Here is how the Peak Oil War of Words between Dave McGowan and Michael Ruppert began. In Dave's funny but insightful rant in his January 30, 2004 NEWSLETTER #49 he was commenting on some of the current "myths that seem to have taken root in the 'progressive' community." Bear with the myths that lead up to peak oil, I think it's worthwhile to get the drift of his thinking and writing by looking at the full list:

Myth #1: A "neocon" cabal has hijacked the Bush administration's foreign policy, setting America on a new and dangerous course.

I should first mention here that, although it may have escaped many readers' attention, the word "neocon" has never before appeared in one of these newsletters. That is because I like to, as much as possible, focus on things that actually exist. And that is also because I haven't felt the need to find some elaborate way of explaining the alleged change in U.S. foreign policy, primarily because I haven't been able to detect a noticeable change in U.S. foreign policy. The change that others perceive is based on several more myths, beginning with:

Myth #2: Team Bush set a dangerous new precedent by introducing the notion of 'preemptive' wars.

And that is, I guess, in stark contrast to our past military ventures, which have been, I suppose, purely defensive actions (self-defense being the only legally defensible reason for undertaking military actions against another sovereign state) -- like when we defended ourselves against Serbia. And Bosnia. And Somalia. And Panama. And Grenada. And Vietnam. And Laos. And Cambodia. And all the other countries that apparently attacked us first, or at least seriously threatened to, although I can't, off the top of my head, recall the specific attacks that we were responding to in any of those cases.

To be sure, under Team Bush we were fed lies to garner our support for two (yes, two) unprovoked, illegal, unjustified wars. But what exactly is new about that?

Myth #3: Team Bush's disdain for international treaties and agreements is unprecedented.

Not by any objective standard, although it may seem that way to those who until very recently viewed America as some great and benevolent force in the world. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks: the U.S. did not suddenly abandon its previous role as international do-gooder and become an international menace overnight. The record is very clear: America has been, for a very long time, the single greatest impediment to the establishment of international human rights standards, international arms control agreements, and an International Criminal Court. Consider the following excerpts from Amnesty International's landmark 1998 report, "United States of America - Rights for All":

• "There are only two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. One is the collapsed state of Somalia which has no recognized government - the other is the USA."
• "(T)he USA is also one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women."
• "The first UN human rights treaty ratified by the USA was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It ratified the Convention in 1988, 40 years after signing it and after 97 other states had already ratified it."
• "The USA took 28 years to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, after 133 other states had already ratified it."
• "At least 71 other states ratified the Convention against Torture before the USA."
• "It was only in 1992, after 109 other states, that the USA ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 26 years after its adoption by the UN General Assembly."
• "The ICCPR is one of two principal treaties protecting human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The other - the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - has still not been ratified by the USA."
• "(T)he USA has refused to recognize any regional human rights treaties: it has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS (Organization of American States) in 1969, and has not even signed the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Violence against Women."

And that is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. George Bush's 'liberal' predecessor did nothing to rectify any of those, uhmm, 'oversights.' He also presided over the rejection of a major international arms agreement and openly flaunted an international ban on the use of landmines by introducing a new $50,000,000 landmine program not long before said ban was to go into effect.

Myth #4: The "neocons" have taken a new, hardline stance in support of Israeli aggression. By some accounts, Israel now dictates U.S. foreign policy, through Jewish "neocons" like Wolfowitz and Perle.

The truth is that the United States has always taken a hardline, pro-Israel stance, and has always looked the other way while Israel commits egregious human rights violations in the occupied territories. In fact, the U.S. has made a habit of being the only nation to consistently side with Israel and defend its actions in the face of worldwide opposition. In 1981 alone, many years before the 'neocons' took the reins, the U.S. was Israel's sole defender during UN voting on 11 different resolutions. As many as 141 countries voted against the U.S./Israeli positions.

And so, once again, we see that what has been portrayed as a radical change in course is, in truth, the perpetuation of an historical pattern. America has always armed, protected and quietly supported Israel -- which is essentially an enormous, nuclear-armed, Western military outpost in the Middle East. Israel, to put it bluntly, is a tool of the West, not the other way around.

"But wait," you say, "isn't America fighting Israel's war in the Middle East?" No. America is fighting for the same thing America always fights for: the advancement of American corporate interests. Those interests happen to be shared by the corporate/political elite of Israel.

Myth #5: The policies of Team Bush have antagonized and alienated many of our closest allies, straining relationships with many previously friendly nations.

It would be far more accurate to say that the brazen criminality of the Bush team, as opposed to the more covert criminality of preceding administrations, has forced other world leaders to occasionally distance themselves from the U.S., lest they incur the wrath of the people. But said leaders will always be quick to kiss and make-up if provided with the slightest hint of political cover (such as the capture of Saddam Hussein).

As I have said before, I do not believe that the heads-of-state of other 'Western' nations have many significant differences with their American counterparts with regards to motive or agenda. The difference is one of strategy, due to the fact that a population with knowledge of history and a reasonably accurate view of current events forces a certain amount of restraint upon the actions of national leaders. U.S. leaders, on the other hand, can operate virtually without restraint.

In other words, while Bush has certainly done a fine job of provoking legitimate outrage among the world's people, he has only provoked staged outrage among the leaders of the 'Western world.' Indeed, behind the scenes there could well be much admiration for an administration so transparent in its motives, and so brazen in its lies, and yet so successful at maintaining legitimacy.

Myth #6: The European Union is going to rise up as some kind of counter-force to the U.S. military machine.

Sorry, but I just don't see that happening. The EU is fully complicit in the drive for global fascism, and all of Europe will ultimately adopt the police-state blueprint being drafted in America, albeit on a somewhat different timetable. There will be no meaningful foreign opposition, and there will be no place to run and hide.

Myth #7: The current war in Iraq was drafted in 1998 by the "neocon" cabal operating as the "Project for a New American Century."

By 1998, the war against Iraq had already been underway for many years, following a script that was obviously written before the first George Bush began military operations by pummeling Iraq from the air. That was, for the memory impaired, followed by years of crippling sanctions and the enforcement of illegal 'no-fly zones' that were created specifically to provide a pretext for intermittent bombings that continued for well over a decade.

None of that was intended to 'contain' Saddam Hussein, or to force his compliance with cynical UN resolutions; the goal was always to weaken the nation's defenses and demoralize the civilian population as preparation for a military occupation that was in the cards long before "Little George and the Neocons" came to town.

Myth #8: The real reason for the war in Iraq is concern over "Peak Oil."

The notion of "Peak Oil" seems to have been carefully seeded throughout the 'progressive' community, most prominently by Michael Ruppert, but by many others as well. Personally, I ain't buying it. It positively reeks of bullshit. What the "Peak Oil" promoters are essentially saying is: "I am outraged by the fact that Team Bush has waged a war of aggression motivated solely by the pursuit of oil ... but (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) it's a damn good thing that they did, because the world is quickly running out of oil and if we don't grab it now, we're going to be in big trouble, and soon."

Now don't get me wrong -- I really want the "Peak Oil" thing to be true. I can't really think of a better scenario, at this point, than the world running out of oil. The entire global fascist system (or GFS for short, which is kind of like the NWO, only different, since the NWO is usually pitched as some sort of global communist/socialist system), you see, runs on oil. The military machine can't operate without it. The global corporate infrastructure can't run without it. It is the life-blood of global capitalism. So there would be a certain poetic justice if those who had toiled so long to achieve their dream of world domination were to suddenly find themselves - on the eve of declaring game, set and match - unable to operate the empire they had created. We would then be forced, alas, to start over -- to rebuild and restructure.

It would be nice if that were true. It would save the American people, and the world's people, a lot of work. But I don't see it happening. And, yes, I am aware that 'experts,' with far more knowledge in the field than I, have warned of "Peak Oil." But I am also aware that if the right people consult with the right 'experts,' those 'experts' will say pretty much anything they are asked to say.

1 - 2 - 3