Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
FR
ES
Senal en Vivo
VIDEO
RADIO
FRIENDS SITES
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.

by : CultureJamCleveland
Wednesday March 16, 2005 - 14:47
> Energy > USA
11 comments

RePort @
 http://www.portland.indymedia.org/e...

Deceit UNveiled: -’Peak’ is PreText ’ PiLL’ Forcing the ’UNavoidable’ ? die-off Plan/Scam

 One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century.

 So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd ’Fossil Fuel’ theory, of course — the same theory that the ’Peak Oil’ doomsday warnings are based on.

 The notion that oil is a ’fossil fuel’ was first proposed by Russian scholar Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757.

 Two and a half centuries later, Lomonosov’s theory remains as it was in 1757 — an unproved, and almost entirely speculative, hypothesis. Returning once again to the Wall Street Journal, we find that, "Although the world has been drilling for oil for generations, little is known about the nature of the resource or the underground activities that led to its creation." A paragraph in the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the origins of oil ends thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ... there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins."

 Does that not seem a little odd? We are talking here, after all, about a resource that, by all accounts, plays a crucial role in a vast array of human endeavors (by one published account, petroleum is a raw ingredient in some 70,000 manufactured products, including medicines, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, paints and varnishes, acrylics, plastics, and cosmetics). By many accounts, the very survival of the human race is entirely dependent on the availability of petroleum. And yet we know almost nothing about this most life-sustaining of the earth’s resources. And even though, by some shrill accounts, the well is about to run dry,....

 http://media.portland.indymedia.org... Put the Kibbosh On It

....no one seems to be overly concerned with understanding the nature and origins of so-called ’fossil fuels.’ We are, rather, content with continuing to embrace an unproved 18th century theory that, if subjected to any sort of logical analysis, seems ludicrous....

 great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!

 There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date.

 It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion" allowance philosophical scam.

 The people that the ’Peak Oil’ pitchmen are fronting for are deadly serious about selling ’Peak Oil’ to the masses — and not just in theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and increase profits. No, it has become clear that the real goal is to actually cut off most of the world’s oil supplies under the ruse that the oil simply no longer exists. The desired result is massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. The majority of the world’s people will not survive. Those that do will find themselves living under the overtly authoritarian form of rule that will quickly be deemed necessary to restore order.

 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.

 But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have been motivated by America’s desire to seize what will soon be the last drops of the world’s precious reserves of oil — and that is entirely untrue.

 But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off" will be a regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable, consequence of the world’s oil taps running dry. And that is the really big lie.

 One of Ruppert’s "unimpeachable sources," Colin Campbell, describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will be characterized by "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

 The message there seems pretty clear: once the people understand what is at stake, they will support whatever is deemed necessary to secure the world’s oil supplies. And what is it that Ruppert is accomplishing with his persistent ’Peak Oil’ postings? He is helping his readers to understand what is allegedly at stake.

 It seems to me that, in the final analysis, what the ’Peak Oil’ crowd is selling looks very much like what the Bush administration is selling: control of popular opinion through fear. The methodology and the goals (justifying endless war and openly fascistic domestic policies) appear to be the same. The only difference that I can see is that Team Bush sells the agenda through fear of phantom terrorists, while Team ’Peak Oil’ sells it through fear of a phantom apocalypse just over the horizon.

 I think the deception speaks directly to the issue of whether ’Peak Oil’ is real. Why all the deception about the true origins of oil, and about who is behind the concept , and about the viability of alternative energy sources? There has to be a reason why the idea is being sold with so much deception.

*****

PROGRAMMING FAILING DUE TO IGNOMINIOUS SATURATION, in a free-thinking Nation:


shiLLs ToiL in scam for RoyaLs

’Peak OiL’?

Mind SoiLed

Atmosphere BoiLs

KundaLini CoiLs

FOIL Peak OiL by Being Peace LoyaL

’all cards on the tabLe’

According to HoyLe.

*****

CLiffNotes, HighLights by CuLtureJamCLeveLand

 For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986).

 Hasn’t the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a ’fossil fuel,’ and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out?

 Could it be that many of the world’s oil fields are refilling themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an energy hungry world?

 "there new data and interpretations strongly suggest that the oil and gas in the Eugene Island field could be treated as a steady-state rather than a fixed resource."

 And how does the fossil fuel theory explain the continuous, spontaneous venting of gas and oil?

 Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth’s surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

 Dry oil wells spontaneously refilling? Oil generation and migration systems? Massive oil reserves miles beneath the earth’s surface? Spontaneous venting of enormous volumes of gas and oil?

 Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to account for the available data, is it not customary to either modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis — rather than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years

 I mention that because of something else I read on Ruppert’s site. Listed as #5 of "Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy" is: "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong." http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Well then, Mr. Ruppert, I have some very bad news for you, because something definitely is wrong — with your ’Peak Oil’ theory. Because here we have a published study, subjected to peer review (thus assuring the "validity" of the study), that demonstrates, with mathematical certainty, that it is actually the ’fossil fuel’ theory that defies the laws of thermodynamics. It appears then that if we follow Ruppert’s Laws, we have to rule out fossil fuels as a viable alternative to petroleum.

 But is there really any doubt that those who own and control the oil industry are well aware of the true origins of oil? How could they not be?

Surely there must be a reason why there appears to be so little interest in understanding the nature and origins of such a valuable, and allegedly vanishing, resource. And that reason can only be that the answers are already known. The objective, of course, is to ensure that the rest of us don’t find those answers. Why else would we be encouraged, for decades, to cling tenaciously to a scientific theory that can’t begin to explain the available scientific evidence?

 Maintaining the myth of scarcity, you see, is all important. Without it, the house of cards comes tumbling down. And yet, even while striving to preserve that myth, the petroleum industry will continue to provide the oil and gas needed to maintain a modern industrial infrastructure, long past the time when we should have run out of oil. And needless to say, the petroleum industry will also continue to reap the enormous profits that come with the myth of scarcity.

 Because, you see, we first have to go through the charade of pretending that the world has just about run out of ’conventional’ oil reserves, thus justifying massive price hikes, which will further pad the already obscenely high profits of the oil industry. Only then will it be fully acknowledged that there is, you know, that ’other’ oil.

 I have been struggling to come up with an explanation on my own and the only one that I’ve got so far is that the corporation might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an artificial shortage of a crucial commodity.

 Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom’s estimate of recoverable reserves had nearly quintupled !

 Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2 trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let’s pause here for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth’s total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the ’Peak’ pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture? 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."

 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 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.

 But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point. What I was trying to say is that the notion of ’Peak Oil’ is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd — because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn’t need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge.

 The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of ’Peak Oil.’ After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn’t exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for ’Peak Oil.’

I also need to mention here that those who are selling ’Peak Oil’ hysteria aren’t offering much in the way of alternatives, or solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that "there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today."

 Another telling sign of ’Peak Oil,’ according to Ruppert and Co., is sudden price hikes on gas and oil. Of course, that would be a somewhat more compelling argument if the oil cartels did not have a decades-long history of constantly feigning shortages to foist sudden price increases on consumers (usually just before peak travel periods). Contrary to the argument that appears on Ruppert’s site, it is not need that is driving the oil industry, it is greed.

 Hasn’t the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a ’fossil fuel,’ and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out?

 My favorite figure is the one labeled, in one posting, "Yet-to-Find." That figure, 150 billion barrels (a relative pittance), is supposed to represent the precise volume of conventional oil in all the unknown number of oil fields of unknown size that haven’t been discovered yet. Ruppert himself has written, with a cocksure swagger, that "there are no more significant quantities of oil to be discovered anywhere ..." ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr.... ) A rather bold statement, to say the least, considering that it would seem to be impossible for a mere mortal to know such a thing.

 The wholesale promotion of ’Peak Oil’ seems to have taken off immediately after the September 11, 2001 ’terrorist’ attacks,
*****
***** _ DECEPTION, DISDAIN & DISREGARD FOP SOUND ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE PROTOCOLS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS EXCHANGE, really blow their own cover
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nws...
***** _ I was a little worried that those in the Ruppert camp would be smart enough to not respond to my last newsletter. Those worries were quickly put to rest, however, as it took less than 24 hours for me to receive an ill considered, vitriolic response

 I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China’s northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000.

 In other words, the world’s leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export.

 This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe’s ’fossil fuels’ for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning ’fossil fuels’ for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean? Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face — so much so that it is remarkable that the ’fossil fuel’ myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of ’Peak Oil’ - is built. Go figure.

 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."

 Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert). The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious,

 Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve.

 most nations’ production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact, Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast) for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately. The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory value of the bell curve.

 Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions

The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers’ arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response ...

Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good.
 http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessim...

 But consumer groups are charging that big oil companies are largely responsible for the current upward spiral in gasoline costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced storage capacity.

 Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is preparing to release a report later this week charging that the oil industry deliberately consolidated in the 1990s so that it could withhold supplies and reduce storage capacity.

 "The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It’s inadequate refinery capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions made by the oil companies to tighten the market."

 The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing control of the market in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil ...

 The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices — all as a "profit-maximizing strategy." These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been investigated by the U.S. government.

 "I think you should know about ’Resource Denial Theory.’ It’s a sub-section of Geopolitical Theory, so beloved of the Bushite and Zbigniew Brzezinski crowds, and states you must take control of areas where strategic resources are located - like oil - and prevent rivals from entering. Your power derives from the control of these resources."

 In other words, it’s not about seizing the resources that we need to survive; it’s about denying our ’enemies’ the resources that they need to survive.

 We are hearing doomsday predictions of the demise of man. Human civilization as we know it is in its final hours. And we have, apparently, simply thrown up our hands in despair. Why bother looking for new sources of petroleum? Why bother double checking old sources of petroleum? Why bother giving any consideration to any alternative sources of energy? Why bother doing anything at all?

Clearly, there is something very, very wrong with this picture.

 I have already posed a series of questions for the ’Peak Oil’ crowd, all of them pertaining to the deception employed to sell the concept: Why are we being deceived about the true origins of oil and gas? Why are we being deceived about who is really behind the notion of ’Peak Oil’? And why are we being deceived about the viability of various alternative energy sources? *****

A True Story.....,@

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/20... *****

(3) "...the understanding that peace is both inner and outer. It is a condition of consciousness, a state of being and becoming which involves cognition, conation and affection. In its integral stage it has a contentment and fulfillment because it is its own witness and has a calm and a repose and a balance of the intelligence of the head and the heart, an intuitive understanding that is born of wisdom and compassion, a harmony that transcends opposites or contraries and says without speaking, knows without looking, and is without doing. Peace in the integral being is consciousness of love and light." (contributed by Dr. Vasant V. Merchant, Editor, The International Journal of Humanities and Peace), and lastly (but not finally),

(4) To be enduring, peace must include minimally, the following attributes: resource sufficiency, cooperation, freedom from ignorance and illiteracy; personal and communal opportunities, compassion and caring for others, behaviors and actions that result in all parties "winning", renewable, sustainable energy—sufficient hope, love and prosperity for all, and prospects for the "good life" for all.

We now have an expanded (albeit, not exhaustive) global, spiritual, meta-physical, physical, philosophical, biological, anthropological, economic, social, political, natural and operational definition of peace. Peace is defined as being a normal, natual and essential condition for the continued and continuing progression of all humanity toward 100% success.

Like perennial wild flowers given the right conditions of climate and nature, peace is ever-recurring at various times and places—in greater and lesser degrees—throughout the human community. Peace and its constituent qualities of sufficiency, altruism, cooperation, hope, love and serenity remain life-sustaining and anti-entropic—our teacher of the "ways", our "beacon" for success and survival—our preferred and natural state.

 http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/g...

Achieving Peace, A New Paradigm(Part 2): Scarcity vs. Plenitude

 http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/g...
*****
****
***
**
!
"Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to account for the available data, is it not customary to either modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis — rather than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years?"

homepage:
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com

some help @
 http://www.gasbuddy.com

"The Russian and Ukrainian scientists have reported that the world is not running out of oil as much as we are running into it." -http://www.gasresources.net

PETROLEUM PEAK?
A Lesson In Unlearning

WHOSE LIFE ARE YOU LIVING

 http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.htm
*****
The People of The Hand Will perSERVEre Over The people of the Fist cuz,...The Hand Can Share All UseFul Things, while the Fist Must CONceal What It Holds



Leave a comment
Print this article


Commentaires de l'article
 

> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Wednesday March 16 - 22:41 - Posted by fd74931b8802a045...

I’ve never read such a crock of shite in my entire life.

Peak oil isn’t so much a theory as a simple observation, oil recovery is tracked along a production curve, until it reaches a certain point after which it declines until the oil feild is no longer able to viably produce.

This has occurred in (oil following some kind of production curve) in ALL oil feilds in decline, from the US to the North Sea...

If you want to believe the hydrocarbons, for which the chemical structure is well known and agreed upon by geophysists, chemists and oil industry scientists the world over is somehow magically recreated filling empty oil fields then you are simply willing to believe something that is patently not borne out in the empirical data. No resource magically appears, no matter how much we’d like it to. Oil is a natural resource which can be pumped from the ground at some rate of production. Currently that production is unable to keep up with soaring demand. Hence th high prices.

If demand continues to outpace supply we will see high prices - maybe much higher, and possibly shortages.

The maximum amount of production will be reached when oil feilds in decline outweigh those that are still increasing production. This is simple maths, not some obscure flawed theory.

This writer hasn’t unveiled anything other than the fact that he ought to be studying voodoo and witch doctory - since this is his only hope of making oil magically appear in dead wells.




> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Wednesday March 16 - 23:29 - Posted by 0d30ae9ef3fa59b5...

Here here! The author speaks utter non-sense. Peak Oil has been discussed since M. King Hubbert in the 50’s, and borne out time and again in actual field production data across the globe. It is not a new concept invented to instill public fear, but like with any science the outcome can be used for good or ill. The real question is how do we choose to act responsibly in the face of this issue.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Thursday March 17 - 01:51 - Posted by d6ad9c20142ca0f6...

please read entire article, this is very important

don’t you agree that large capitalist corps. will maximize profits by any means necessary, not the least bit hesitance at manipulating ’myths of scarcity’ and manufacturing artifical shortages, very possible with monopoly mergers and no Gov. reg.?

points to ponder

1)Origins not discussed or widely known in the west:(The notion that oil is a ’fossil fuel’ was first proposed by
Russian scholar Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757. Lomonosov’s rudimentary
hypothesis, based on the limited base of scientific knowledge that
existed at the time, and on his own simple observations, was that
"Rock oil originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the
sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and
pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time,
transform into rock oil."

Two and a half centuries later, Lomonosov’s theory remains as it
was in 1757 — an unproved, and almost entirely speculative,
hypothesis. Returning once again to the Wall Street Journal, we
find that, "Although the world has been drilling for oil for
generations, little is known about the nature of the resource or
the underground activities that led to its creation." A paragraph
in the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the origins of oil ends
thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ...
there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins.")

2)50 years of peer review (The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum
origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic
debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge
has been over for approximately two decades)

3)’fossil fuels’ does not obey Laws of Thermodynamics (Geotimes also noted that the research paper "examined thermodynamic
arguments that say methane is the only organic hydrocarbon to exist
within Earth’s crust." Indeed, utilizing the laws of modern
thermodynamics, the authors constructed a mathematical model that
proves that oil can not form under the conditions dictated by the
’fossil fuel’ theory.

I mention that because of something else I read on Ruppert’s site.
Listed as #5 of "Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative
Energy" is: "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied
up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of
Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Well then, Mr. Ruppert, I have some very bad news for you, because
something definitely is wrong — with your ’Peak Oil’ theory.
Because here we have a published study, subjected to peer review
(thus assuring the "validity" of the study), that demonstrates,
with mathematical certainty, that it is actually the ’fossil fuel’
theory that defies the laws of thermodynamics. It appears then that
if we follow Ruppert’s Laws, we have to rule out fossil fuels as a
viable alternative to petroleum.)

4)Big problems with Hubbert -The Hubbert Curve

The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve
was very simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate
approximate resource levels, and for the lower-48 US, he thought a
bell-curve would be the most appropriate form. It was only later
that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory in and of
itself, that is, geology requires that production should follow
such a curve [editor’s note: if, that is, petroleum is organic in
origin]. Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no
equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used
a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted
that production often did not follow a bell curve. In later years,
however, he seems to have accepted the curve as explanatory.

[...]

Revival of the Hubbert Method

The recent authors, notably Campbell and Leherrere have apparently
rediscovered the Hubbert curve, but without understanding it, at
least initially. Campbell and Leherrere initially argued that
production should follow a bell curve, at least in an unconstrained
province. But this is demonstrably not the case in practice: most
nations’ production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact,
Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast)
for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to
resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately.

The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the
Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it
would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory
value of the bell curve. As the alleged value of the Hubbert curve
lies partly in demonstrating the production decline post-peak, not
knowing whether any given peak is the final one renders this
useless, nor would the peak imply that midpoint production had been
reached (indicating URR).

+ proprietary database=Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions

The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers’ arguments makes
them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with
undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive
review and response ...

Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a
tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying
heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have
generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making
it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is
little or no research published, merely the assertion that the
results are good.
[much more at: http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessim...]

5)AND LASTLY DOOMSDAY BS LIKE THIS HAVE ACTIVATED MY RESPONSE ABILITY TO
LOOK AT THIS SUBJECT OPENLY AND CRITICALLY AND SHARE THIS RESEARCH

BS LIKE THIS: Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil
production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak
that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation,
economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens"
(Campbell in Ruppert). The current series of alarmist articles
could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which
proved fallacious,

WILL YOU BE CONVINCED TO PLAY ALONG WITH THIS MANUFACTURED SUBJECTIVE REALITY?, that could happen, but those with enough money, connections and access to bunkers will be able to survive and not try hard enough to stop from happening..

2 more simple statements from the article
*
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."
*
"Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so
obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the
advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis,
and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to
account for the available data, is it not customary to either
modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis — rather
than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years?"

it was a shock to me also when i encountered this info a year ago, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but a reliance on convention and conventional thinking has gotten us trapped and in a wheel-spinning, holding pattern and NewThinking can lead us to a better world

to me everything in the article is very logical, think when you fill up your tank if the oil co.s care about average americans




> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Thursday March 17 - 02:51 - Posted by 36128142307874e0...

Bush and his whole government are oil people this whole 4 years of Bu$h has been about making oil more profitable. You will never hear it uttered in MSM but the logic speaks volumns. The oil companies have made more money than they have ever made in their exsistance during Bush’s presidency. Their profit margins have trippled year after year each year the oilocracy has controlled the country to make their profits the biggest of any industry in history, Exxon is the largest corporation in the U.S. For simpleton Bush supporters, this alone should clue them in just a tad as to who really controlles this country and the economy here, and what the almost secret agenda of Bu$hco really is.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Thursday March 17 - 02:59 - Posted by 36128142307874e0...

Even if this story would be true - I’m glad it isn’t. What would happen to the earth and all forms of
life if human beings continue to increase emissions. There are signs in the real world that greenhouse
gases are the biggest threat to humanity by now.
But finally there is a solution on overpopulation: hunger, suffocation and lack of drinkable water.




> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Thursday March 17 - 15:31 - Posted by 06ae4988af65c194...

who are you psychos?
Does the idea that magical beings living in the earth creating an endless supply of oil (CO2) for us to put in the atmosphere help you to sleep at night? Do you think everyone is out to get you? Have you talked to a shrink lately?




> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Friday March 18 - 00:42 - Posted by efe8c712dee8152e...

Who is this clown? He seems to have very little idea of either Statistics, the time frames involved in Hydrocarbon formation or the "Scientific Method".

In fact, the abiotic theory is not even taken seriously in Russia-Ukrane where it developed. Most scientists studing the Dneiper-Donetsk basin in the Ukrane, an area that abiotic origin theorists like to point to, are convinced the origin is of Bioligical origin. It has 2 overlaping Organic rich sedimentary source rocks. Eugene Island, another abiotic origin theorist show peice. This island began producing oil offshore in the early 70’s. Initially at the rate of about 15000barrels a day. By the late 80’s it was clear that this field was nearing it’s end, production had dropped to about 4000-5000barrels a day. This field then zoomed back up to about 13000 barrels a day. The new oil is also considerably different in age. I can’t remember whether thats older or younger, will have to check. Anyway, once again this field has "peaked". It’s production is again declining. This oil has again been studied and has been studied by scientists, most reputable scientists can find nothing to suggest it is anything but of biological origin. The current theory is that oil is migrating along the Red Faultline from one of the many smaller resovoirs drawn by the increasing pressure differental between it & the area around the drillhole.

As for peaking, how many oil companies are still drilling for oil in Pennsylvania, the birthplace of the US oil industry? Not many, and those that do don’t get a lot. It would be a waste of time & money to even try, it’s all gone. Modern techniques of oil extraction might get some of left behind oil that earlier drillers were unable to get to, but with cheap Middle East & Russian oil on the market, whoes going to pay for it. This area is played out, there is nothing left to find. That to me proves "peaking". If you beleive in abiotic oil, put your money where your mouth is and sink a hole in the ground around Titusville, Pennsylvania and see how long you can stay in business on the oil revenues you make. That area should of had suffiecient time for Abiotic oil to refill the resovoirs by now, right?

Personally, the biggest single evidence to me of oils forth coming world production curve peak is the peak in the worlds discovery curve. This happened in the mid 60’s, and had declined ever since. We have been finding less oil than we produced every year since 1981. What happens if you have a box of 20 biscuits, and you eat 2 a day. However, your a bit of a baker, so you decide that you will baking replacments. But your a bit tight on the finances and can only afford to bake 1 biscuit a day. How long are you going to have biscuits in the cupboard? The evidence for falling discoveries is coming from so many different sources that it can not be doubted.

I’m not going to say much about this guys "bell curve" criticisms, just that he needs to go back to school. Once human activities are involved, very few bell curves, exactly follow the lines of a bell.

However, lets assume we have an Abiotic origin for oil, over the last 100 million years. Where does that continous production of oil go? If its being continously produced at depth either it has to go somewhere and leak out, or pressure in the rocks is going to be increasing at a rate proportional to the rate of production. The pressures inside the earths mantal are more than capable of punching through the earths crust as evidenced by volcanism. Thats the pressure driving the abiotically produced oil so it will be well & trully capable of puncing out of the crust, given time to seep upward from the magmatic source to the cap rocks that trap & concentrate it. Natural seepage is very small compared to world production. Therefore why do we not have great craters all over the world where just that has happened? An alternative to that theory is that oil is produced slowly from magmatic sources at the rate to keep up with natural seepage. This is still far lower than world production and we’re back to the example of the biscuits, we eat oil far faster than it’s being produced.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Saturday March 19 - 17:35 - Posted by bd48d64c07e155f5...

Two questions for "Who is this clown?",

You state, "In fact, the abiotic theory is not even taken seriously in Russia-Ukrane(sic) where it developed." I take this to mean that the abiotic theory is not taken seriously by Russian and Ukrainian scientists working in the petrochemical field.

Would you kindly back up this statement with corroborating citations from the scientific literature from these two countries?

Then, you state, "Most scientists studying the Dnieper-Donetsk basin in the Ukrane(sic), an area that abiotic origin theorists like to point to, are convinced thge origin is of Bioligical(sic) origin."

Are you referring in this statement to Russian and/or Ukrainian scientists or western scientists? Please provide corroborating citations in support of either or both scientific groups for your statement. I would imagine that you could find support from the latter category, since western scientists are enthralled by the biogenic paradigm, but I’ll bet you won’t find any corroboration from the former category of Russian and Ukrainian scientists.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Monday March 21 - 03:32 - Posted by efe8c712dee8152e...

Read this article, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr... . But if you like, here are a few excepts from it.

Proponents of abiotic oil like to point out that although Russia’s oil production peaked in 1987, their output has increased tremendously over the past several years. They link this to the Russian development of the abiotic oil hypothesis, which is held by a small minority of Russian scientists, to claim that Russia’s production is growing because of abiotic oil. This is nonsense. In the first place, Russian oil production dropped precipitously in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The current surge in oil production is in large part due to the revival of the Russian oil industry. Oil is just about the only thing currently holding up the Russian economy. They are overproducing their oil fields and, as we have said numerous times, this overproduction will catch up with them. Russian discovery peaked in 1960, and has since diminished to almost nothing. Colin Campbell’s model suggested a secondary peak around 2010, followed by another steep decline due to overproduction.21 However, it now appears the Russian production is already approaching its second peak.

Or this from the same article taken from the Moscow News.

The Moscow News has reported that Yuri Shafranik, the head of the Russian Union of Oil and Gas Producers, stated on November 9th 2004 that Russia has almost reached its maximum production and the decline will start within two years. Mr. Shafranik referred to experts from the International Energy Agency.22 The Moscow News also recently reported that Russian oil producers have cut back on drilling. Production drilling fell by 3.4% in the first nine months of 2004, while exploratory drilling fell by 20.6%.23 Such a large drop in exploratory drilling could indicate that investors see a trend of diminishing returns from further exploration.

Then theirs the Carbon Logic. Life is full of Carbon, it’s the backbone of most Biological structures. But there is not too much Carbon in rocks. In fact, early Iron making processes added Iron Ore (Rock) to a carbon source (Usually wood) because the rock didn’t have any to absorb the Iron Oxides. So If theirs no Carbon in the rock, where do you get the Carbon for the Oil? Now don’t go quoting Volcanoes at me. That is can all be explained by the Tectonic theory of melting continental rock outgassing the biological carbon downwind of a Subduction zone. The mid ocean ridge volcanoes outgas very little carbon.

Now you still haven’t answered up to my challenge, if your so sure that oil is abiotic, put your money up, go drill a hole around Titusville. Find me the oil there.

Now, please don’t hassle my spelling. I know I can’t spell, I failed 6th form english at school, I’m also a 1 finger typist normally. However, I passed science in the top 5 percent, and whats more I can string a sentence together without cutting & pasting 90% of it & not insulting readers on every word I do type myself.

I challenge you to support your own theory with a reference.

I looked up what you have "written" here and strangly it seemed to pop up almost word for word on a number of other sites. Is this your work? or have you plagerised someone else? On everyone of those sites it still read like a spoilt child who desperatly wants to believe that dispite the fire slowly engulfing their house they will still have all their toys to play with in the morning.

Besides which very few knowledable people seriously believe the end of cheap oil is the end of civilisation. I have faith in people. I have faith in the logic of Supply & Demand. When oil starts getting expensive, people will switch to a cheaper fuel. I’m expecting the majority will switch at first to LPG or CNG, but those with a bit of land, or perhaps a bent for the unusual will experiment with other fuels. Alchol made with sugars & solar heat, Hydrogen made from sunlight & water for the Spark ignition engine. Biological oils for the deisel & gas turbine engines. Intersting sideline for this would be the end of that horible kero smell from planes & trucks, they will instead smell like the local fish & chip shop. Plastics can be made from any source of heat & a carbon source. My bet would be wind turbines poping up around a plastics plant to make hydrogen & bioligical oil crops all around their bases. Iceland already makes non oil or natural gas based Amonia fertilisers from electrolysed water. The power goes from Geothermal power. And electric power in most developed countries uses very little oil, and has done since the oil crissis of the 70s, far too volatile a market. But everywhere we look we’re ignoring potential energy sources. Geothermal, solar, wind, grass clipping, anywhere there is a temperature difference is a potential source of power. When oil starts to get expensive, these will all be looked at by someone.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Monday March 21 - 21:14 - Posted by bd48d64c07e155f5...

First, the person you challenged to dig a well in Pennsylvania and the person who used “sic” to indicate your misspellings are two different people. And, using “sic” to point out misspellings is just a formality to show the reader that the one who is quoting is not responsible for the misspelling. My use of the “as it stands” indicator was more for my benefit than your detriment. But, on the other hand, you could check your work as misspellings also tend to make the reader wary of the substantive ideas those misspelled words are conveying.

And, if I might presume on the priority of the challenge to the first poster, I would gladly take you up on the Titusville project myself, but on two conditions. First, you agree to pay for the costs of the exploration and extraction, and, second, you answer the two questions I put to you.

As to the challenge, given the costs of exploration and extraction, including some very costly labor, likely to be incurred in Pennsylvania, the bureaucracy, the DEP requirements, etc., the likelihood of finding it, getting it out and making a profit is problematic, although there still is some petroleum production in the state. But, as far as Pennsylvania’s crude oil peak goes, from existing seep sites that were exploited (I believe they’ve all been found now), as I’m sure you know, occurred, in the late 19th century with a subsequent rise in production (due to enhanced methods) and then a second smaller peak in the 1930s. Investments in natural gas exploration, on the other hand, continue to yield new finds in the state. But, “Peak Oil” is not the same as “Peak Natural Gas.”

As to your “From the Wilderness” reference, I am familiar with the information available there, in general, and Pfeiffer’s work specifically. As far as I’m concerned, none of it adds a nanogram of proof to the proposition that oil is a biotic production of nature. The information has relevance with respect to Peak Oil, which is a political-economic phenomenon, but is entirely irrelevant to petroleum production as a geological phenomenon. Knowing the creed of this particular choir, one should not be surprised by the kinds of hymns that it is singing.

Your extract of Pfeiffer’s piece also included his use of the remarks of Yuri Shafranik, quoted in the Moscow News on November 9, 2004. This is odd from my point of view in that it indicates how extraction and exploration are economically linked; a slowdown in exploration necessarily implies a slowdown or eventual peaking in production. But, this relationship is driven by political-economic considerations. “Such a large drop in exploratory drilling could indicate that investors see a trend of diminishing returns from further exploration.” In itself, the statement says nothing about the origin of petroleum, nor can anything be implied from it about the origin of petroleum. It simply correlates the relationship between exploration and production costs to profitability.

For that matter, on March 17, 2005, MosNews carried an oil story wherein it states, “Among specific measures that would promote price stabilization on oil markets Shafranik named control over price formation on the part of consuming countries, development of new deposits and making a connection between oil corporations and end consumers.” Thus, for Shafranik, greater production is necessarily tied to the exploration and development of new deposits. It should not be presumed from his remarks that he was endorsing either the biotic or abiotic paradigm. Peak Oil, as a political-economic phenomenon, is raw-material neutral, and it doesn’t matter whether petroleum comes from dead animals and plants or inorganic hydrocarbons migrating from depth.



> Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Friday March 18 - 21:08 - Posted by bd48d64c07e155f5...

Have you spoken to a chemist lately? We "psychos," unlike the mentally healthy speciman that you must be, pay attention to facts, those pesky little things that get in the way of naive fantasies and ruin them for overgrown children. By the way, the simplest chemical formula for "oil" is CH4, not CO2, which is carbon dioxide. We’ll keep a light on for you at the library, but I doubt you’ll show up.






Public Apology to Women of the World from The American Republic (Hypatia of Alex
Monday 31 - 15:21
by Willam Morgan
YES, THERE WILL BE ELECTION FRAUD, AND ON A GRAND SCALE
Sunday 23 - 18:32
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Hillary Clinton will be first female President 2017
Monday 10 - 17:21
by Willam Morgan
Police Shootings: Law, Policy, and Accountability
Thursday 6 - 14:22
by William John Cox
AMERICA DESERVES BETTER, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WORLD DESERVES BETTER
Thursday 29 - 18:02
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Back to School for Fascist Dupont-Aignan
Thursday 15 - 11:32
by Nouveau Comité de Vigilance des Intellectuels Antifascistes
The Presidency: Character Matters
Friday 9 - 15:06
by William John Cox
WHY HILLARY IS THE PERFECT PERSON TO SECURE OBAMA’S LEGACY
Tuesday 30 - 18:08
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Remake of Ben Hur in 2020 planned by new motion picture studio
Friday 26 - 15:50
by Wallace
THE CASE FOR DONALD TRUMP
Monday 22 - 19:32
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS DEAD
Thursday 11 - 06:42
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
DONALD TRUMP AND THE GENIUS OF IDIOCY
Friday 5 - 00:47
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
FOOLING MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME IS WHAT AMERICAN POLITICS ARE ABOUT,
Friday 29 - 18:13
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
A message of your fellow striking workers from France
Tuesday 12 - 20:49
by Info’Com-CGT
The Right to Vote, Effectively
Friday 8 - 22:20
by William John Cox
Fourth of July Lies
Sunday 3 - 19:41
by June C. Terpstra
Who Should Make Political Policy, the People or the Politicians?
Friday 24 - 15:14
by William John Cox
Hollow Women of the Hegemon Part II: Atrocity Enabling Harpies
Tuesday 21 - 18:49
by Dr. June Terpstra
The American Republic Manifestum book is being made into a Movie
Saturday 11 - 15:54
by William Morgan
Write-in Voting and Political Protest
Wednesday 1 - 15:05
by William John Cox
Yves Bouvier art battle plays out in online and social media arena
Tuesday 31 - 21:12
by Dean Bagley
Damaged Candidate Clinton Can’t Call Out Trump
Friday 27 - 13:53
by Daniel Patrick Welch
PLEDGE OF THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY
Tuesday 24 - 21:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
LET TEXAS SECEDE
Thursday 19 - 00:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
LAS TRES ERRES A LA ENÉSIMA POTENCIA.-
Monday 16 - 15:35
by FREDDY SUBDIAGA
DEMAGOGIA POPULISTA...
Monday 16 - 15:26
by FREDDY SUBDIAGA
Oligarchs Won’t Let You Vote Their Wars Away
Wednesday 11 - 20:24
by Daniel Patrick Welch
AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL: JOHN KERRY - FROM HIS REMARKABLE RECENT COMMENCEMENT ADDR
Monday 9 - 20:40
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton support the American Republic Manifestum
Monday 9 - 16:37
by William Morgan
Transformation: A Student-Led Mass Political Movement
Monday 25 - 19:28
by William John Cox
Algerian Feminists react to ’Hijab Day’ in Paris 2016
Monday 25 - 01:13
THE ILLUSION OF RIGHTS
Friday 22 - 18:45
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
US is real superpredator pretending to be victim
Monday 18 - 22:23
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Gaiacomm International has accidently created a fusion reaction/ignition.
Sunday 17 - 17:01
by William Morgan
Clinton’s Campaign Continues to Highlight Horrible Hillary
Saturday 9 - 00:57
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Armoiries racistes à Harvard : Plaidoyer pour la réflexion socio-historique
Thursday 7 - 18:56
by Samuel Beaudoin Guzzo
THANK YOU MISSISSIPPI FOR YOUR HATE
Wednesday 6 - 02:02
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
The PKK in Iraq: “We are ready to fight ISIS everywhere in the world”
Monday 4 - 14:33
by InfoAut
Clinton Crashes and Burns, Sanders Will Win (But hold off on the applause)
Friday 1 - 22:33
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Confirming Supreme Court Justices and Electing Presidents
Friday 1 - 20:59
by William John Cox

home | webmaster



Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En


rss FR / rss IT / rss ES



Bellaciao hosted by DRI

It is the responsibility of the intellectual to speak the truth and to expose lies. Noam Chomsky
Facebook Twitter Google+
DAZIBAO
I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name
Thursday 10 March
©Olivier Jobard/Myop I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM IS A RIGHT In the phrase « right to asylum », every word matters. Under the law, every person who is persecuted because of his or her political opinions or because of his or her identity, every person that is endangered by violence, war or misery has a RIGHT to seek asylum in another country The aim of this petition is to collect (...)
read more...
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
2 comments
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
read more...
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
1 comment
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
read more...
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
read more...
THE KU KLUX KLAN ONCE AGAIN CONTROLS INDIANA
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
7 comments
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
read more...
I’VE DECIDED TO "WASTE" MY VOTE
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART IV
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART III
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART II
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART I
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
read more...
ONE SOLITARY LIFE, PART TWO
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
3 comments
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
read more...
HOW MUCH CORRUPTION CAN DEMOCRACY ENDURE?
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
6 comments
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS, PART TWO
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
4 comments
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
read more...
PEOPLE WITHOUT SOULS
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
2 comments
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)
read more...