Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Mike Ruppert, 9/11, and Oil

Recently a report on a presentation by Mike Ruppert was posted on From the Wilderness. The article’s author, Ken Levine, wrote:

“Even though 9-11 and all that goes along with it, as well as his book Crossing the Rubicon are useful and important, he believes that no sanctions, indictments or criminal prosecution will ever be handed down. Rubicon, he says, remains a base map of the decades before and the years since 9/11. But now he says we must look at the herd of elephants charging at us, instead of the one elephant that just ran us over.”

This paragraph in particular seems to have stirred up a firestorm of controversy because many people took it to mean that Ruppert wants us to put 9/11 behind us and move on. In fact, I too understood it that way. After all that work on 9/11, I thought, why would Ruppert be telling us to put it behind us? Did Levine misinterpret what Ruppert said? If so, we should have seen a clarification on From the Wilderness by now.

Assuming that no clarification means Ruppert is satisfied with Levine’s article, I can only say I too am more than disappointed. Although Ruppert is right to say that the perpetrators will very likely never be brought to justice, that doesn’t mean we should give up. And indeed, even though the perpetrators will almost certainly go scot-free, getting at the truth is certainly worth the effort. So if Ruppert is advising us to put 9/11 behind us, I must agree with his critics on this point.

Yet, Levine’s summary also sparked criticisms that are overblown or just plain wrong-headed. For example, Victor Thorn writes about the collapsing WTC towers:

“...when my book 9-11 on Trial is released next month, you’ll see why. By culling together data from scores of the best 9-11 researchers around, we now have undeniable, definitive proof that there was zero possibility that the World Trade Center towers collapsed from either the impact of jet planes, or the resulting jet fuel fires. Zero chance. And we’ve now proven it! Better yet, we haven’t used even one “conspiracy theory” in doing so. Rather, we’ve utilized mathematical equations, physics, scientific formulas, physical evidence, the laws of nature, and expert testimony to reach our conclusion.”

I wish him luck. But Ruppert has made a valid point that such an approach stands little chance of bringing a conviction because you can bet your last dime that the government will — using our tax dollars — bring in a slew of “experts” who will likewise utilize mathematical equations, physics, scientific formulas, physical evidence, and the laws of nature to prove the exact opposite. Ask the jury who they’ll believe. Although Thorn’s intent is admirable, he twists Ruppert’s thesis to support his own criticism, by, for example, claiming that Ruppert implies the towers fell because of the war games.

But “The Problem with Mike Ruppert,” posted on Counterpunch by Kurt Nimmo, contained several points I would like to comment on. Since Nimmo has written some good stuff, I found his criticism of Ruppert particularly disappointing because it is so shallow and ill-informed.

Nimmo criticizes Ruppert for suggesting that people convert some of their cash to precious metals. Yes, lots of people are living hand-to-mouth, but even many middle-class Americans do have a modicum of cash. If current trends continue, greenbacks will be worthless, and bank accounts will be wiped out. In such a case, would you be in a stronger position bargaining for food and shelter with a wheelbarrow of worthless greenbacks, or a few ounces of precious metals? I’d take the latter, thank you.

Many Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs, and can’t get out. But many are in a position to at least reduce debt if not get out completely. So why is Ruppert’s advice to reduce debt so stupid? The day could come when Bush’s rich friends will be buying up Americans’ debts for pennies on the dollar. Unless you want to be owned by them, wouldn’t it be a good idea to shed as much debt as possible?

“For many Americans — an increasing number of Americans — Mike Ruppert offers nothing except scary predictions of ‘peak oil,’” writes Nimmo, who apparently has thought little about the issue, else he could not have tossed off such an ill-conceived remark. Everything we do in industrial society hinges on cheap oil. Without cheap oil, everything becomes unhinged. Apparently Nimmo has not seriously considered the catastrophic implications. If he thinks Ruppert is Chicken Little, then fine. He can hunker down and wait for abiotic oil or alien technology, or whatever he is counting on to save the day.

“Mike offers no solution for people like me, living precariously near the economic periphery,” Says Nimmo. On the contrary, Ruppert tells us to become as self-sufficient as possible. The day will come when Americans will be digging up their precious lawns to grow vegetables. That is an example of self-sufficiency. Can Mr. Nimmo grow vegetables?

I don’t think Ruppert is perfect, and I don’t think he has all the answers, but critical analysis is not served by specious attacks.

At the same time, asking questions and looking for connections is also a good thing. For some questions about Ruppert's affiliations and motives, look here (scroll down to “Ruppert pokes his tusks at 9/11 activism”).

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?