Now we have another litmus test thanks to Michael Ruppert: Peak Oil. As thorough as Mike Ruppert has been in providing investigation, analysis and reporting on a grand scale and as clean as his credentials seem to be, this sent a shiver up my spine when I saw what Mike says he advocates--convening world leaders to take "immediate steps to arrive at a crash program" ... " to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction" as a response to Peak Oil. This is almost directly out of the ominous warnings in Limits to Growth from the Club of Rome. From the Rockefeller--funded work of Paul Ehrlich at Zero Population Growth comes their book: The Healing Planet - Strategies For Resolving The Environmental Crisis, Paul and Anne Ehrlich write:

"In this century, humanity has become a truly planetary ecological force, its effects going far beyond the transformation of the landscape to include altering the composition of the atmosphere globally, interfering with planetary nutrient cycles, modifying climate, and exterminating other life forms. In historical perspective, the switch - from a modest to an overwhelming scale of impact, and from a positive to a negative impact on carrying capacity - was almost instantaneous and monumental: human activities now appear to be lowering the long-term carrying capacity and incurring risks on a scale unimaginable less than a lifetime ago."

And, also, later in the book:

"Controlling population growth is critical. We cannot emphasize too strongly that significant resources must be directed into programs that limit population growth both in the United States and abroad. Because of the built-in time lags, unless the surge in human numbers is halted soon and a gradual population shrinkage begun, there is no hope of solving the problems discussed in this volume."

Now Michael Ruppert and his fans are talking about a crash program. Can you think of a crash program that would ethically reduce population in the next forty to fifty years? I can think of a lot of methods that could be utilized if one were unethical and despotic. But wait! The World Health Organization has come up with some real nifty methods to reduce the population growth in the Third World. Here are the known facts concerning the World Health Organization tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren't men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there -- in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been "contaminated."

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections -- three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier -- the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State. The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.

see http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm

Third World population is already being manipulated unethically without their consent. By establishing a rationale for population limitation, Ruppert et al are giving aid and comfort to the enemy among us who have their own ideas about depopulation. But if Peak Oil is a hard reality, shouldn't we be doing SOMETHING about our dilemma? Yes, but what if Peak Oil is based upon a fallacy, an unproved assumption of the finiteness of our primary energy source--the so-called "fossil fuels." What if oil is NOT a one-time, millions of years ago process involving accumulation of dinosaur goo? In a 1999 paper written by Thomas Gold on Recharging of oil and gas fields he states:

There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East, in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that have been published time and again, the most memorable being the one in the early seventies that firmly predicted the end of oil and gas globally by 1987, a prediction which produced an energy crisis and with that a huge shift in the wealth of nations. Refilling is an item of the greatest economic significance, and also a key to understanding what the sources of all this petroleum had been. It is also of practical engineering importance, since we may be able to exercise some control over the refilling process.

The debate about the origin of all the petroleum on Earth lies in the center of the subject. If we really knew that it is only biological materials, which, in their decay, could produce hydrocarbons, then the quantities that could ever be produced would be limited by the biological content of the sediments. But then the clear and strong association of petroleum with the inert gas helium would have no explanation; the finding of hydrocarbon gases, liquids and solids on most other planetary bodies in our solar system which have surface conditions quite unsuitable for surface life, could not be understood; the presence of hydrocarbons which we now find in abundance in basement rocks would also remained unexplained.

If we accept the fact, now known full well, that hydrocarbons are a common constituent of the cosmos and the planetary condensations that formed in it, then we have a totally different viewpoint. Hydrocarbons are stable down to great depths and the high temperatures there, contrary to many statements that have been made that the temperature reached at depths between 30,000 and 40,000 ft would dissociate most of the hydrocarbons. But these calculations are seriously in error, because they ignored the strong stabilizing effect of pressure at depth, that had been calculated by Soviet (Ukrainian and Russian) thermodynamicists.

Professor Gold concludes:

How much more than the original content of a hydrocarbon field can be produced in any one case will depend on numerous details of the formation, but present indications are that it is often at least double. The present global gas and oil glut appears to be due to this effect, and we have not yet seen the end of it, or any indication that it will end soon. Gas fields will be subject to faster refilling than oil fields, and moreover the volumes of gas in lower domains will in general be greater due to the higher pressures there and the higher compressibility of gas. Gas will thus become more plentiful than oil for this reason alone, but gas seems to be generally more plentiful and more widespread than oil. The environmental advantages of changing from coal or oil to gas, by far the cleanest of all combustible fuels, are very large, and the changeover is at present still handicapped by the mistaken belief that the supplies of gas will run out soon.