they knew of absolutely no evidence whatsoever that might even remotely be construed to support it.
So yes, Iridescent Cuttlefish is a vicious and remorseless liar. But is this due simply to an appalling arrogance, or is it, as I said earlier, because he/she/they is/are a disinformation operation? On reflection, I think I would have to plough through I.C.'s past comments over weeks or even months to be absolutely sure. Nevertheless my hunch is very strongly that I was not wrong, that he/she/they is/are indeed a disinfo operation. I don't have time now to argue this at any length, and clearly I shall need to do some more research here, but I did notice one interesting thing while I was writing this comment. It was a number of search results on "eugenics" pointing to thewebfairy.com.
thewebfairy.com is supposedly a site created by a grandmother in Chicago which would repeatedly come up with "new" video footage of the plane crashing into the South Tower of the WTC, as well as a whole lot of other stuff--and is probably still doing so for all I know. In reality it is nothing but a mishmash of nonsense and non-sequiturs throwing in just about every bit of bogus 9-11 crap you can think of - pods, tesla weapons and all the rest of it. In reality this Chicago grandma does not exist, or at least she is completely unknown to any of the real networks of activists living in Chicago. There could not be a clearer example of a disinfo operation. And guess what? The Webfairy really has it in for Mike Ruppert, even throwing in some incomprehensible gibberish about him, Rockefeller and eugenics. Now is anyone seriously going to try and tell me that this is simply a ploy by the elites to give Mike Ruppert some street cred?
So why do I defend Mike Ruppert?
Because he is the one who has been attacked here.
And why do I hold Mike Ruppert in high regard?
That would take some time to answer, but the main reasons are (1) that he tries hard, in difficult circumstances, not to degenerate into a narcissistic, paranoid Jeremiah, and (2) because he checks his facts.
robeet perrson,
Well, I guess this is slowly turning into some sort of vaguely civilized debate, although it's still greatly hampered by your continued antagonism and shrillness. Can you drop the childish "IC must be a disinfo network" and just talk about the issues? You suggest going back through my previous posts to determine whether I'm working for DARPA--please do, as you'll soon enough see that I'm all by myself here, just expressing myself as I see fit, with no allegiance to any organization of any kind. In fact, your fanatical adherence to the word of Ruppert and your indefatigable defense of his presumed honor indicate something far beyond your explanation:
So why do I defend Mike Ruppert?
Because he is the one who has been attacked here.
And why do I hold Mike Ruppert in high regard?
That would take some time to answer, but the main reasons are (1) that he tries hard, in difficult circumstances, not to degenerate into a narcissistic, paranoid Jeremiah, and (2) because he checks his facts.
Lots of folks are "being attacked here"--the ferocity of your loyalty is still unexplained. Look, you're the one brandishing the sword of disinfo suspicion, not me. Given that those who really do such things are not restrained by any conventions of common courtesy or decency and have unlimited resources at their disposal, is it really so impossible, as you suggest, that this connection to eugenics "is simply a ploy by the elites to give Mike Ruppert some street cred?" Have TPTB not done such things before?
So here's my suggestion. Let's stop this "No, you're working for the cabal" nonsense and just talk about the issues, as I've been asking you from the start. How do you intend to 'prove your case' when you keep screaming
"Blasphemy!" at the top of your keyboard-lungs? You sound completely deranged, not the disinterested bystander you proclaim yourself to be. Are you ready to talk yet, or is it more dodging the issues with declarations of outrage and condemnation?
Assuming you're willing to actually discuss what you're so upset about, here we go (again). First off, what about my questions? Shall I list them again?Here's a partial list, if you want to talk to me, or argue your case, or however you view this crusade by tirade, then please address them:
1.) Why is it that the Peaker Apocalypse is based on extrapolations of current consumption patterns, when significant reductions in the rates of consumption change the entire "prediction"? Is it written in stone somewhere that gas mileage in American cars has to remain at its artificially maintained low level? Even adopting the fuel efficiency of European cars (which is not anywhere close to the state of the art) would dramatically revise Mike's Doom. Please explain.
2.) The plastics & fertilizer lie. Your explanation is laughable. There's not enough room to grow the hemp which would replace the petroleum products upon which we've been made to "depend"? Really? Do you know what demanding soil conditions are needed for the frail hemp plant? Are you aware of the labor intensiveness of hemp cultivation?
3.) What about those energy/greenhouse gas reductions through sustainable architecture, which is not only storm-proof, conducive to a cooperative, non-stratified social construct, but also considerably cheaper? Can you understand how this changes the calculations of the Peakers?
All of the above are what first made me suspicious of Ruppert, not McGowan's analysis, which I only saw for the first time a few months back. Look at it this way: taking the case of China alone, it's more than obvious that the wasteful, unsustainable pattern of resource consumption and subsequent environmental degradation that is the American lifestyle cannot be repeated around the globe. The Earth can't even handle one America, much less an entire planet living this way. Since it's blatantly unfair for the Americans, and the West in general, to hog the resources of the whole world and to ruin everybody's only home, it means that the old paradigm must be changed, and soon.
As it turns out, this is not only technologically feasible, it would actually be cheaper than business as usual. I quoted some important statistics before concerning the source of much of the greenhouse gases which are driving both climate change and energy consumption: our criminally stupid architecture, which accounts for 45% of those emissions, could be converted to sustainable models which would not only eliminate those emissions, but also reduce energy consumption by 80-100%.
Why is it that Ruppert and the Peakers would rather comtemplate "the most humane methods of population reduction" than fix the bloody problem? When people like Simmons and the sinister Club of Rome pretend to be the friend of the common man and "sadly lament that redistribution of wealth is impossible" and that the population must be reduced because there isn't enough wealth or resources to go around, it should set off alarm bells in every sane person's head. It's a lie, a vicious, self-serving lie that the rich tell the poor, dressed up in the shabby sophistry of neo-Malthusian arrogance and superiority. In every single case of a country's standard of living being raised, the birth rate falls, dramatically. Look at Europe during the 20th century and tell me this isn't true.
The same sort of defense of privilege is at work in the so-called immigration debate in the US. The question is always "How can we keep them out?" and "What in god's name will we do when there's more of them than us"? It's racist, it's self-serving, and it's based on a lie. What no one in that "debate" will acknowledge is that if the West didn't profit from the imperialism of modern capitalism, then the Mexicans ans all the others wouldn't want to come to this stinking, racist, caste-system of a country. But no, we couldn't possibly share the Earth's bounty; it's ours by right of might, finders-keepers, get your hands off my stash. Nevermind that every person on the planet could enjoy a rich and rewarding lifestyle and that biosphere could be healed in the process, easily and cheaply, let's just prop up that status quo and "sadly, reluctantly" turn to figuring out how to thin the ranks of the dispossessed. Why would Ruppert go along with this swindle, this lie that the rich use to preserve their position and power?
I put it to you that no one who had a shred of concern for his fellow man would turn his back on the good fight and go along with the unnecessary culling, yes, murder, of 2-3 billion human beings. Aye, murder it is, not suicide--I was being far too kind in my initial assessment of Ruppert and the Peakers. You ask, with perfect, innocent credulity:
"...Ruppert advocates a thorough public debate about how to reduce population humanely, with particular care being taken to ensure that the debate is not dominated by politicians and technocrats. What on earth could be wrong with that?"
Well, and here's the whole point of our disagreement and damn you for a coward and all the things you've called me if you don't answer it: if the death of half the human race is unnecesary, a lot could be wrong with that. I can't wait for your measured, thoughtful response. As always, just me in my murky den...
Please note: Ireneshusband and Robert Persson (my blogger display name) are the same person. Sorry if this causes confusion.
Iridescent Cuttlefish yet again rants and raves about anything and everything, but still fails to provide any evidence that Mike Ruppert advocates eugenics of any sort, let alone mass culling. He/she/they simply assume(s) that this is so a priori and demands that I justify why I support what I do not. The underlying strategy is clear.
The strategy I.C. is a familiar one to most politicians and other con-men: make so much irrelevant noise that everyone forgets what the whole thing was about in the first place. Not exactly original, but usually very effective nonetheless. Just it won't work with me.
I repeat. I.C. can prove that he/she/whatever was not bare-facedly lying simply by providing evidence that plausibly supports his/her/whatever's statement that Mike Ruppert advocates mass suicide.
Why am I so "loyal" to Mike Ruppert? What a stupid question. What matters is whose side Mike Ruppert is loyal to in the struggle between ordinary people and self-serving elites. Because, after carefully considering the matter, I have become convinced that he is on the same side I am on, I will defend him and his work.
Why is Iridescent Cuttlefish so determined to destroy Mike Ruppert's reputation with absolutely no regard for reason or evidence? I no longer have any doubt whatsoever that the reason for this is a paycheque.
Unfortunately Iridescent Cuttlefish is only one small piece of the disinformation puzzle. As starroute pointed out last month, there was a time, even as recently as a few months ago, when there was a healthy synergy between Jeff's posts and the discussions that ensued. New thinking emerged; some of the dots got joined. And then the "regulars" turned up, all with apparently endless amounts of time to write enormous rambling screeds to each other. Now there is so much noise that genuine thought and discussion have become almost impossible.
Iridescent Cuttlefish blew his/her/whatever's cover in this thread. That was careless. There is nothing more for I need to say in this thread. Right now I have other fish to fry.
I made a mistake. It wasn't starroute who talked about the "regulars" taking over, although he/she has lamented the deteriorating quality of the discussion. The comment I was referring to was anonymous 1:25 am, http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/09/gosch-again.html
So, that's your response, is it? "Iridescent Cuttlefish yet again rants and raves about anything and everything...irrelevant noise"? Really? Those points I raised are dealt with by calling them "irrelevant noise"? Amazing rhetorical skills, sir! I present a reasoned, logical argument, while you continue to avoid discussing any issue whatsoever...and you claim "victory". Isn't that kinda like declaring "mission accomplished" and then denying the reality that everyone else can see clearly enough; you know, the Bush remix of the emporer's new clothes?
You really won't even respond to one of the questions I asked or the points I made? Not one? Pat yourself on the back, fella, 'cuz you done a heck-of-a-job! I do have to admit that your method is a lot easier--no worries about logic or any of that old school debate stuff--but I'm just a little too old-fashioned for these new-fangled tricks. I guess this age belongs to you younger, more flexible folks. But thanks for the sparring practice, anyway. I hadn't really made up my mind about Ruppert's integrity until I started arguing with you; your consumate debate skills brought it all into focus for me.
Robert Persson said,
"Why is Iridescent Cuttlefish so determined to destroy Mike Ruppert's reputation with absolutely no regard for reason or evidence?"
Robert, Mike Ruppert's ideas and associations have discredited himself, not the words of IC.
Mike Ruppert has a static veiw of the universe and these kind of people are always shallow bootlicker type people.
And now you have no reputation either.
The home of the infamous european toxic clan, psycho urban fraggers that pawn the virtual return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory battlefields.
Just Pub, a dumb return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory comic strip by feuersturm.
Post a Comment
<< Home