Ruppert thinks we have gone off the deep end....

by **proldic** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 7:22 pm

Why is it so hard for people to "get their heads around" the most obvious answer for energy independence? Perhaps it has something to do w/ the fact that we have been unquestioningly worshipping scientists since the atomic age at least? That tends to lead people to think of solutions being only possible in the more complex, technically-sophisticated realms. Or is it simply that they can't be metered? Believe me, the inventions of your friend are the answer, and have been replicated time and time again since the late '70's. Personally, I have a more cautious approach to the various "free energy" claims, and the seeming concentration on the more esoteric forms such as hydrogen, and biomass, etc., as serving as a discrediting distraction to the obvious answer for our society: solar and wind (the true "free energy", although that's not what people usually mean when they say "free energy"). My opinion, solar and wind are the giant elephants in the living room nobody wants to talk about.

by **LibertyorDeath** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:02 pm

Got it. Rigorous Intuition is on Dunne's list also.

by **Fearless** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:41 pm

but Jeff isn't parroting Dunne's writings like Rivero.

by **Starman** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:15 am

Fearless said: "8/10 Dunne says not to worry about domestic nukes or attacking Iran. 8/12 Ruppert chimes in saying the same thing. A week before, Ruppert was put on Dunne's List. Now they agree on these subjects. And they expect to be taken seriously... " **** Say WOT??? This is some of the sloppiest-thinking I've read today ... Even people on totally opposite sides of a political issue, party platform, ideology, whatever, are gonna just happen to agree on a buncha stuff -- there simply aren't enough alternative ideas for people with major differences to disagree on EVERYTHING. So what's the point of saying the above? Ruppert has no control over what Dunne posts or claims. I'm sure Ruppert's ideas are independant of Dunne. The following is Dunne's summary on who/what is behind 911, which is what he *seems* to base his thesis of which sites are 'fake' CIA hangouts. As you'll note, his distinction between 'rouge agents' and 'the official political government', which he claims neither were responsible for 911, are fundamentally contradicted by his own qualifications re: the highest levels of US Military Defense/Intelligence complex on behalf of national and international political figures and corporate-moneyed interests -- A great many of the sites he's listed do not contradict his assumptions, so the basis on which he makes his claim isn't evident -- if its not just a lot of smoke or disinfo or plain specious. But to suggest that Dunne's listmania hype has anything to do with domestic nuke attacks or attacking Iran is to put far more credence on Dunne than what he merits. IMHO, of course. It seems many people have a hard time realizing that the basis and logic of any given issue are quite independent of other issues, even if argued by the same person. This tendency of judgement based on little more than 'wrong by association' is SO flawed that I can hardly believe people think there's something to it. It's the kind of faulty logic that follows the slippery-slope of, for example: a. Genocide is abhorrant. b. Whatever is abhorrant cannot be right. c. Peak oil can be used to support genocide as a solution. d. Therefore, Peak Oil is abhorrant and must be wrong. I've seen this kind of reasoning on this RI site, where I'd actually expect to NOT see it. Starman *** From: <a href="http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm">www.kathymcmahon.utvinter...tFakes.htm</a> by Fintan Dunne --quote-- Given the number of assets deployed in support of the 9/11 operation, and the operational requirements of the 9/11 attacks themselves, their origin is now clear. 9/11 was not carried out by some 'rogue group,' nor was it a fully official US Government-sanctioned operation. But it was orchestrated by the highest levels of the US Military and military-industrial complex; on behalf of the national and international politicians, corporates, and moneyed interests. It had, and still has the full support of the US Military/intelligence apparatus -who control much of the alternative media and the 9/11 movement. --unquote--

by **dbeach** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:34 am

"In short, the government is running not only the 9/11 movement, but also controlling the 9/11 issue in the alternative media. It was relatively easy to do so, because they have controlled both mainstream and alternative media and politics increasingly over the last twenty years. This was just an extension of those operations." I am not reading the entire article..and maybe its like most evrything else which is full of lies and truths funny I really don't feel controlled.this guy is so pessimistic and nails about every decent site on the net..that is seems to be govt propagandaby him a psyche ops project of the most deadly type..depress the enemy so as to weaken them depress the morale of the truth seekers by establishing the myth of bush invincibility.. buhs seems unbetable as do the controllling elites but its all conditioning..these monsters are beatable and to think other wise gives the eenmy morre power they eat loosh whcih is negative moods ,actions,thoughts WHY do they hate love cuz it is the most powerful weapon and gift in Creation? they are merchants of death and fear.. RESIST

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:47 am

In case Starman is referring to me, I thought I'd make a correction: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>a. Genocide is abhorrant. b. Whatever is abhorrant cannot be right. c. Peak oil can be used to support genocide as a solution. d. Therefore, Peak Oil is abhorrant and must be wrong. <hr></blockquote> That logic, of course, is not good. Here is the actual logic utilized: a. Genocide is abhorrent b. There are some who are pushing ideas of a need to depopulate the earth down to 2 billion or so. (There's no nice way to do this, and even if there were, a little digging will turn up the true agendas of these folks with overtly fascist ties.) c. Some popularizers of the peak oil idea also support not only the idea of depopulation but the specific number of about 2 billion. d. Therefore, we should be suspicious of those popularizers of peak oil. (especially when they start telling us to forget about other important issues (which actually seem to support the Peak Oil idea anyway, ironically) such as the setup of Iran or 9/11 truth.)) It's sort of like this logic: a. Terrorism is abhorrent (and, by all accounts, exists) b. Some people want to install a fascist government, limiting the freedoms of all of us (further) and to dictate their will on the rest of the world by force. c. Some promoters of anti-terrorism initiatives also support the idea of limiting our personal freedoms and dictating their will on the rest of the world by force. d. Therefore, we should be suspicious of those people when they give us information about terrorism. Naturally, you are a big Ruppert fan, so you don't think this applies to him, but I do. That's our disagreement and has nothing to do with the summary you provided. Unless you are talking about someone else. In which case... nevermind. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 8/14/05 10:49 pm

by **Sloppy Thinker** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:54 am

No one should take me seriously, either. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> The two articles must be an innocent coincidence.

by **Starman** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:34 pm

Dreams End: My comment was directed in response to Ferry Fey's post; I've responded and spent time investigating various claims made about Ruppert that attacked his 'agenda' as promoting some kind of genocidal kill-off; I found the claims to be for the most part without merit, based on fantastic conjecture. As I think I've said pretty clearly, I was motivated to do so because I found such spurious character attacks upon someone I respect to offend my sense of decency and fairness. The intolerance and diviseness and infighting I see among some people who are principled critics of the neocon, globalist, status quo, Military Industry/Intelligence/Security establishment/Shadow Govt. etc. agenda deeply disturbs and repels me. I don't authomatically fall-behind and endorse ANYBODY'S particular 'take' on parapolitics -- and certainly not Ruppert's. It esp. strikes me that your 'point' puts a lot of weight on my being a 'fan' of Ruppert. Whathefu? I haven't been keeping tabs on your specific thoughts re: Ruppert. I've responded to specific observations and criticisms made on a point-by-point basis -- I'm not keeping notes. And y'know, I've read much less from Ruppert's site than I have from a dozen others, both recently and over the last coupla years, including Kurt Nimmo, Jeff's site, Chossudovsky's Global Research, Jeff Rense, Third World Traveler, and Daily Kos (off the top of my head). Your claim that I'm a dedicated Ruppert 'fan' insinuates I'm not capable of detached objectivity and that I have a tremendous bias I'm unable to overcome. My disagreement with those who see something nefarious in Ruppert has been less about particular beliefs than the kind of highly critical statements made, including guilt-by-association and the reasoning that refutes Peak Oil because the implications are so troubling. Meanwhile, I see the major problems not being addressed confounding resource wars, breakdown of specific ecosystems, economic injustice, actual & ongoing genocide (NOT theoretical 'what-if?' scenarios), dozens of low-intensity conflicts and war-crime atrocities/brutalities occurring driven by corporate/political interests, and massive public propaganda/disinformation keeping people off-balance and disorganized and confounded. As a result, I see a lot of the "Ruppert can't be trusted" -type arguments to be highly disingenuous, focusing on less than one-percent of one-percent of what he's actually about -- in a very real sense, discrediting all of his views even though most of what he writes is backed-up by very meticulous research. I simply see such an obsession over Ruppert to be inexplicable as anything but another form of disinfo. The implication that he's in a position to 'advise' the genocidal policies of the rightwing globalist Power Elites, in the context of his being such an outspoken critic of global injustice and the Imperialist warmonging of depradations and exploitive policies, is yet further sign that the criticism of Ruppert has been taken wholly out-of-context -- It makes as much sense as the Bush Regime selecting Chomsky to advise them on reforming Foreign Policy. I'm highly suspicious of those targetting Ruppert as playing to the discredit-and-confound-the-left agenda, provoking disagreement and lack of unity. Some 'opposition' to the status-quo -- they can't even provide a unified front without squabbling over relatively trivial doctrinaire differences. But that I simply can't understand 'cuz I'm a Ruppert 'fan' -- I just don't see that is either deserved or even relevant. Maybe I'm making more of this than I should -- But I feel there's nothing to be gained by discussing this further. Starman

by **dbeach** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:24 pm

DU is not on cia fake list???

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And y'know, I've read much less from Ruppert's site than I have from a dozen others, both recently and over the last coupla years, including Kurt Nimmo, Jeff's site, Chossudovsky's Global Research, Jeff Rense, Third World Traveler, and Daily Kos (off the top of my head).<hr></blockquote> As far as I know, none of these other sites are pushing Peak Oil of the imminent catastrophe type. So they really aren't relevant to this discussion about whether "Peak Oil" is being used to accustom us to the idea of a needed "cull" of humanity down to 2 billion or so. Maybe there are other peak oil folks you read, but you simply couldn't think of them off hand. There certainly are MANY Peak Oil sites out there, and I admit, there are only certain one's I've been concerned with...Ruppert, for one, and such places as the charmingly named, "Dieoff.com." Also, I didn't mean to imply that you can't think straight because you like Ruppert, I was simply trying to point out what our disagreement really was. You have come specifically to Ruppert's defense several times for reasons you outlined in your last post, i.e., you find such "character assassination" to be unfair. Well, that's fine. I don't like Ruppert for reasons I've outlined. So I didn't mean to imply you were some empty-headed Ruppert drone, only that you have defended Ruppert and find his work to be meritorious and above suspicion. I have my suspicions and lord knows we've gone round and round about that elsewhere. And I don't think that these are "trivial doctrinaire differences". We both agree that Ruppert is predicting collapse and relatively soon. The difference between his being correct and his being overly alarmist are quite significant, it seems to me. If he's right, we need to do nothing except prepare our "survivalist" supplies, as there is no time for anything else. Oh, and buy gold. And as I mentioned, we need not worry about Iran, or 9/11 anymore either. I pleaded guilty earlier to speculating without certain knowledge about what Ruppert's motives might be. However, even if I have acknowledged this, it doesn't suggest I must give up pointing out problems I have with his point of view. As this site is about Ruppert, I think I am ontopic here, especially pointing out that his advice to not worry about Iran is part of a pattern I see in his thinking. The fact that he has a former Reagan administration as his "economic advisor" makes me even less comfortable. As for whether "depopulation" is a miniscule part of his thinking...well, I can only say that I found out about his view as he boldly proclaimed it to McGowan and others and on his "Ten Questions Answered" piece. He may want those words back, now, as reasonable people have taken them to mean...well, that he favors a depopulation plan. That makes us nervous. When someone says he is in favor of something, it is not illogical to assume that he means what he says.

Ruppert thinks we have gone off the deep end....

Just try to get your head around that.

Re: Here's my point

Yes, RI is on the list

re: Here's my point

Re: re: Here's my point

Re: re: Here's my point

Thanks for the new screen name, Starman

Say Wot?

Re: Say Wot?

Re: Say Wot?

Who is online