S. Korea Says North Cooperates with Iran on Missile Bases
Water War in Sri Lanka
Parts of Dakotas/Texas in Highest Level Drought
China Drought in Rainy Season
Grain Crisis in Japan
Real Federal Deficit
OPEC Slides Again
Business Day blames the slide in production on the pipeline leak in Nigeria and maintenance in Venezuela, then ends the article with the observation that the OPEC 10 have produced below the ceiling every month this year.
Gazprom's Venezuela Deal
Donations or send check or money order to:
FROM THE WILDERNESS PUBLICATIONS
655 Washington St
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Office Hours: Monday - Friday 8:30am - 4pm PST
Please let FTW know if you would like your donation to go specifically to Mike Ruppert. Thank you!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Chad orders foreign oil firms out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5289580.stm?ls
Don't get too excited about that 8000 mpg vehicle. It only weighs 126 lbs and will go about 18 mph carrying just one person who must lay flat on their back to cut wind resistance. (Not unlike the solar cars raced in Australia). Clever, but not exactly practical transport.
There is no bending the laws of physics.
Pandabonium said it all: "There is no bending the laws of physics." We would all do well to keep that in mind as our common sense is assaulted by the purveyors of miracle energy solutions telling us that we can keep on living the sweet life.
Now an Irish company is asking scientists to test a gizmo which, according to their claim, produces more energy than it uses. Energy has to come from somewhere.
Jenna:
This doesn't really fit with anything in this or any of the blogs, but it is probably something that could be done by almost all of the FTW community. I don't expect this to be published in the blog, but it may be a good one for your researchers to massage and write about.
If there are any questions please contact me at binary_bubba@yahoo.com
I have been reading many people wanting suggestions on a way to break away from the tapeworm. Either because I am a gutless wonder or because I really am trapped I have yet to break away. However, I have found one very good babystep. Open Software is one very very large community. It is world-wide, yet people have all decided we are all in the same boat so in the sense of we are all neighbors when it comes to communications it is local. In other words, if the elites have globalism, maybe us peons should also.
I have decided to use Linux and stop supporting a software company that specializes in propertary solutions to non-propritary problems and has been fighting anti-competitive lawsuits throughout the world. Although I am no slouch when it comes to techinical matters, Linux has proved to be more reliable than Windows and easier to fix when a problem does crop up. The links below can say it better than I can. However, should someone decide they want to take the plung you may contact me via my e-mail associated with my profile and I help do what I can to get you on the right track.
NPR stories about Brazil & Linux
Brazil_considers _Linux
Brazil-Linux
Linux distributors "Social Contracts"
Debian_Social _Contract
Gentoo_Social_Contract
The orginal open_source_software_manifesto
Tapeworm twistings SCO_vs_IBM The _Halloween_Documents
Very nice to see an article by Mike, and I hope he gets a decent internet connection soon.
As usual, his analysis is compelling. "Demand destruction and protecting markets" certainly helps explain why, for instance, Venezuela had to save Americans from freezing to death while the US government and oil moguls turned a blind eye. And then there was Katrina...
And Howlin Dog's comment is certainly relevant. The profit-mongering computer industry has indeed done its part to produce those tapeworm toxins by adding lots of bells and whistles that make people want to stay on the "upgrade" merry-go-round. Many people are addicted to upgrades and habitually check for them -- a profitable situation for software developers who will add anything to ratchet up their version numbers.
There is quite a bit of open-source software out there now, even for people running proprietary systems.
I'm posting my comments here for lack of better place on the blog. This is large for this posting format, so please forgive me.
Essentially, I've come to the conclusion that Peak Oil is a falsehood. At least to a certain degree. Please bear with me as I explain my position, which isn't necessarily contrary to Mike's message. I have a profound respect for Mike's work and his research. I've simply come up with another perspective on the same situation that he is warning us about.
The Airline Terror Hoax article is what changed my opinions, believe it or not. I'm at work so I can't spend the amount of time I'd prefer for an in-depth explanation, but I'll summarize.
I'll give you a little bit of background first, starting with the "power down" theory. I've never had a direct problem with that theory, only with some of the aspects that it's often associated with. Many experts who present power down scenarios, such as Richard Heinberg, have a tendency to associate peak with issues like global warming, decline of food production, population growth, and global instability. They list these as direct contributing factors to problems that will expand as energy supplies dwindle.
The problem I have with establishing a relationship with these issues is that most of them are contrived to rally support for global regulations or law. These contrivances of the mainstream media and their establishment financiers are used to justify turning to a global government, convincing people that international laws are in their best interests. This comes from the same media and establishment who cover for the empire and their stated goal of creating a single world economy.
For example, global warming could just as easily be explained by natural temperature fluctuations as it is by the supposed "earth friendly" environmentalists who warn of it's dire threat. This as they struggle to get worldwide agreements like DOHA implemented as international standards - for global energy control. People easily forget that for every near-record high temperature, there was one higher about 80 - 120 years ago in most locales. We're being duped into the other side of the globalist coin - the side that lures people in by choice before they're reigned in by force.
The very fact that Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members like Al Gore are championing the global warming cause speaks volumes. He's a globalist many times over, having reaped the illegal benefits of the Clinton Administration. He also inhabits several dwellings, the largest of which in Tennessee was passed on by his oil rich family, which helps him drive his gas guzzling SUV's. His agenda is for you to experience, not for himself. He's pushing for international laws to expand international globalist control over national policies - with energy at the core of the demands.
There are a lot of people involved in this line of crap and Gore is pulling the wool over the eyes of many more. By associating Peak oil with the "Global Warming" crisis, authors are using a straw man argument to generate a false conclusion.
The same argument applies to the declining food production rationale. Anyone who looks openly at this issue can admit the obvious fact that it's our own government who pays farmers subsidies NOT to grow their crops. Poorer arid nations have been subject to international finance strategies that have broken their economies. They aren’t suffering because there's not enough food. They're suffering because the financiers who dictate World Bank policy and US economic policy have bankrupted them and are paying our farms not to grow the needed crops.
This is another globalist scheme run by the same people who are sending US service men to kill and die in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy is used to justify and create a demand for nations to re-distribute wealth, based upon a false premise. It's part of the path to building a single global economy. There are 100's of thousands of US farmers unwittingly participating in this scheme.
And this takes us to population growth being a problem. I know that Mike has come forward in the past to state that the world population needs to be reduced to about 2 billion people in order to be sustainable, but at the moment I disagree with him. I'll state later where I DO agree with this, but that agreement is conditional to my final conclusion. The following link is an excellent article on how eliminating multinational corporations from the equation and bringing food production down to the community level can eliminate the problem. This IS in agreement with Mike:
http://www.ied.info/books/www/feedingtheworld.html
My point, again, is that population is another straw man argument that's based upon the activities of the globalists who control the worlds wealth and agricultural programs. Monsanto is a perfect example. This straw man demands that international "funding" and resource management is needed - the opposite of localization. When the media floods our television screens and newspapers with reports of starvation and strife, nobody sits back and figures out the logistics and growth capacities for food on their own. After hearing about it every day for years it becomes a truth that the world population is growing to large. In reality, it's nonsense.
We can say the exact same thing for global conflict. The first question is "Who is supplying the weapons for conflict?" The US is in the lead - with a government led by CFR financiers and industrialists. Russia is up there and the Chinese are involved as well. I won't get into Russia's founders and their CFR roles - I don't have time to teach a semester worth of data right here - but I think it's obvious who funds China's military production. Sam Waltham is probably spinning in his grave. We could also get into the history of establishing militant schools in the Middle East justified by the Afghan war against Russia, and the USIA providing of classroom texts in the Middle East using tanks and guns as counting tools. That framework, the CIA's removal of the democratic Iranian governement and the installation of the Shah and his brutal regime, and our financing of Saudi Arabia have led to the most radical elements who our forces are deployed against today.
This all connects to the recent plaque of terror hoaxes on airlines. The list of issues above - global warming, food shortages, overgrown populations, and global conflict are all part of the strategy for convincing the world that a single global system is necessary for peace, harmony, and human longevity. And each is a straw man, created by the same group of financiers who seek international control under a single global economic system.
And finally, this is where the oil crisis (peak oil, power down etc.) comes into the picture. If you've followed the progress on peak Oil, energy investment banker Mathew Simmons is one of those leading the charge in warning that peak oil is near and that if we don't prepare, there will be devastating consequences for society. I have no doubt that he's correct. I also no longer have any doubt that this is another intentionally planned contrivance to manipulate the globalist agenda. There’ll be need for minimizing the human population, but it’s basis will be entirely contrived as people starve to death.
Why am I convinced? First of all, like Al Gore, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney, Matt Simmons is a member of the "invite only" Council on Foreign Relations, who has staffed more than 80% of our most senior government positions over the last 50 years - including Presidents. Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alan Greenspan, Condi Rice, Madeline Albright, John Diebold (if you're wondering about election fraud!) Kean, Lieberman, Colin Powel, Dean, and many, many more. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, David Rockefeller, Diane Sawyer. These are the establishment who Simmons is a part of. In his capacity as promoter of "peak oil" hysteria, he's advised the President, has counseled Congress, and speaks at international conferences on the matter on a regular basis. And in his position as the leading investment broker for the energy world, he's profited enormously as prices have increased and concerns about production have spread around the world.
Peak Oil is the key reason that we're in the ME right now. Mike has detailed in Crossing the Rubicon how the NEPDG focused intently on oil reserves and on how those reserves were targeted to fuel the needs of an empire facing peak. I agree in part, but not in whole. Peak is the reason for US invasion, but not for the purposes of oil consumption. The real reason is to stem production and to implement peak upon the world, particularly the West.
Just like the contrived global warming, the contrived food shortages, and the contrived wars, how do you contrive an energy crisis if you can't control the output? Has anyone noticed how Iraq's output remains well below what it was three years ago?
The goal is globalization. The foundation must be a global economic system. How do you do that? You need to bring the world into economic parity. With energy as the driver of economies, it's obvious that the globalists can't raise the world to Western standards. They need to lower the Western standard of living to match the rest. Somewhere in the middle we'll find parity and the corporatists will find their global system while many of us die in the process.
To achieve the globalist goal, people must be convinced that to surrender sovereignty will bring them something better. An end to pain and misery. When our planes stop flying, our power stations stop producing, and our cars can no longer move us from A to B, we'll be offered a solution, but not until we're on our knees and begging for it. The solution will be global in nature as resources are handed over to or taken by the globalists.
The implementation of peak is why oil companies aren't maintaining their pipelines. It's why they don't build refineries or oil rigs. And it's why we don't develop ANWR - even with a GOP Congress and a GOP President. And that's why Cuba is mining for oil off the Florida Coast while we sit back and let the reserves go empty. Peak Oil may be an unavoidable eventuality, but in its current form it’s a contrivance. I’m not challenging Mike; I’m simply stating how I see it. I read FTW for the straight story. Even still, I continue with my own analysis and this is how I see it. If I’m wrong, convince me. I'm looking for the truth.
Shorebreak:
I actually like much of your analysis. I am not a fan of the progressives who support "big government" as an answer and for certain "free market" and big corportations is not the answer.
It seems to me that both analysis (there really is peak oil vs. manufactured peak oil) come to the same conclusion: This old fat boy is gonna get screwed unless he can figure a way out.
A "model" of how a system works is only good if it accurately predicts what will happen. It looks as if your model and the FTW model have the same prediction, but both are worth considering should things change. (For example, Gore gets elected and we commit to Kyoto in a short time frame.)
I have yet to figure out "why" anyone wants more then they can use. It must just be some kind of keeping score or maybe the fact that one can't be in control unless one has control.
I can see no guarantee of any one way to avoid most of the bad scenarios. If the button is pushed we are all in hurt. If the climate changes, who knows where the best place will be. Should I invest in gold, what happens if "Dah Man" makes having gold illegal? The best any of us can do is look, listen, and learn. So far the FTW analysis seems right on for helping me map it out.
shorebreak:
Thanks for the link to the feeding the world website. All info I read say about the same ratio. "To produce 'just one can of corn containing 270 calories,' the agricultural sector consumes 2,790 calories of energy."
so much for ethanol... and in a very populated world so much for meat consumption.
The numbers that interested me were the area of arable land per person ratio. I have a book about sustainable gardening covering this same subject and want to compare the numbers.
rice farmer, your last link is so on-the-money i just sent it to other ftw staffers in the hope it'll make it to a wider audience. if it doesn't, in a few weeks, it'll go up here. thanks!
Yea, that article kind of fits the pieces together, doesn't it? Many years ago I published an article in a Japanese magazine about infrastructure. My point in that article was that people are always complaining about how high their taxes are, but don't realize that they have to pay for the infrastructure that supports the industrial economy and their lifestyles. Later on, after being asked to translate part of a book on mega-systems and mega-accidents, I began to realize that the infrastructure has grown to such huge proportions that it can no longer be maintained. So, things are literally falling apart.
Shorebreak raises some good questions. Just as physicists and astronomers continue to gather more data and test Einstein's theories, so too we must continue to test FTW's theories. So far FTW, like Einstein, has been holding up pretty well, but we must be scientists in our quest for the truth.
Nothing is simple, of course, and even elites don't agree on how to run the world or how to divvy up the spoils of their wars. This makes analyzing events and situations all the more complicated. I look forward to a lot of stimulating discussion here in addition to the meaty content on FTW's site.
Howlin Dog, Rice Farmer,
I appreciate your input. Like I said earlier, I don't disagree with Mikes analysis regarding the fact that a peak crisis is imminent.
I'm simply saying that an early peak is being contrived. Mark my words. If I'm correct, when Iran is decapitated or forced to capitulate (which is highly unlikely) their oil output will dramatically decline without significant resurgence.
I also find it interesting that the Caspian was regarded as prime real estate for development, yet subsequent to the PNAC agenda in the former "Stans" and the invasion of Afghanistan, Caspian potential has been dramatically downgraded and many of the oil majors have pulled up stakes in the region.
It's my opinion as I stated earlier that the goal is an eventual massive downturn in oil exports to western nations - hence the export of infrastructure to third world economies. I wouldn't be surprised it the reduction is as much as 2/3's of current consumption. Big oil stays happy because prices have jumped and will continue to rise. At 1/3 output their margins will still be higher than they were in the mid 90's. And their longevity is assured as a result of extended field life.
This is one of the issues that raised my eyebrows regarding Matt Simmons. It benefits him to use his influence to promote peak oil, in the short run and in the long run. His association via the CFR with the members of PNAC, with Zbigniew Brzezinski - who co-wrote the CFR's policy recommendation white paper on Iran, and his association with the promoters of global warming like Al Gore to reduce hydrocarbon usage, all combine to create a bigger picture that isn't being clearly displayed.
If you step back and take a look at the entire canvass, each of these players and their agenda's play into the larger CFR goal of creating a single international system. Environment, military enforcement, agriculture, economy. Considering that the CFR founded the UN, it's very easy to draw the parallels between the goals of it's members in these various capacities that I've briefly illustrated. They all work towards creating a universal concensus that the world must unite to prevent further crisis.
And that is where my greatest concerns reside. If we rally to support global environmental regulations, an international economic system, a UN peacekeeping force, etc., we're ultimately rallying to support the agenda of the empirical maniacs who on the surface appear to be the enemy. Stepping back, it becomes more apparent that the real enemy sits in the shadows behind our supposed leadership, using them as a willing tool to generate support for the broader globalist agenda.
Admittedly, I'm not a political scientist, I'm not an expert in the petroleum industry, and I'm not a military analyst. But I do pay very close attention to world events and our national political crisis. I take in the facts and hold the opinions of others at arms length before forming an opinion of my own. I think FTW is usually dead center on target, but in the case of peak, it's my opinion that it's contrived and has been very long in planning.
And FYI, I'm not simply a voice without solutions. It's my contention that the only way this cabal composed of the GOP and Democrat parties in the US has remained in power is via a divide and conquer strategy. They've twisted our national conscience to a left or right mentality, rather than the true focus on a Constitutional mentality. Divided we can never rally enough public support to take back our nation. But together, by focusing on the Constitution and setting aside differences in compass bearings we can educate Americans on the importance of adhering to the Constitution rather than to party. That forms the foundation to expose the current threat in local forums and to build a Constitution based backbone for national unity.
Not Conservative. Not Liberal. Not left or right, up or down. But Constitutional for the sake of keeping the corporatists from further usurping our sovereignty and eventually the world. A serious effort is needed, beyond mere talk and exposure of the issues, and beyond partisanship and division created by our media. Unity is the only way to win.
yo, what happened to Mike? CArolyn Baker's article leaves WAY too many gaps. Can somebody explain why our man is now in Caracas?
shorebreak:
I think your probably right about the early peak being contrived. It sure does seem like a lot of things are going wrong at the same time.
I definitely agree with your divide and conquer analysis. I once stopped in a truck stop to get some coffee right after the patriot act was passed. I asked a trucker about his shirt which said something about the 2nd amendment (a "conservative" issue). Yet he thought the flushing of the rest of the Bill of Rights was necessary for fighting terrorism. Ditto for all those cop cars that state "donated by a drug dealer", What happened to the 4th amendment?
As far as fighting corporations, we have allowed them to become so big we are all commodities as far as producers, and consumers. The only answer I can come up against that is doing what doesn't necessarily makes sense in the short term because it is "right". The term "right" requires me to have some sort of moral/spiritual guidance and like everything else it seems as if the mainstream religions are polarized so I have to “roll my own” in that area too.
To state the problem in my typical gross way: If everyone else is peeing the swimming pool why should I get out and go to the restroom? A little more piss isn't going to affect anything. Besides, the pool is already a pool of piss.
Anyhow: If you run for President Shorebreak, count me in as a supporter.
I have a question for the admin staff. I don't expect you to post this, but feel free if you'd like.
I've recently posted on my perspective of peak oil and I followed up by stating my belief that the only way to overcome the problem - if possible - is to work towards eliminating the political divide in the US and begin growing a Constitution based movement as a backbone to Constitutional government.
At this point in history we've reached a unique place where citizens on all points of the political compass are concerned about the fate of our Constitution. There's an opportunity today to use this concern to draw unity in purpose from all perspectives in order to work towards an honest and just government.
I'm a conservative. Many of my personal beliefs and goals revolve around that ideolgy. But my goal is for a Constitutional America. I'm willing to drop my conservative agenda as a means to unite with all other points of the compass under the banner of promoting Constitutional governance, beginning at the local level.
So my question for the admin staff is this. May I have permission to present this proposal on the blog? I don't want to step on any toes (more than I've already done - sorry Mike!) nor do I expect that a call for politic reformation should be posted here.
FYI, I'm currently in contact with several conservative organizations who are very concerned about national leadership and the Constitution. I've made the same proposal to them and so far I've received positive feedback.
If you determine that this kind of post is acceptable, just go ahead and post this entry. If not, I'll understand completely.
Thanks!
Shorebreak makes a valuable point about the constitution. Conservatives and liberals (I am a lefty) disagree on many things, but there are certain core values everyone should be able to agree on, and one is the constitution and Bill of Rights. I note that traditional conservatives, unlike neoconservatives, are horrified by the trashing of the constitution and the violations of privacy. People who really want to save America (and the rest of the world) could start by reaffirming these common values.
Post a Comment