Hey Folks, it’s a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.

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/free/ww3/013004_in_you... ) 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