I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Biker, You're ideas appear to be emotionally based and your links about Ruppert are from sources that are highly conflicted.
David Corn's assessment of Ruppert is typical of a left leaning gatekeeper engaged in limited hangouts that satisfy the bare minimum requirements of "alternative" news sources, while toadying favour inside the beltway and mainstream media as a token "radical".
Biker, You're ideas appear to be emotionally based and your links about Ruppert are from sources that are highly conflicted.
I hate seeing otherwise intelligent people duped when they should know better. Ruppert is not only a wack-job, he's a slick huckster pandering to people who want to believe all his dumb crap, laughing all the way to the bank. I'll admit, I thing the guy's a slimeball. Just like LaRourche and L Ron Hubbard. They're on the same level, basically "evil geniuses". So yeah, sure, my argument's emotionally based. How do people who bash Bush feel about him? I've seen people here publically state that they "hate" him. Often based on Ruppert's threads.
If you don't like my links go ahead and look up more of them. There's plenty to go around.
If I remember right, Phil, you haven't even read most of what Ruppert has to say, yet you come close to popping an artery whenever his name is mentioned. You're accepting the critique of Ruppert by website authors who you don't know anything about, about someone you don't know, about ideas you've never read.
I've heard of the Kevin Bacon game when it comes to personal proximity to individuals, but using the same kind of degrees of separation game when it comes to where you are in relationship to the truth, it's rather sad.
Why don't you read the guy? Would it taint you to read something that doesn't have mainstream approval? Perhaps you'd develop the foul stench of being born on the wrong side of the ideological tracks?
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 2500 Location: Ye Olde Englande
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject:
Yeah and I can guarantee that there are loads of links praising him for the work that he has done.
Ruppert is not exactly raking it in from his book sales. Crossing the Rubicon sold 60,000 copies. Not exactly enough to make him a millionaire is it.
Also according to Amazon the average rating for Rubicon is over 4 stars. I wouldn't say that was low. _________________ "The age of excess is over. The age of entropy has begun"
I'll have to go with Philbiker here. I have to admit that I haven't read Crossing the Rubicon, but from the various excerpts and editorials that are floating around I decided that there are far better ways to spend my money.
What Ruppert writes is fiction. Ruppert is the Dan Brown of peakoil. Only Dan Brown is a better writer.
I have to admit that I haven't read Crossing the Rubicon
Then why on earth do you damage your credibility by calling it fiction? You haven't even read it; how can you state such a thing with such certainty?
How can anyone in this community stand by a position of criticizing things they've neither read nor understand, when that is exactly the problem that the PO community as a whole faces from the bulk of the delusional outside world? Aren't we supposed to know better?
I just love how some people here are dismissing Ruppert and others as nut cases when THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ MOST OF THOSE AUTHOR'S WRITINGS. HOW CAN YOU DISMISS SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ?
Nevada, Most of those who criticize Ruppert haven't read ANYTHING he's written, let alone most of what he's written. This is the sad, and for them, embarrassing truth.
Joined: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject:
Sheesh, why do some of you feel so strongly about the question of Rupperts sanity? It seems to me this discussion has become a letting-off-of-steam within the greater question of the imminent disasster we are facing. Is that it? If so, carry on by all means!
Nano, The question of Ruppert's sanity is central to peak oil. If he's insane, his analysis of peak oil, and how it relates to 911 has to be taken with a grain of salt. If he's sane, and "Crossing the Rubicon" is essentially true, I personally have to consider leaving Canada if the infection of criminal govt. spreads here and we become co-opted into the Matrix. (There, I used the term).
This isn't letting off a little steam, it's deadly serious and if you can't appreciate that , you won't understand the greater problem and it's implications.
It implies that if there is a technological fix, these dudes won't allow it to see the light of day and they can use the patent office and national security as a way of controlling implementation of new technologies at home, and whatever it takes overseas.
Joined: Apr 11, 2005 Posts: 72 Location: Sin City, NV
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject:
While I haven't read Rupperts work, I have read some of the links Phil posted. Interesting stuff.
However, if it is true that he is being critisized in here by people who have not read his work, isn't that similar to PO and the rest of the world? _________________ " Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary"
Nevada, Most of those who criticize Ruppert haven't read ANYTHING he's written, let alone most of what he's written. This is the sad, and for them, embarrassing truth.
Quote:
I just love how some people here are dismissing Ruppert and others as nut cases when THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ MOST OF THOSE AUTHOR'S WRITINGS. HOW CAN YOU DISMISS SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ?
Quote:
Then why on earth do you damage your credibility by calling it fiction? You haven't even read it; how can you state such a thing with such certainty
Jeez guys.... is it really so difficult to understand. What I said was that I didn't read crossing the Rubicon so I cannot comment on that particular book.
I did read a lot of the writings Ruppert did for from the fromthewilderness and there is no way that I can take this kind of stuff seriously. Take this story for instance.
Smiley, Please explain WHY the article you linked to on Ruppert's site looks like fiction to you, rather than just labelling it as such. This type of "scholarly analysis" of Ruppert's work, is exactly what's being held up to well deserved scorn here.
And please--"Well jeez--because it looks kind of kooky." doesn't cut it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject:
threadbear wrote:
It implies that if there is a technological fix, these dudes won't allow it to see the light of day and they can use the patent office and national security as a way of controlling implementation of new technologies at home, and whatever it takes overseas.
Ah ok. tx. Yes I guess that would be an important point. However, since I'm pretty certain there really *can be* no technofix, this question is not relevant to me. Only cheap fusion or cheap solar appeal as a possible technofix, and both seem unlikely to even exist in concept.
Concerning criminal (US) government behaviour, I have rather changed my position on that. Here's why: I tried real hard the last few month to animate my fellow countrymen and government, and talked to many people with some power who tried to do that also, but it *really* is a waste of energy!
You see, you have to deal with the so-called 'modern middle class'. The 'modern middle class' has 60% of the vote here in Holland, and they don't know their a$$ from there elbow when it comes to the energy question. They torpedo every government initiative to prepare for peak oil! This is what truly makes attempting serious mitigation futile. To get people to sacrifice, they must understand *why*! If they don't (can't!) understand why, they won't sacrifice! Simple as that.
I guess in the USA it's the same thing. That is why the US' broad move to consolidate the Middle East (and run a huge *paper* deficit) is the best thing they can do. I mean: if you're completely frank and unsentimental about the whole issue, what other option does the USA have?
I hope my government understands the real, hard problem, and continues to be good buddies with the USA, and Russia BTW! Unfortunately: "That's the way the cooky crumbles!"
Nano, Didn't many of the Dutch have similar feelings about cozying up to Nazi Germany during the war? Your post indicates you have defaulted to an "us or them" philosophy. This is particularly scary in light of emerging fascism. Those in power use this kind of fundamentalism when they pose questions of a practical and philosophical nature to their constituents. It serves to narrow the possibilites of response, and it's repetetive use can frame issues in such a way that they help usher in totalitarianism.
Your belief about what is possible in terms of alternate tech is a bit beside the point. For purely practical matters, a clear assessment of whether or not the American govt. will be able and willing to suppress new technologies, should they arise in the future, has to be made--ANd the earlier the better.
Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon, describes a criminal cabal that wouldn't be morally restrained from manipulating peak oil situation and impeding funding to useful technologies that show promise while funding distractions, like hydrogen technology. This is key for me personally. I'm trying to get a guage on just how bad these dudes are, and just how far they're willing to go.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
