The following corrections were recently sent in by Nicholas Levis:
You have a way of always being right. Congratulations.
"Next up is a lengthy missive from Nicholas Levis, webmaster of the 9-11 skeptics site Osama's Kidneys, and one of the organizers, along with Ruppert, of the San Francisco event."
I am not a "Ruppertian." Ruppert was not an organizer of the SF event, he was an invited guest, as were you before this silly argument. Too bad. You should have come and made your case. I did not organize anything for the event until I got to San Francisco a couple of days before to help. I helped because I want to see the 9/11 skeptics movement succeed. You should too. I had nothing to do with determining the line-up of speakers and I would have invited both you and Ruppert. I'm not interested in the assorted ego-battles. Finally, my missive is no more "lengthy" than the stuff you do. I write fast and often do overkill, like you.
Whatever,
Nicholas
I stand corrected on my claim that Ruppert was an organizer
of the event. Apparently he was merely the star of the show (a fair characterization,
I would think, given that he was awarded two prominent speaker posts at
the three day affair). I fail to see, however, how this is a "silly argument."
My purpose in challenging the 'Peak Oil' scare is to expose what appears
to be a massive, well organized effort to hijack the 9-11 skeptics movement
and refocus that movement's energy on promoting a big, and very dangerous,
lie. I don't see anything silly about that.
As for Levis' claim that I was an invited guest to the San Francisco
affair, I happen to have an interesting little story to tell about that.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Have you ever wondered what people were saying about you behind your back?
Of course you have, as have I. Recently - due to a, uhmm, security breach
- I was able to listen in on what some people are saying about me.
I happily accepted the invitation, though I was a bit skeptical. I
had only been invited to one previous September 11 conference, and I had
subsequently managed, although I am not sure how, to get myself uninvited.
So, after accepting this unexpected invitation, I waited for confirmation
and further information about topic, time slot, etc. before getting too excited.
When that confirmation did not arrive, I assumed that I had been uninvited
once again, and I went merrily on my way.
I should probably mention here that when I accepted the invitation, I indicated
that I could provide my own transportation and that I had a relative in
the city that I could stay with. I should also mention that I have never
asked for nor accepted any compensation for a public speaking engagement.
Unlike certain other speakers on the bill, I am a cheap date.
I next heard from Ms. Brouillet in response to Newsletter #49,
which was posted on January 30, 2004. I don't recall exactly what comments
she made about the newsletter, but her e-mail ended with a suggestion
that I might like to attend the San Francisco conference. So apparently
by late January-early February, I had been demoted from main-stage speaker
to audience member.
Then, six weeks later, on March 14, just one day after I posted the infamous
Newsletter #52, I received this:
Dear Dave,
Kris Millegan just called me and either he or you sent me your latest
newsletter and the peak oil challenge from Mike Ruppert. I am organizing
the Int'l Inquiry into 9-11 and if you guys want to debate publicly this
might be the place for it - although I wouldn't give you the main stage
- just a room on the second floor which will hold 200 people. My focus is
getting to the truth of 9-11, but I think a healthy debate about oil and
alternative energy is a good thing, I'm not a technologist and really don't
know where I stand on the issue, but I have a lot of respect for people
who are on each side of the issue.
I just think the truth about 9-11 is the most important thing to break
the big lie and wake people up - so don't want to waste too much time
either way looking at peak oil - it's a piece of the puzzle - but just
one amongst many.
Carol
So by mid-March, I had somehow become a sideshow act with Michael
Ruppert. Despite the fact that it was purportedly a 9-11 conference that
was being held, and despite the fact that I have done a fair amount of
9-11 research and had been invited to speak about that research, I was
now being asked to debate the legitimacy of 'Peak Oil' in an out-of-the-way
room. Strangely, Ms. Brouillet seemed by this time to have forgotten that
she had been familiar with my work as a 9-11 researcher in November, and
was apparently still reading my missives at the end of January.
Oddly enough, Ms. Brouillet's offer arrived in my in-box several hours
before Mr. Ruppert's formal response to my debate counteroffer. In other
words, I was offered a small public forum in San Francisco to debate Michael
Ruppert on the topic of 'Peak Oil' six-and-a-half hours before I received
the formal challenge from Michael Ruppert to debate him on the topic of
'Peak Oil' in a small public forum in San Francisco (before his panel of
judges and with the debate limited to his artificially constructed question).
Funny how things work sometimes, isn't it?
Since there was nothing to be gained by a 'debate' on Ruppert's terms,
this story would have ended here, with my lack of a response to Ms. Brouillet's
'offer,' were it not for the fact that several other writers/researchers
happened to write to me to weigh in on the 'Peak Oil' controversy, and
a few of them inquired if I would be in San Francisco for the conference.
I replied that I would not, since I had long ago canceled my plans to attend
after being uninvited as a speaker.
In response to my reply, a researcher by the name of Jerry Russell, who
was another member of the organizing committee, launched a one-man campaign
to have me reinstated as a main-stage speaker. Mr. Russell, as it turns
out, is not a big fan of Michael Ruppert's. In fact, he is the guy whose
claim Ruppert denied at the same time that he issued his 'challenge' to
me. On Russell's website, he provides an interesting account of the Ruppert-issued
challenge that he responded to:
(http://www.911-strike.com)
Investigator Mike Ruppert of www.fromthewilderness.com
recently posted the following challenge to the 911 truth alliance
mailing list:
I will give $1,000 cash money to anyone who can show me one oil field
that is today producing oil from abiotic sources. Thomas Gold's 1980s
nonsense discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is today a dry hole. He is laughed
at by everyone in the industry, not the financiers, but the geologists
(both private and from universities) and the actual drillers.
[....]
I will hold claimants to the same scientific standards of proof that
FTW has used for three years. And, as part of that bet, I will demand that
each claimant pay me $50 for my time when I prove them wrong. That's 20
to 1 odds. Just throwing a bs article at me won't qualify. You have to
show me a hard scientific paper from a university or a producing well where
it has been demonstrated that the oil is abiotic and that reserve are refilling
...
So put you money where your mouth is. Any takers?
Russell took up the challenge and assembled a packet of documentation
pertaining to oil fields in a region of the former Soviet Union. He then
sent the material to Ruppert, hoping to claim his $1,000 prize. Russell
explains what happened next:
Ruppert's energy editor, Dale Pfeiffer, promptly posted my
information to the EnergyResources Yahoo group, moderated by Tom Robertson.
This was a breach of etiquette in terms of the policies of the 911truthalliance
mailing list (moderated by Lori Price of CLG), and when I complained to
the list about this, I received the following response from Mike Ruppert:
Listen, let's take the passive-aggressive gloves off here
you asshole.
You have already lost the bet and I have more than enough information
to prove you wrong. What I haven't done yet is write it up or finish reading
the Russian piece thoroughly to see if I can learn something.
So here is how things apparently work in Mike Ruppert's world: a bellicose,
arrogant challenge is issued, and then if anyone responds to that challenge,
they get called an "asshole" and sent a bill for $50. Sounds like a pretty
good deal to me. But I guess Mr. Russell didn't think so.
Russell has also apparently butted heads with Ruppert and others over
the issue of the so-called 'physical evidence' portion of the 9-11 skeptics
case, which he and some others thought should have received more attention
at the San Francisco conference. So Mr. Russell's campaign likely was motivated,
in part, by a desire to 'stir the pot,' but he does appear to have been
sincere in his efforts to get me added to the program. This is the message
that he sent to Ms. Brouillet:
I've been thinking about your excuses re: David McGowan, and
I'm not entirely satisfied [Editor's note: there was obviously some prior
correspondence on this issue between Russell and Brouillet]. I can accept
that anyone can make mistakes. But supposing that you had failed to receive
Mike Ruppert's acceptance in the mail, or Barrie Zwicker's acceptance,
or mine for that matter, would you have simply forgotten all about it?
If you have ever visited David McGowan's site, you would know that
his research and commentary are second to none ... [several paragraphs
of praise for my work have been omitted here because, although it is quite
flattering, I am a little embarrassed to reprint it] ...
It is still possible to make amends, however. Carol, I insist that
you should write to David, and beg his forgiveness, and invite him to come
and join the speaker's list on Friday night. He will be the only one that
evening to talk about 911 -- and especially the physical-evidence case,
which Mike Ruppert has done so much to sweep under the rug.
And send me a copy, so I'll know you didn't forget.
If you won't do this, all I can say is that you have some sort of
high incompetence level, coupled with inflexibility and a failure to appreciate
what's good and important in our movement -- and you won't be able to
count on my support in the future.
This was Carol Brouillet's response to Russell, sent exactly four
days after she had e-mailed me the offer to 'debate' Ruppert:
I really don't know much about David McGowan - I'm not familiar
with his work or his website - that could be one reason I forgot our earlier
correspondence.
I wish I wasn't sick and overstressed - I can't find his email address
and I don't see how I can squeeze him into the program - unless I simply
bump off Ruppert if he could do the stand-down of the planes Friday night.
I don't like the way you are threatening me. I have been honest with
you and try to do the best I can. But I am probably incompetent and shouldn't
have tried to tackle anything as ambitious as this. I should have just
stayed home and played with my kids and let the world go to hell.
And this, in its entirety (the ellipses are hers) is what she sent
me later that same day:
Dear Dave,
My apologies. I just looked in my files and found our earlier conversations.
I had created a special 9-11 contact file - and it disappeared in November
and I just can't keep track of all the conversations that I have had.
I basically invited all 9-11 webmasters to participate in the Inquiry. What
I sent you in November was a proposal that has been radically changed -
due to lack of support from the local 9-11 Truth Alliance... still I have
tried to move forward, as best I could. I held a benefit/fundraiser in February
in hopes of raising money for the Inquiry - which generated a lot of publicity
and was a great event, but only generated $900 beyond costs (giving little
to those who really did a lot of work and should have been paid more)..
I was embarrassed to invite people who I couldn't offer a place to stay/travel
expenses etc ...
Still, the Inquiry is the best I could do with limited time, money
(some borrowed) and resources. I think the most important part will be
what goes on amongst the participants on the 2nd floor - rather than
the show/overview in the Herbst. It's an opportunity for serious researchers
to try to put together the dots/and at the same time make enough noise
that hopefully we will be able to break the issue into public consciousness.
There are film crews coming from all over.
The program is so full that if one or two main speakers don't show
up - no one will notice, but I don't think I can squeeze in another and
Jerry is unreasonably demanding that I do - on I don't know what particular
topic.
But I do hope you will decide to come and participate fully in the
Inquiry - and debate Ruppert, if you want to on his "peak oil" pitch.
I am sick, overworked and stressed, and I continually make mistakes
- I hope you will accept my apologies for screwing up yet, again. I might
"retire" from activism if I survive the next 10 days.
Sincerely, Carol
This story would have ended here, yet again, were it not for the continued
efforts of Jerry Russell, as well as the efforts of some of the rank-and-file,
volunteer committee members. The following two e-mail missives soon found
their way into the in-boxes of members of the organizing committee:
Dear 911 International Inquiry participant,
I'm concerned that the Friday Night program at the Herbst Auditorium
is going to turn into a major fiasco. The lineup is: Joseph Calhoun,
Mark Taylor, Mike Ruppert and Bruce Gagnon. I'm not saying they aren't
good speakers, but of these four, the only one with any reputation or
history in 911 research is Mike Ruppert -- and at his most recent event
on March 13 with Cynthia McKinney, I've been told that Ruppert spent about
1 minute total on 911 issues. The rest was all "Peak Energy" and assorted
what-not.
So the problem is, that the audience in San Francisco on Friday evening
may not get much of an education about the specifics of what happened on
September 11, 2001. And, if that's the case, they may not be interested
enough to come back on Saturday and Sunday.
In order to address this problem, I suggest that we have
the opportunity also to correct an unfortunate injustice. Last November,
Carol Brouillet called David McGowan and invited him to speak to the Inquiry.
David sent in his acceptance, and started making preparations to come
and speak. However, Carol claims that she never received David's formal
acceptance, and that she subsequently "forgot all about" the interaction.
Furthermore, Carol argues that the program is now full, and she can't
book a single additional speaker for the Herbst Auditorium.
Visitors to David McGowan's site know that
his research and commentary are second to none. In a prescient column
of 9/12/2001 [http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/wtc.html],
McGowan set out the outlines of the vast majority of the 911 skeptic
case. His work has since been elaborated on by others, some of whom might
never have heard of him. But no one else can match Dave's incisive wit,
nor his timeliness. Certainly his early work has never been contradicted
in any significant fashion. If you're not familiar with McGowan, you are
in for a real treat ...
I would welcome your thoughts on the Friday night program.
Best regards,
Jerry Russell
I’ll just add my voice to those desiring
the inclusion of Dave McGowan in the 911 International Inquiry Program in San Francisco, and for two reasons. Of course though, I can’t even imagine all the work that
Carol has put into preparing the program, but can easily imagine how last
minute changes are not pleasant thoughts. Still
though, I do hope the logistics can be adjusted and the audience advised
that while he’s doesn’t appear in your program schedule, please welcome
Dave McGowan, as the conference is important not just for the attendees
in San Francisco, but for all those who will see the proceedings afterward
on videotape, and Dave McGowan’s work on 9/11 and peak oil are unique enough
that they should be included for both audiences.
On 9/11,
I don’t think anyone could dispute Dave McGowan’s truly significant contributions. And if he speaks even half as witty as he writes and translates
those written contributions into his talk, the audience will surely be
educated on 9/11, and entertained as well.
With regard
to peak oil, it’s clear that there are differing views among those in the
911 truth movement about it (with Ruppert and McGowan being articulate
on opposite sides, see Ruppert at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html
and McGowan’s last 4 newsletters at http://davesweb.cnchost.com/), but
as the program stands now, it looks like only Mike Ruppert’s view on peak
oil will be aired. In fact, Mike’s view on it,
which again is certainly not shared by everyone in the 9/11 truth movement,
could easily turn into an overall theme that people might take away with
them from the conference, believing it’s the key thing that everyone in
the 911 truth movement believes, although that is simply not the case.
Everyone
knows that Mike Ruppert, appearing on the program both on Friday and Saturday
believes that: “The truth is that the real story
- the only story -- is Peak Oil and Gas, and that 9/11 was its first visible
manifestation. I fight to expose Peak Oil in part
by exposing 9/11 in a way that registers in the public consciousness.
That is my obligation to my readers and - as I see it - to my fellow man.”
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html)
[Editor's note: follow the above link to an article in which Ruppert
employs some seriously dubious logic to justify his refusal to focus on
what are, by his own admission, the most incriminating and irrefutable
aspects of the 9-11 skeptics case. And don't miss this eye-opening, must-read
posting: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/rfk.html]
And looking
at the program description, Mike Ruppert won’t be the only person discussing
oil. On Friday afternoon, Gray Brechin will be discussing
“the role of oil and other resources that have long driven international
relations and covert operations”; on Friday evening: Bruce Gagnon, “rather
than share the DIMINISHING resources (oil, water, etc.) . . . ”; and
an excerpt from the Liberty Bound documentary, the website for which indicates
the filmmaker “also delves into the accusations that the Bush Administration
knew about the 9/11 attacks and their warlike agenda is actually centered
on oil”; on Saturday afternoon, all previous mention of oil will culminate
into the ‘peak’ oil theory. There will be an excerpt
from a film entitled “The End of Suburbia-Oil Depletion and the Collapse
of the American Dream; as well as two different speakers talking about
it, Mike Ruppert and Richard Heinberg, author of War, Oil & the Fate
of Industrial Societies.
It would
be unfortunate indeed if the ‘peak oil’ theory was presented at this
conference as an undisputed theory, when in fact, there are quite sharp
disagreements as to its validity in the 911 truth movement, so that’s
my second reason for hoping that Dave McGowan is given airtime and that
he will also mention his views on it. San Francisco
is not a ‘peak oil’ conference, it’s a 9/11 conference, although given
that oil will be mentioned so frequently by so many of the speakers &
films, together with 2 speakers and a film solely on the very importance
of peak oil, a counterweight is necessary or the audience will be mislead.
Nicholas,
your emailed question, what is more important, this debate or the family’s
recent actions, is not to the point. Clearly, the Family Steering Committee’s recent actions will be
heard at the conference, both in your own talk given the importance you
place on it, and in Joyce Lynn’s talk on the Cover-Up Commission. The issue is rather whether a speaker, who has unique contributions
to make, including an alternative 911 truth movement take on peak oil not
otherwise represented at the conference, and who was apparently asked to
participate and began preparing his remarks, should be included, and I do
agree with you that “There ought to be room for
all of us, ideally including both McGowan and Ruppert.”
Angie
The second mailing is particularly revealing in light of the
fact that Ms. Brouillet, who assembled the line-up of speakers, had written
to say: "I just think the truth about 9-11 is the most important thing
to break the big lie and wake people up - so don't want to waste too much
time either way looking at peak oil - it's a piece of the puzzle - but
just one amongst many." Apparently what Brouillet really meant to say was
that the conference organizers didn't want to spend too much time looking
at opposing viewpoints, but they did have plenty of time for Team Ruppert
to present its dubious version of reality.
You may have noticed that the second mailing contained a reference
to a "Nicholas," who is, as it turns out, the very same Nicholas Levis featured
in both the last newsletter and at the top of this one. This is what Levis
sent out to the group:
Dear San Francisco Participants,
as I send this, I notice that my inbox is receiving several more messages
in the discussion Jerry Russell initiated yesterday by e-mail. So far I
have read only Russell's opener and the response by Sander Hicks, but what
I have to say stands regardless:
What is more important? This debate we just started?
Or the fact that Sept. 11 families are demanding Philip Zelikow resign
immediately as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission? In effect,
the Families Steering Committee has altogether broken with the Kean Commission
whitewash! This is important!
As we convene in San Francisco next week, the Kean Commission will
have just held its most highly publicized meeting yet. The public's awareness
of Sept. 11 and its oddities will be at an all-time high. Our chances of
breaking through into public consciousness will be the greatest ever. If
we get screwed by the media anyway, so be it. Que sera, sera. But let's not
screw it up ourselves.
In the past I have promoted the work of both Mike Ruppert and Dave
McGowan, both of whom I consider brilliant writers, whatever their flaws.
(Last I looked, both were human beings and therefore flawed by definition.)
I'd love to see everyone on the San Francisco panels stick to the
substantive issues and show a mature ability to discuss their disagreements
openly and soberly - and leave aside nonsense questions of who has a trademark
on the best approach, who is the real Supremo of 9/11 research, which approach
is the "only true" way, who has done "the most" for the movement, or who
most "deserves" to speak. This is not a child's sandbox! There ought to be
room for all of us, ideally including both McGowan and Ruppert, without turning
this into an ego contest.
At this stage, 9/11 skepticism is a well-developed strain of thought
that can be adequately represented by any intelligent person who has done
their homework. WE ALL NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, IT IS A GOOD THING! It
shows our success.
Different people have carried the ball at different times, and this
is how it should be. Past contributions must be acknowledged, but it is
ridiculous to pretend anyone is indispensable, or automatically superior
by virtue of past actions.
I want to see newcomers get into the movement and be treated as equals.
Newcomers are the life's blood of any movement. I am curious to hear what
people who may not have spoken out on 9/11 until now have to say. I don't
want them to justify why they didn't speak out earlier. That attitude
will chase away the people who can and should be joining in and making
their contributions, and who should be encouraged and welcomed! I want
to see this movement grow so fast that it becomes irrelevant who the leaders
are. We can all be leaders!
I am for a democratic discussion, but I object to Jerry Russell's
approach, in which he raises the prospect that Friday will be a failure
simply because the speaker's list is not what he would have chosen. Someone
has to make that choice. As the host and organizer, it is up to Carol Brouillet,
whom I trust based on HER past work. She has put together a line-up that
represents all of the various strains of thought within our movement, including
both the "disclosure" approach and the "physical evidence" approach. I
no doubt would have put together a different line up, as would have Jerry
Russell, but neither of us is in charge of this round. It's Carol's turn.
She took the initiative, she's doing the back-breaking, and she needs our
support.
If anyone is "indispensable," then it is those 9/11 families who have
courageously provided the most important moral pressure for disclosure!
Without them, we would have no issue in the public.
Let's realize how precious this moment is, and not screw it up with
personal antagonisms.
We can and will unite around common actions and strategy in San Francisco,
while also maintaining a lively and I hope constructive and civil debate
about our disagreements. Let us be very careful about how we speak to each
other, treat each other with respect, and avoid artificial splits. At the
same time, while understanding the need for unity, we can also strive to
weed out any bullshit and falsehood in our own case.
All it takes to make all of that work is for each of us to show less
ego.
So before we get into divisive personal arguments, I urge you all
to take a deep breath and read the following report, about the latest
statement by the Family Steering Committee and about the success of the
9/11 Truth effort at the big antiwar demo in New York yesterday. Thank
you.
All the best,
Nicholas Levis
It's nice to see how Mr. Levis promotes "the work of both Mike Ruppert
and Dave McGowan" -- just so long, it would appear, as Ruppert and his
minions are allowed to thoroughly dominate the conference, while the other
guy is excluded entirely. But - what the hell? - let's all take a deep
breath while Levis cynically invokes the 9-11 widows to divert our attention
to an almost entirely irrelevant issue.
As for Levis' complaints about an "ego contest," there are a few things
that need to be clarified here, such as that I am not the one who bills
myself as "the Godfather of 9-11 research." [http://www.fromthewilderness.com/images/finalfinal_lg.jpg]
And I am also not the one who has loudly claimed that my approach is the
only one that yields results, while the approach of many other researchers
is "worse than rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic" [http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html]
And I am not the one who describes myself on my website as "the point
man in breaking major stories" about all manner
of government malfeasance. [http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.html]
So it would appear that, contrary to Levis' assertion, it is indeed "a
child's sandbox." And the biggest child is being allowed to hoard all the
sand.
As Levis' missive indicated, Sander Hicks, another member of the organizing
committee, also weighed in on the brewing controversy (Hicks was the founder
of Soft Skull Press):
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think it's important that we try to
resolve this democratically, as a movement, before opening the conference
in five days.
Here's my response, as someone who has done a little work helping
get this conference together, and will be a volunteer, and a speaker,
there.
If Carol did indeed invite Mr. McGowan, then I feel space should
be made for him. I did look over his work, and it does indeed sound like
high quality work.
But as you yourself say, its unfair to jump to accusations of fascism
and eugenics, when Ruppert only talks about the need for "population
control." Yes, Peak Oil is Ruppert's main topic these days, and I'm not
completely certain about it myself. But it's worth listening to. Not
too many others are saying this, and even some oil industry consultants
to Bush and Blair agree with the theory.
Now, you're really on shaky ground when you accuse Ruppert of only
making minor, insignificant contributions to 9/11.
[Hicks next presented a spirited defense of Ruppert's work, which
he and Russell then debated at length in a few subsequent e-mails.]
Ruppert's only other "mainstream" critic has been David Corn, of
The Nation. Corn's attacks on Ruppert have been personal and I have
winced at them for their rancor. Corn also has State Department connections,
and it seems pretty clear which side he's on. Hell, The Nation's
publisher Victor Navasky recently stated that he believes Lee H. Oswald
acted alone!!! Now who'se irresponsible?
So, I'm glad we're CCing Carol on this. I hope we can find a space
for McGowan, somewhere.
But don't believe everything you read and hear about Ruppert. You
can tell a lot about a man by the character of his enemies.
S
If it is indeed true that you can tell a lot about a man by the character
of his enemies, then what conclusions are we to draw from all the people
in this sordid tale who have revealed much about their character, or lack
thereof?
Mr. Hicks' response was a strange one. He claims that Ruppert only
talked of "population control," and he even puts those words in quotes
as though they represent Ruppert's actual words, when clearly that is
not what Ruppert wrote at all. I am told that at the conference, Ruppert
informed the audience that "population reduction by the most venal methods
will be necessary, with the only choice being: do we want to do it nice
or nasty?"
I can only repeat my earlier question: what will the criteria be?
If not with some type of eugenics program, then how will it be decided
who lives and who dies? And who exactly are the "political,
economic, spiritual and scientific leaders" that Mr. Ruppert
suggests should get together to make those decisions? And what is the population
level we are shooting for? What percentage of us will be targeted for elimination?
These are all legitimate questions that Ruppert has not yet provided answers
to.
Why do I get the sick feeling that we are speeding headlong into a future
in which "Survivor" will feature contestants competing to be, quite literally,
the last man standing? I had wondered where they were going to find contestants
for reality shows when they finally took it to the next level, so to speak,
by holding real 'execution ceremonies' on "The Mole." But now I realize
that people will take a 1-in-16 shot at living through the show if that
is their only hope of living at all ... but here, I suppose, I have digressed.
Hicks also claims that "not too many others" are discussing 'Peak Oil,'
but the Los Angeles Times alone has ran two op/ed scare pieces
in just the last month. On the other side of the country, the New York
Times took up the issue on April 4. I have heard that Ruppert, in attempting
to legitimize the 'Peak Oil' theory, literally piled a large stack of mainstream
news reports and journal articles on the podium in San Francisco. And there
is certainly no shortage of websites promoting the idea that we are running
out of oil. So it hardly seems to be the case that no one else is disseminating
'Peak Oil' scare stories. As for the notion that "even some oil industry
consultants to Bush and Blair agree with the theory," I would remind Mr.
Hicks that a lot of consultants to Bush and Blair agreed last year with
the theory that Iraq was stockpiling 'weapons of mass destruction,' but
that didn't make the lie any less of a lie.
As for Hicks' bizarre detour onto the topic of Victor Navasky's views
on Lee Harvey Oswald, I really haven't got a clue what possible relevance
that has to the current controversy. Next to weigh in on that controversy
was someone named "Pondo," who billed himself as "President, USA Exile
Govt." Pondo's message, which took the form of an open letter to Michael
Ruppert, was posted to the 911TruthAlliance RiseUp list:
[....]
But mainly I'm writing you now to suggest you be a Good Sport and
graciously award your Friday slot at the 9/11 Inquiry to this chap McGowan,
who'd been invited to speak, said yes, then fell through the cracks of
an innocent glitch. You'll have lots of opportunity to oppose his views
during your Saturday slot. Your own attitude towards 9/11 has changed so
much in that past year that you're no longer more than slightly-to-moderately
relevant to a 9/11 gathering. I was quite shocked to learn that you'd spent
only "about one minute total on 9/11 issues" at that March 13 LA gathering.
And when you do get into it, you rarely these days talk about how (e.g.,
stand-down of interceptor aircraft, controlled demolitions of WTC buildings
#1, #2 and #7) it happened but instead only why (e.g., Peak Oil).
By giving up your Friday slot, you'll show all of us that you believe
in egalitarian societies and also in equal time for folks with contrasting
views within a controversy. Everybody will go: "Hey, wasn't that Big of
Mike to give Dave his slot?" Besides, you'll make Carol's enormously strenuous
job a lot easier.
Which reminds me: I wanna suggest--absolutely as gently as I can--that
you admonish your From-The-Wilderness staff to start backing away from
depicting you as a Living God, which was very much their tone in their March
13 report. Point out to them that they're not doing you a favor because
LivingGod and LaughingStock may seem like polar opposites but in fact are
adjacent points on a circle.
Pondo's irreverent posting drew a quick and vitriolic response from
Mark Robinowitz, the webmaster of
http://www.oilempire.us/:
To the list moderator:
I agree with the generally recognized consensus on this list that excessively
snide remarks, insinuations that fellow activists are
paid agents and the like are grounds for removal from this list.
The term for this is "snitch jacket" - a false accusation that a hard
working activist is actually an agent provocateur. It is a tried and tested
COINTELPRO tactic, and is extremely toxic - and I would urge that it not
be tolerated on this list at all (or at the Inquiry). This is VERY different
from having serious differences of opinion with people.
In my view, the expulsion of the "Government of Pondo" from the list
should include those who post his outrageously obnoxious writings to the
list, which seem only designed to inflame.
It's been my experience in two decades of activism that when anyone
starts to become successful in their efforts, there will always be people
on the sidelines who are jealous of other people's work, and will seek to
discredit or otherwise nullify their impact because THEY aren't the ones
getting credit. It's a sad aspect of human nature, it seems.
As for Dave McGowan, he is a mixed bag -- some of his early writings
on 9/11 were very good, but his recent diatribes are full of character
assassination and not very useful in advancing the state of knowledge
of anything. His recent writings on oil supplies are particularly unhelpful,
and mixed with personal attacks that are not the type of productive dialogue
that we can have this weekend if we don't get sidetracked with these sorts
of things. Not all issues gain more understanding by having a "yes /
no" argument - especially when the attackers resort to snotty personal
attacks as a major form of intellectual argument.
Plus, McGowan's views are a bit strange, even for the 9/11 community
-- he has a defense of Stalinism at
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr38.html
Creating a non-existent controversy seems to be the modus operandi for
disrupting the Inquiry.
Perhaps the fringe of the fringe can organize their own conference,
with their own money and time, and see who, if anyone, wants to attend.
I had never heard of Mr. Robinowitz, so I decided to drop by his
website for a visit. What I found there, to borrow a phrase, was a decidedly
mixed bag. Prominently featured on the site, of course, was all the latest
'Peak Oil' news. But there was some quality commentary as well, including
some by a guy by the name of Dave McGowan. On Mr. Robinowitz's home page,
for example, is a direct link to my Newsletter #44. Elsewhere on
the site, he has posted a lengthy excerpt from my Newsletter #43,
with a link to the original posting. Both of those newsletters, strangely
enough, were posted after Newsletter #38, which Mr. Robinowitz apparently
found so troubling.
I guess my first question then for Mr. Robinowitz would be: If I am,
as you claim, a Stalinist COINTELPRO operative who exists on the "fringe
of the fringe," and if you are, nevertheless, promoting my work on your
website, then what exactly does that make you?
Robinowitz was not the only one to respond to Pondo's missive. The
big man himself, the man to whom it was addressed, the Godfather of 9-11
research, weighed in as well:
Has it occurred to anyone that the LA event on March 13th was not
a 9/11 event but a Cynthia McKinney
event? The object is to get her back into congress where she can be much more effective
than outside of Congress. Getting a
wide range of people to vote for and contribute to her involves a great deal more than just 9/11.
Anyone who thinks I have lost the fire in
my belly should come to San Francisco
and see for themselves.
Dave McGowan isn't getting a second of my
time. He doesn't deserve it. and
"President Pondo" should probably go back on his medication.
So apparently Ruppert has completely lost interest in any sort of a
debate. And why bother? As Robinowitz observed, "Not all issues gain more
understanding by having a 'yes / no' argument." There is obviously only
one side to this particular story, and Ruppert already has it covered.
This final words here belong to Vic, who sent this missive out in defense
of Pondo:
I agree that suggestions that people are paid agents with no evidence
are going to cause more harm than good. On the other hand, no actual
paid agent could be exposed if no one were allowed to present their case
for such a situation, should they believe they have evidence. Thus,
rather than simply putting a lid on everything that might upset people,
maybe a list member who has strong suspicions or concerns about others should
be allowed to have their say within limits.
[....]
Accusations that are ongoing and baseless, of course, need to come
to a conclusion and be minimized. But I disagree that all accusations
should be grounds for removal from the list. To imply that Pondo
is a classic snitch jacket and jealous from the sidelines, to me, is incorrect.
I see him as concerned, angry and frustrated. His manner of responding
is his own.
To me, it looks like McGowen has given a lot of serious consideration
to the topic he's currently debating, and a number of people are interested
in his points. I'm personally not following all the details because
I am focusing elsewhere and it takes up a huge amount of time. I'd
rather go listen to one talk of Mike's and - if it were possible - listen
to one talk of McGowen's, or a debate between them if Mike thought it were
worth his time (although it sounds like he doesn't). I prefer debate
to being a passive listener, and I understand that Mike might not want
to debate people he feels have not made serious efforts at research.
In our Social Justice Committee at the Berkeley Fellowship, we discourage
having single speakers present their work to a passive audience without
the allowance for dissent or alternative views. Often, debate is how
people learn best about issues. I know for myself, as a researcher,
when topics are in debate, it often advances the work, rather than stifles
it - more time of course, but everyone benefits from the more reliable and
valid data that often emerges. I generally don't take as a given that
just because someone is who they are, that their work is 'it.' I like
to see for myself, and to hear a variety of views.
I also would discourage people from calling others the 'fringe of
the fringe.' Everyone on here is working on what is meaningful to
them and none of us have all the answers. Some of us are organizers
and some of us are researchers and some of us are handing our fliers, stapling
signs on sticks, and sending emails. We are all contributing what
we can.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It is important to remember here, dear readers, that all of this - all
the duplicity, all the vitriol, all the slander and libel, all the attempted
character assassinations (not just in this newsletter, but in #53, #54,
and #56 as well) - has come about because of just a single posting that
I put up on my website some three weeks ago. And that posting was not, by
any stretch of the imagination, a personal attack on anyone. It was simply
a challenge to the notion that petroleum is a 'fossil fuel.'
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?
To those questions I now need to add another, equally important, question:
Why is such a concerted effort being made to silence and discredit anyone
who challenges the 'Peak Oil' theory?
I will be patiently awaiting answers to those questions from the 'Peak
Oil' Team. And I will be patiently awaiting my invitation to speak at
the second part of the 9-11 conference, to be held in Toronto.
