h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

An easier metaphor describing that brand of idiocy would be: "Science by press conference", which was coined by a Dr. Peter Duesberg of U Cal Berkeley back in 1984 (interesting sci-fi connotations for that year) to describe a rather momentus declaration by one Dr. Robert Gallo. He was refering to the fact that Dr. Gallo never published his research prior to his announcement, in the normal scientific way, making it impossible for anyone to prove or disprove his conclusions. Here I was thinking that was a major no-no in the scientific community. It also conjures up images of the World Health Organization's recent declarations. Those of us here in the States know all about that horrible plague called 'West Nile Virus', the one that has killed fewer people than toasters falling out of high rise windows. Makes me wonder about those suicidal toasters. Also interesting to note (as well as a change in disease) is that the Canadian branch of the W.H.O. in Toronto released a statement that said outright that they were finding the coronavirus (the virus that is supposed to cause SARS) in 0% of SARS patients during the height of the Toronto scare. It's pretty odd to note that there never was a problem with SARS in America, when we recieve more flights from Hong Kong than Canada, and that Toronto is so close to the US, comparitavely. Seems to me that in order to label a germ as the cause of anything it has to be found in a very high rate of patients. Something approching 100%. Realizing, of course, that the symptoms of SARS is merely a list of symptoms for a rather bad flu, chest cold, or regular teburculosis, which there are millions of cases with many thousands of deaths worldwide every year. To think that those more mundane illnesses never get that kind of air time. The W.H.O. should be ashamed of themselves, showing that kind of prejudice toward so many hard working and deserving diseases.

There is no such thing as paranoia, it really is as bad as you think, and they are out to get you.

Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire.

ps. I only thought this would turn out quicker. So I think I'll have me another beer. (smilies are turning out to be more fun than I thought.)

So in reality which lab do these things emerge from either inadvertantly or deliberately?

And could that be the reason the so-called experts keep getting the details wrong?

Is it total incompetence or total collaboration?

That was one of the reasons for the 'science by press conference' saying, is that these things don't really come from any lab, they come from press conferences. There is no deliberate creating of germs, because they can't find the germ they're looking for. At least as far as the W.H.O. is concerned, it's collaberation. Let's face it, who is going to refute what W.H.O. has to say on the subject of the germ. The idea behind all of this is exposure to more and more dangerous chemicals. For the West Nile Virus, the spray malathion, a highly toxic chemical, to combat the mesquitos that spread a disease that has killed fewer people than those suicidal toasters. In the case of SARS, it's new toxic drugs forcibly given to those quarentined because of a regular chest cold. It's also interesting to note that bodies such as W.H.O. and the United Nations are the decendants of groups like the 'Council On Forign Relations', and the Bilderberger Group, both led in part by one David Rockefeller. The man behind the twin towers, who never said anything publicly about the destruction of his one time dream. Also consider that the drug most commonly prescribed for that most horrible of epidemics, AIDS, is AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug from the sixties. Maybe it's just me, again, but i've always thought that chemotherapy tended to suppress the immune system. Dont' these drugs attack every part of the body, including those bone marrow cells that produce the neccesary T-cells that they claim AIDS is destroying? Makes me think that the drug is creating the conditions that it is supposed to be curing. Curiouser and curioser. Paranoia dosn't begin to cover the problems. They really are out to get us all. Slowly and by stages.

You might have a point, however, remember these modern medical wizards are getting themselves in a bind with their so-called miracles because the bugs mutate or evolve faster than the R&D.

So there's probably some concern about staying ahead of the curve somehow which means you try some speculative branching or something to develop bugs in the lab that'll be like the ones in wild five years from now thus giving you a little lead time in developing the vaccine or treatment.

Of course that might all be delusion anyways just like predicting tornados with circulation models.

However, the major problem with the WTO or any global medical thing is medicine, drugs. You got legalized drug pushing on a global scale so what do you think they'll prescribe? Sun and fresh air?

No only that if they do like Bill Gates did and tie strings to the "free" AIDS money by requiring that they buy American drugs to deal with the stuff in Africa even though Canada and Mexico can both produce them for less, what does that say about this sort of philanthropy? Especially when we note Gates' foundation is heavily invested in pharmiceuticals? Sounds like we might have just a little hint of conflict of interest I think.

And if Lewis Thomas was right when he asserted that most things get better in the morning and cures as opposed to treatments or therapies are usually relatively cheap, then where's the incentives for the movers and shakers to actually do something?

And where's the awareness that the greatest strides in human health have been made in the areas of sanitation and better nutrition? That gets lost too doesn't it?

People send doctors to regions where people are starving to treat the symptoms when the causes are actually the alienation of land and resources the people have used in the past to feed themselves.

There's no medical prescription to treat colonialism, buh!!

Yes! You're right, there is no drug that can cure colonialism. The thing is that you are both refuting and supporting the same medicine. Take into account the 'West Nile Virus' I keep mentioning. One of the greatest problems with saying that the coronavirus (sounds like a mistake in beer manufacturing to me) causes anything is that they could not have isolated it in any lab. The holes in the filters they use for this kind of test is about ten times larger than the virus. That leaves the 'good doctors' (I have to get away from these quotation marks) with only one recourse for saying that the coronavirus causes anything, and that is testing for anti-bodies. Forgetting the fact that if a person has anti-bodies to a germ means that they are successfully (I still can't spell, gift of public education) fighting the germ, not fatally infected, there are still problems with anti-body tests. Any test that detects anti-bodies for one germ could still be reacting to anti-bodies for about thirty other germs at the same time. Using these test methods a large group of people in Africa has been diagnosed with HIV, which hasn't been proven to cause anything, are actually recovering from malaria. The anti-body tests done for HIV can read a false positive for about sixty reasons, one of which is the presence of anti-bodies for malaria, a common illness in third world countries. So there is some problem with telling people to by drugs for something they don't have, wherever the drugs are manufactured. Also, American drug companies dump their excess drugs into third world countries for pennies of what they are sold for here. More science by press conference. More of those with money trying to control everyone else. The ultimate problem with trying to make sense of any of this is the realization that it is all connected. It really is massive fraud on a grand scale. So grand that the people doing most of the leg work don't even realize it's an illusion. The really nasty part of the medical fraud is that most drugs cause the symptoms they are supposed to be treating. Take AZT for an example. AZT is a failed chemotherapy drug from the sixties. What it does is attack the entire body, particularly bone marrow, retarding the bodies ability to produce t-cells, and low levels of t-cells (indicating the presence of full blown AIDS) is why AZT was proscribed in the first place. Insanity. It gets worse. We are just programed, in various ways, not to see that these things really do connect. The research is out there for anyone to find, it's just peicing it all together that will make it all seem crazy. Hell, it makes me look crazy just trying to explain it all. I'm not, I assure you. I place too high of a value on life. All this progress and yet no virus has ever been isolated in a lab. Tsk, tsk. I would have hoped for better methods than that.

I really need that beer right about now.

Well enjoy your beer and be of good cheer because I hear you okay? And if there really ain't no such thing as a virus or if there is it doesn't cause any known disease that's cool too because I've never been that enamoured with physicians either personally or culturally.

I've met exactly one I think that was halfway straight about stuff. He said 60 percent of his patients just needed somebody to hold their hands and the other 40 percent he probably couldn't do much for anyways. But that doesn't keep him from charging the fees of course.

But speaking of antibodies, which is sort of along the line of what Lewis Thomas was saying, do vaccines work? Well, yeah, they do, mostly, which means something has been altered in the immune system to deal with whatever it is that causes the havoc like polio or smallpox or whatever. And vaccinations are relatively cheap too.

I guess the practical issue is they either need boosters or they don't work after awhile, the presumption being that the bug they were supposed to create antibodies against ain't the same bug after awhile and that was my point.

Smallpox by the way probably killed more people in the so-called New World than anything else. So obviously there was a lack of immunity issue there somewheres. It's also why I sometimes consider Europeans as disease vectors just like mosquitos. And it's still happening in Brazil by the way.

I'm not sure why Europeans should be disease vectors in the first place except I suspect it might have been a consequence of living with their livestock, but who knows?

Anyways, now I think I need a beer or maybe a quart of bourbon to ponder all this.

This is too much fun. The main problem I have with vaccinations is that when you give them to people who are already immune suppresed by other factors such as poor sanitation, sewage contaminated water, protien-calorie malnutrition, then the vaccine does just the oppisite. There really needs to be a level of hell reserved for the idiots who knowingly inject a vaccine into anyone before ensuring proper living conditions first. There are other problems with vaccines, such as mercury contamination, shelf life, and the fact that anything injected into the body totally bypasses any of the normal defenses. There is also disturbing amounts of evidence that the early immunization shots cause autism due to the thimerisol (a mercury derivitave) content. Most modern medical science is a scam, and I don't trust doctors either. Hell, I won't even consider medication until the most remote side effect I can find becomes an attractive alternative to the pain.

On a side note, you're Brazilian? For some reason I was thinking you were British. Maybe I should pop on over to your personal space and see what you have to say.

Also, what is still going on in Brazil? Smallpox? If so then the doktors over at W.H.O. have some explaining to do. They claim to have eradicated smallpox. With their vaccinations. The same vaccines that will cause a person to (again) test false positive for HIV. Apperantly it's only a coincidence that AIDS was 'discovered' in deep dark Africa only a few years after the widespread use of the smallpox vaccine there. Where the living conditions have already dangerously lowered immune systems. Short attention spans may be an excuse for the layman, but for a professional doktor? Inexcusable. Worst human rights violations since the Nazi's concentration camps. I'm not the only one to peice these things together. Check out nomorefakenews dot com for a refreshing, if frightening, look at todays world. The guy that does that site has gone much farther than I have in peicing these things together.

Good luck with your bourbon, can't drink the stuff anymore. Me and Mr. Beam got into an arguement several years ago, and he never forgave me. I've since discovered the joys of gin, lager, and the occasional happy flower.



ps. Don't forget to bring a
pps. Is it me, or are these getting longer?

No, I ain't Brazilian but it's close. And I ain't British and that's way off the mark although I think my name here kind of confuses people sometimes, probably intentionally.

Anyways the reference to Brazil is because I stay apprised of western hemisphere indigenous affairs. I have a common interest after all therefore I like to know how other countries in the hemisphere handle their indigenous issues.

In the case of Brazil, a tribe was "discovered" in the early 1990s. Within a couple of years they had been decimated by disease, probably something like the flu.

For that reason, a Brazilian government scout recommended that no further contact with indigenous people in the region be allowed. Since part of the reason for setting aside the area is to protect timber and other resources, he asserts that the indians will protect the area from squatters and speculators better than the government could anyways.

And as long as the government doesn't actively aid the squatters or speculators with military support, the indians will be able to hold their own. Trespassers usually just disappear, probably snared by nooses in the forest. That tends to discourage other entrepreneurs from violating the law.

The area is called something like an indigenous reserve, similar to a national park. Brazil has set up a special agency to manage these things and the scout is part of that agency.

His career is now a good deal different than it was in the past when he was actively involved in locating resources for exploitation. Apparently he takes this new mission very seriously which is a good thing. We'll see how it works out but I'm sort of hopeful that somebody's finally getting a clue. The scout noted that contact begins the process of destroying somebody's universe and that's not a good thing.

Okay, now what's next on the agenda? Hows about this?

The conventional view of HIV is that it's a hantovirus mutation of a simian thing possibly transmitted through contact with so-called "bush meat".

Now, I'm pretty confident that Africans have been harvesting bush meat longer than any simian hantovirus has been identified, therefore, your assertion about the smallpox innoculation correlation might make sense. If the virus mutated, it might very well have been in response to a reaction to the smallpox vaccine, another unanticipated consequence of this white witchcraft.

Modern white medical theory seems to have originated shortly after the French Revolution when surgeons were faced with treating casualties arising out of the wars against France being waged by the monarchists surrounding the country. The French put a 400,000 man army in the field but had very few officers, so they relied mostly on mass charges with resulting casualty rates that tended to be horrendous.

This meant the surgeons had to devise some sort of triage system so they didn't waste effort trying to treat people who were going to die anyways. That's when they decided to utilize the probability theories of Pascal to make the determinations and statistical medicine was the result.

Later it was employed in England to identify the cause of the Cholera epidemics that racked the City of London. There was some sense that the disease had a connection with the Thames River and it was thought that the vapors coming from the river caused the disease, but a researcher debunked that by finding instances of people living near the river who didn't get the disease. The common factor for those people was that they used water that was piped in and therefore not tainted by the river sewage that leaked into the local wells.

From this the researcher concluded that whatever was causing the disease lived in the sewage. A generation later a German researcher identified the organism and was able to culture it thus explaining the original theory.

Since then things have been a lot less clearcut. Researchers have relied more and more on statistical correlations without unequivocally identifying the disease agent. That's the issue with Cancer by the way and it leads to all kinds of confusion.

For example, 90 percent of the people who contract lung cancer have been smokers. So it would seem pretty clear that something in tobacco smoke causes that form cancer right? However, what they haven't been able to correlate in all this is another statistic, perhaps similar in importance to the issue of the piped in water I already mentioned relating to Cholera. Only 10 percent of the smokers get lung cancer. So how do you correlate that with the other statistic?

The reason I think it's important to do that is because if the researcher in England hadn't accounted for the apparent anomaly of the piped in water, physicians might still be treating Cholera as if it were caused by Thames River water vapor. Likewise, physicians are treating lung cancer as if it were caused by smoking when it's clearly something else, maybe related to smoking, but qualitatively different.

This issue relates to me in particular because tobacco is a new world plant and it's use has been validated by hundreds of generations of relatively healthy people. Yet, some of the snide remarks I get occasionally call it the red man's revenge or something like that because of it's presumed bad effects on whites.

Likewise, Inuit have subsisted on diets very high in animal fat for thousands of years yet they don't follow the correlation curves relating to cardio-vascular disease in whites when the whites indulge in high fat diets.

Obviously somebody ain't keeping their stats straight or following up adequately on what the statistical correlations might imply. Instead they publish those correlations as if they were the answers to the questions instead of guides for maybe discovering the answers.

That in turn leads to flip-flops almost annually on what is allegedly good for you and what ain't. Not exactly what we had in mind I think.

Anyways, that and probably a lot of other things makes me think these medical savants need to start doing their homework before they do their seminars. Otherwise they're probably going to continue to violate Hermocrates' first precept which is "Do no harm."

Now, aren't you glad these things are getting longer. Hah!!

Correction: When I wrote Hermocrates, I meant Hippocrates. Buh!!

Just can't keep my Greeks straight I guess. Do your homework Analiese. Okay, okay!!!

The getting longer was in reference to my original subject, which wasn't all that short itself. Self-depreciating sarcastic humour is still funny, at least to me.

I had no idea that was going on in Brazil, and I have a few Brazilian friends. From my rather limited experience, Brazilians are a genuinely nice people, if a little crazy. Anyway, I say good, let the natives deal with the squaters. If America had done that, the whole world would be a different place. Probably some form of socialist dictatorship, but different nonetheless. Personally, I'm all for a new approach to running things, but smaller instead of bigger. Let the people who live in an area decide how things are to be, not some multi-national beurocratic behemoth which gives orders from on high. Darn, off subject again.

Back to disease. I stopped staying abreast of the latest pronouncements when I discovered that the whole HIV theory was a scam. These so called experts can't even agree on what this virus really is, how it works, or what constitutes infection. They can't isolate it in any lab. The tests used to find the actual virus only detects genetic fragments that could be anything, including peices of the human genome. They then take these fragments and extrapolate the possibility of infection from a mathimatical model. They then theorize what this maybe possible gene fragment could do to imatate the wish list set up ahead of time of symptoms that could be any number of diseases, enviromental problems, ect. This sounds a little thin to me. Anyway, they then procede to proscribe deadly poison, AZT and the like, to combat a virus that they cannot even prove exists. Also, the monkey that the original virus was possibly found in was not from Africa, but from some lab in either Boston or New York. There is no possible way to connect any of the actual research with any disease, yet they hold press conferences and scare the whole world into swallowing false science with a whole lot of poison. The real criminals are the people who know better and stay quite, the people that started this false science to begin with, and the pharmicutical giants that profit off of misery and death. All this and they say crack is a problem. I'd rather deal with a horde of crackheads than one doctor with a penchant for proscribing pills for every little thing that comes his way. At least I know where I stand with the crackheads. To summerize, AIDS is a hoax. There is something much bigger going on here.

I loved your abbr. history of western medicine. You point out that these doctors of old actually found the problem, then cured it at the source. Shortly thereafter they all move to probability statistics and treat the problem at the symptom. Very succinct, I must say. Statistics will lie just about every time. An example from an old english teacher. There once was a race where the American horse finished next to last, and a Russian horse finished second. How is it that the American horse actually finished ahead of the Russian horse? Simple, there were only two horses racing. Not exactly what modern statistical analysis would have read like, but you get the picture.

I just love these long discussions, gives me something to think about at work during the long hours of the night.

I hadn't realized how statistically disconnected and convoluted the HIV theory was. I knew biotech people had a penchant for cooking the numbers which occasionally gets publicized but I wasn't aware how easy it could be done given the inferential schemes they use. Seems like they could in principle "prove" just about anything they decided they needed to "prove". That's a very useful methodology maybe for some people.

You're the first person I've met around here who seems to agree with the smaller is better thing I been trying to get across for awhile. Which probably also means socialist dictatorships would probably be some of the last things we might imagine being founded if indian people had been allowed to handle the squatters without the intervention of the military might of colonial governments keeping the playing field level as in a higher level for the squatters and a lower level for the indians.

Most people seem to think that even if bigger ain't better it's somehow inevitable so why fight it? They've really been brainwashed I think.

They claim "balkanization" would cause more massive destruction, yet it wasn't no Balkan country inventing nukes you know? It was a big, burly empire called the United States of Amerika doing that. And the scars on the land and in the medical histories of the people who lived near the test sites show that most graphically.

And that doesn't even begin to address all the other mass destruction weapons that have come out of US weapons labs and been subsequently "tested" on actual people in real wars. Repeated interventions have been a feature of US foreign policy since before the founding of the country.

Which in turn makes the charges of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq totally hypocritical even if they could be found, for example.

The countries with the largest concentrations of those things are Amerika and the former Soviet Union which is for all practical purposes now a commercial colony of the United States. Consequently, the greatest threat to world peace, law and order is the United States, which by the way has maybe the worst record for adhering to international agreements, aka treaties in history. So much for bigness making things more secure right? Not to mention preserving Western Civilization although it appears Amerika is doing that with a vengeance. It's just not exactly clear why it needs to be preserved.

So, yeah, local people would be far better off managing their own affairs even if it led to occasional skirmishes with their immediate neighbors. Global power means the potential for global destruction and sustaining global power usually means actively exploiting regional disputes to keep people in turmoil so they don't unite in resistance to the global authority. That's sort of why the globalists feared the international communist movement so much.

And just for the record, globalism is simply what used to be called colonialism. And the WHO, WTO, and most of the rest of the "organizations" are tools of domination used by the dominant culture to maintain its dominance.

Global drug pushing is also part of that culture and we're not talking about trafficking in cocaine neither. We're talking about what could be perceived is the largest organized crime scheme in history.

Couldn't have said it better myself, even with all the practice I get. I've long been a supporter of social anarchy, commonly refered to as tribalism, because I have to believe that if everybody were personally responsible for their direct community then they would have to consider and act for the benifit of the whole. The funny part is that there is nothing stopping us from doing just that. Form communities rejecting the globalist propaganda and methodology in favor of a system that really will provide for the many rather than steal from the many for the benifit of the few.

There is a reason for the cooking of numbers. It is the same reason for the widespread legal distribution of poisonous drugs. The same reason for the war in Iraq. The same reason for keeping the image of Osama bin Laden and the non-existant al-qeuda alive and well. The same reason for the spraying of malathion over large populations. The same reason for the energy crisis on both American coasts. That reason is an operation, planned and carried out, for depopulation. Reduce the number of people on the globe to only a fifth of it's current statis in order to make it easier to control the many by the few. It is also the massive mind control experiment called reality, where anything not nailed down by the new religions of science and medicine is heresy and all proponents will be shuned as social pariahs. The widely held belief in scarcity, that there just isn't enough to go around, is pure mind control. The illusion goes deeper than most can imagine. Deeper than I have managed to discover. Reality is not what CNN says it is. Reality is not what any mass media claims. It is much more flexable. Consider the CIA's experiments with the psyche, notably MKULTRA from the fifties and early sixties, among others. They proved that paranormal abilities do exist, and are much more powerful than even the atomic bomb. This, of course, scared the bejesus out of them, because it is not something that can be quantified or controled by those at the top of the pile. The only thing that they could possible do is discredit the abilities to such an extent that people would disbelieve their own abilities enough to make them disapear.

I guess what I've been trying to say this whole time is that the power of belief cannot be underestimated. The power of one man's belief can change everything, immediately. There is just one problem, and that is believing. I'm talking about changing belief at a more fundamental level than the belief that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Even that can be changed with belief, just more people will have to believe it. Everything every shaman, every magician, every alchamist who ever lived has ever done was with the power of belief. Visions were had because the people having them believed they would. I don't ever get hangovers because I simply don't believe I will. Simple, yet the most profound thing I can try to convey. There is a solution, we just have to believe in ourselves.

Side note. Funny how the first person around here to agree with you is a white man. Of course, I am not the normality for any group I can be classified with. I like to think of myself as the exeption that proves the rule.

You once described europeans as vectors of disease. That is true for the disease of mind as well as disease of body. There is no such thing as paranoia, and the definition of insanity is the belief that killing for pleasure is good. Killing for survival is neccisary(sp?). Killing for sport is perversion, and against most religions I've read into. Of course, religion is yet another attempt at mind control. 'Only god can save you, brother. Just do everything I tell you to and god will make you happy when you're dead.' What a load of crap.

I think I hurt my brain on this one.

Yeah, it's funny alright.

Like the only other people who to my knowledge have ever dropped by this place who are like me are a really funny Ute/Lakota breed computer geek I cohabit with when he's in town who thinks people won't get it anyways so why not just make jokes? And a vindictive, deaf, full-blood Lakota I room with who thinks I'm wasting my time and that the only way whites will ever see the light is when their power grids get fried by prayer and they have to light candles and shiver like everybody else. She looks forward to the promise of the Ghost Dance sort of waiting for the ash fall I guess, which is bound to happen sooner or later because the previous ashfalls have now turned to bentonite and fracture basement foundations.

But you sort of bely all that I think. And you're not the only one really but you're the first who's more or less come to the conclusions independent of what I've been blithering which is a good sign I think. It's like not only that a few of them can be taught but they can learn it on their own too. What a wonderful thing to find out and an ittybitty cause for hope maybe.

So now what?

Oh yeah, belief. That's kind of a interesting thing. Like I got this belief that I got the power to make things happen and sometimes they do happen especially if I'm not the only beneficiary of the happenings. And I share that belief with Rita, my roommate, who believes she can bring down the power grid and evidently has although she'll deny it because she's a scientist, a geologist, and not even an electrical engineer and claims she doesn't have time to deal with powergrids except incidental to her field work.

And I share it with Steve, my hunnybunny, who knew the natural gas was running out last spring and mentioned it among his other little pieces of levity. That's not magic for him. That's listening to the guys who own the wells that ain't pumping so much anymore. And all this after everybody converted the power plants in our region from coal to gas. So guess what? They'll probably try to convert back right?

Except the coal beds support aquifiers in a region that some early explorer called the Great American Desert and he was right to call it that. So the question becomes how long can you go without water to get electricity? Or go without air?

Mojave Power Plant still uses coal that's slurried and piped 300 miles from the navvy reservation with what? Water!! Buh!! How bright an idea is that?

So these are pretty tough questions ain't they?

But you can survive. You have the power and it ain't all in belief but in practices where each act is a prayer, praying being an expression of needs, not selfish wants, to all the other powers who inhabit this world to share its bounty, not to some selfish power who claims to be omnipotent and above his own laws, some fantasy of western civilized individualistic greed.

But it's always a tough sell especially for people who ain't salemen, but we learn and adapt and endure and that's probably the best anybody can do until the dominators get a clue.

And there's always the power to make things happen. It just depends on how ready you are to give something back.

Sad the way so many people have been tied to the illusion that energy is limited. There are alternatives. Cheap alternatives. I've found plans to convert any existing internal combustion engine to hydrogen, the most abundant element on the planet. The only by product would be water. There are also many experiments and theories by the scientist Nikoli Tesla (at least I think that's his first name). One of his main interests was easy to produce, cheap, renewable energy sources. I'm glad I printed those plans when I found them, not a week later the site they were on vanished. All I need to do now is find a car to experiment on. This could work for power generation as well. There are answers, there are solutions. It will be hard, but I'm beginning to believe that it is the only way. The answer is of course to think small. Local community gardens, providing cheap, good food for the whole community. I'm not talking about communism, either. It's entirely possible to keep the established capitolist way of doing things, and still provide for the many. Scarcity is an illusion, higher prices due to scarcity is an illusion. With modern technology it is possible to provide everything essential to survival,cheaply, and still show a good profit. It just takes many people working locally to make it happen. With just a fraction of the money spent on petroleum, hydrogen could take it's place, and provide cheaper energy on all fronts. The hemp plant could easily and cheaply provide for textiles, hair care, cooking, and many other industries, and it renews three times yearly in some climates. There are answers. With the money donated by Mr. Gates to the cause of AIDS in Africa, Africa could become cleaner, better fed, basically self-sufficient, and as a magical result, free from all these dibilitating diseases. Without any drugs at all. The entire continent healed for a measly billion bucks. Inexpensive if you consider the per person cost. My goal in all of this is to create a vast empirical corperation to fund the technologies nessisary to the survival of the human race. Then I'd like to get off this planet and find what may be out in space. Ok, that may be a pipe dream, but so was indoor plumbing four hundred years ago. Nothing is impossible, I just have to believe. We all do in the end.

You're right again. Finding people that have come to these conclusions independantly is hard to do. You're the first for me. Rather the second. The guy that does nomorefakenews dot com has been preachin' the gospel of waking up to this insanity for apperantly twenty years or more. Good place to take leads on for further research into the strange realms of what is really happening. You should check that site out, you'ld like it.

One of the most important things we can do is to tell as many people as will listen. Help to shake the illusion from as many eyes as we can. The more people working for the same end, the better the chances for it working. One of the reasons I originally replied to your entry was to do this. What a pleasant suprise to find you've already seen through the lies. Changing the world won't be easy, but at least it's still possible. At least I have to believe that.

Just so there's no misunderstanding later because differences were glossed over in the joyous celebration of finding apparently like spirits, I should tell you something right off.

One of the cultural traditions I represent has inhabited the Great Basin for over 10,000 years. In that time the region has gone from a verdant paradise of lakes and rivers to a high altitude desert.

This progressive desertification taught the people what scarcity actually means and how to deal with it. It was no illusion and the solution involved using the native seed plants augmented by small and medium game and very small scale agriculture, mostly near the perennial springs that existed in the area.

When the whites first came into the region, they were looking for beaver to trap and found a great many, but within a generation they'd trapped the beaver out because their trapping methods were so "efficient".

Later immigrants tried to farm in the region on a much larger scale typical of northern european farming methods devised over the centuries in that region. These methods failed to account for the lack of water of course and the land couldn't support them.

At the same time large scale cattle outfits invaded the area deliberately destroying stands of pinyon pine that had sustained the natives for thousands of years in order to create what they thought would be suitable pasture. It's now most suitable for generating dust not grass.

The immigrants perjoratively referred to the natives as "diggers" because they often used long sticks to dig up roots. The immigrants also incorrectly attributed the diggers' relative poverty to their "primitive" lifeways not realizing that the poverty was a direct result of the immigrants' destruction of the resources upon which the people depended.

The fact remains that the people had one of the most sophisticated economies ever devised for exploiting an environment of scarcity without changing that scarcity into deprivation. This is something the whites still don't get.

And that sort of concerns me when somebody starts talking about scarcity as if it were only a capitalist delusion to justify haves and havenots as part of the natural order of things. First, because that argument doesn't work anyways since scarce resources can be shared just as efficiently as non-scarce ones if you know how and second, because the notion seems to assume that there is some technological marvel that will successfully violate the laws of physics in ways only dreamed of.

Let's take Tesla for example. Apparently he figured out that there's electrical energy in the atmosphere, oodles of it in fact which we frequently witness during thunderstorms, and the problem then is simply an engineering issue. How do you get that energy out of the atmosphere and into the power grid?

But what Tesla seemed to overlook, as did the immigrants before him, were even more important questions like what happens when you take energy out of the atmosphere? What's the effect on rainfall for example? And how do you put it back after you use it so that things don't go too far out of balance?

Because you see the world wasn't just created to sustain human beings. It's a vast and complex interlocking web of needs that need to be kept in balance or the thing becomes like the Great Basin now, a source of dust that can't sustain either the natives or the immigrants like it once did.

So the solutions very often are not engineering ones. They're something else, something you might call managing the throughput and not taking so much from it that you can't pay the debt later on. Because the system works quite well without human intervention, but works very badly when humans intervene in destructive ways out of greed or ignorance.

Consequently, there might a fundamental difference in how you and me view these things because I tend to think that humans need to adapt to what's going on and take only what they need and return that in due course whereas I suspect you think that humans can continue to exploit things as they have in Europe or America if only they can perfect better technologies.

You might be right but the track record isn't very good since most of the superior technologies devised heretofor have simply increased the throughput thus aggravating depletion and increasing pollution or entropy. That's not exactly what we had mind really.

So even if Tesla's scheme could be made to work, the unintended consequences might be very bad in the longterm and unfortunately by the time people figured out what those unintended consequences were it might be very hard to put things back within any practical timespan.

And that's exactly the problem we have now with the usage and depletion of fossil fuel. It's a problem we might have if hydrogen were exploited to the same extent because while it's utilized as hydrogen it ain't water and water is the primary source of hydrogen on the planet because the gravity is too weak to trap it in the atmosphere. Water is probably more useful than hydrogen as far as human life or any earth-based life is concerned. How much water you willing to forgo to keep your microwave oven running?

But there's more, how much energy does it take to break down the water molecules into hydrogen so you can use it as a fuel? Probably at least as much as you can extract in an internal combustion engine plus a lot more because internal combustion ain't that efficient. And where would that energy come from?

Well, possibly where all the energy comes from that exists on the earth, from the sun. Okay fine, problem solved right?

Someone has already devised photovoltaic cells that can extract electrical current from sunlight and this current might be used to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then the energy might be extracted from that in the form of heat produced when the hydrogen oxidizes in combustion. To accomplish what? Power millions of automobiles?

Or since we want to think locally anyways to avoid all the adverse political problems that globalism or any form of colonialism entails, why bother?

We already know how to support local communities. We simply need to let them do that instead of trying to steal their resources to support huge cities and millions of automobiles and the highway infrastructures they require.

Because while there is scarcity, much of it is aggravated by concentration of resources to allegedly support denser populations but in fact what's really being supported is smaller populations of elites using more than their fair share of the resources.

Trying to devise technologies that will allow them to do that without so severely depriving everybody else is at best a stop gap because sooner or later their wants will once again exceed the means of provisioning. And then it's back to the drawing board to fulfill those wants with even more massive technical solutions which maintain denser populations at poverty level and the same small elite populations in splender.

I think if the arable land were divided equally throughout the world, each man, woman and child would get between seven and eight acres. Now, that's certainly not a lot, and it seems pretty meager when you compare to the 20 acres required presently to support a person in a developed country in the manner in which she/he is accustomed, but it's probably adequate and especially adequate if population grew according to their resource range limits rather than according to some doctor's dream of eliminating infant mortality and trying to balance it on the other end by contraception or abortion.

People can and do try to micromanage the universe but I really doubt they got much of clue how to do it right. And I'm especially skeptical when they try to do it so as to preserve the privileges of the elite.

That's the major problem now, the elite, and they've been a problem for centuries. They were a problem in Europe which is why Europeans became so desperate that they were willing to leave everything they had and migrate across three thousand miles of open ocean.

They became a problem in America when the same disruptive, inequitable system that existed in Europe was imported into the colonies.

Yes, the founders of the nation tried to create an equitable political system, based in no small part on the systems they found among the Iroquois and Choctaw, but it was of little avail because they did nothing about the economic system that virtually insured that men of means would come to dominate the government.

So if all your technological marvels are going to do is preserve this awful system, then I think they're a colossal waste of time and effort. But I can readily see how they might be attractive to many people precisely for that reason.

So then I'd propose that you try it but let us do our thing in our way, and then maybe when things get scarce again, you've got something to look at besides a history of failure to live within your means.

Call it preserving a diversity of technologies if you like and maybe see it in somewhat the same way as you see a national park. Something for the future of value mainly because it isn't exploited in the usual ways but is allowed to persist as an inspiration or as a safety net, even a network of the small that can ultimately replace the big when the big fails as it has over and over.

Maybe that's worth thinking about a little too, okay?

I think I may have upset you. I have re-read my previous posting and can see how you would have interperated it that way. I in no way support the few dominating the many, I am an anarchist. I also do not support the depleting of scarce recourses. I do not support the current world philosophy of depopulation, there are ways to provide for everybody without destroying what is. I am a supporter of new technologies, espesially alt energy. I have long believed that the perfect society was that of the plains peoples, but understand that those days are over. Unless a little over 90% of the population of the world were eradicated, and I cannot support what amounts to genocide. I do believe that there can be prosperity for all, but only after a global paradigm shift. These things are not impossible, and need not destroy the environment that I personally find to be the source of all beauty. I also understand that these changes have to start on a small scale, continue on a small scale, and succede on a widespread small scale effort.

The Tesla research I was refering to was Zero Point Energy, that is, the energy present in a total void. This energy is theorized to be the most abundant energy source, if we could but utilize it. That doesn't even take into account the trunkloads of material researched by Tesla that was confiscated by the US gov in 1943. This info has not been released for public scrutiny, only knowledge of it is from a recently unearthed memo from 1943 that details the theft of Tesla's work. Theft is my word for what the gov did. I'd like to see some of that material. Maybe, just maybe, it holds the key to clean energy.

The term fossil fuel is erroneous. The petroleum that is being used today is drilled at a depth far beyond any possibility of formation by organic means. This fuel is a product of the earths molten core. This is difficult info to come across, as those actually in control would like for us all to believe that energy is scarce. Not to mention that oil feild that were pumped dry only a hundred years ago are full again. Most definately not enough time for the organic theory of petroleum to replenish the feilds.

Hydrogen. Using a slightly larger alternator in conjunction with the converted internal combustion engine will produce sufficent current to split the water molecule into component parts. The internal combustion will recombine them, producing what you started with, water. This could potentially be reclaimed to have the automobile running indefinately on the same fill of water. Otherwise, the water vapor produced will simply re-enter the environment the same as a boiling pot. Nothing destroyed, nothing deprived. Drinking water doesn't even have to enter the picture. Also the reason current engines are inefficient is due to the carbeuration of the gasoline. The only part of gasoline that is flammible is the vapor. Current manufactured automobiles only vaporize 15-20% of the liquid mass of the fuel. Increase vaporization, decrease fuel wasted. Still harming the environment, but saving a not so scarce resource. I prefer hydrogen. There are many more uses for hydrogen then just transportation. What is a car engine without the car? It is a generator. Strip the accesories, add bigger magnets, and magically a bigger current flows out the other end. Without the weight of a 2ton car to pull, this could produce a large amount of energy, far more than needed to perpetuate the reactions. Don't you remember in chemistry class when the teacher used a flashlight battery to split the water molecule? The subsiquent flash when just a tiny amount of hydrogen was then openly combusted? Fairly logical stuff. (don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you, I'm not, I just can't think of another way to say it)

Even thinking locally it makes sence to convert to a clean energy source. There are still 6 billion people on this planet. I have no intentions of changing that figure, so I instead try to focus on ways to support that massive figure, or rather have that figure support itself, in a clean, responsible way. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

As for my comment on capitolism, it has proven to be the fastest way to distribute any given commodoty. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Might as well use the thriving capitolist economies to help spread the nessisary changes. I'm not suggesting keeping that system, just using it. I'm enough of a realist to know that the changes are going to be slow, and they have to be 'bottom up' solutions to have any chance of succeding. In order to change the fundamenal way things are done, you have to change the fundamental way people see the world. This is done in small steps, starting at the most basic level.

As for the track record of technology exploiting the environment, that was done out of the illusion that there was no other way. Remove that illusion and newer, clean technologies will come about, and have been for quite some time. They have been supressed thus far, but it cannot be kept hidden forever.

I don't think that we are coming at this problem from differing perspectives, just different ideas on how to fix it. I didn't mean to downplay the importance of an environmentally sound way of life, I just try to see a way to do that and keep my computer. By no means do I know everything (though I sometimes sound like I believe I do), and I need to learn more on this problem. The thing is that the problem is so large that I have to attack it one method at a time. If you know of a better way, I'd love to learn more about it. I feel like I really need to know more about all fields involved to formulate a coherant and workable response to this disease of scarcity. Though I believe that scarcity is an illusion, now, I think that the illusion was indeed fostered upon us all by those same elites that apperantly disgust us both. There are answers to the problems, and our two visions of them don't have to be mutually exclusive. I believe that there really can be enough to go around without destroying anything. I think that the balance has to be regained for any of it to work at all.

Still trying to extract foot from mouth. Hopefully we understand each other better.

You didn't upset me and I tend to chew on my moccassins a great deal too so don't worry about that part. I just think we might be getting to the core of something here that needs to be discussed that's all.

I don't happen to agree that plains culture was a perfect society by the way. It was sort of an aberration forced by the invasion of the East that uprooted people and forced them out on to the plains to find something to sustain themselves.

What they found were bison in such plentitude that they subsequently gave up most of their agriculture while seriously and adversely impacting the previous cultures that had better balanced economies for using the resources of the plains.

Unfortunately, for many this aberration is what they take to represent indian culture in general, which it most definitely doesn't represent generally anymore than the shortlived excursions into monumentalism of some Maya or Aztec people is representative really.

People have gone through phases in the Americas, and some have been less useful than others. That's important to remember because practically every mistake that has been made in Europe was made in the Americas too at one time or another.

Okay then, so what?

Well, that's sort of the issue with localism as opposed to globalism. There is no overriding perfect culture which means we need to preserve some measure of diversity in resource utilization which reflects local conditions. On that point, I think we're in agreement.

So what about Tesla again? What I was referring to was his experiments conducted on a mountain peak less than 100 miles from where I'm going to college where he tried to use his coils to capture the energy in lightning that typically strikes such peaks frequently.

Your description of his scheme to extract energy from the void reminds me of Feynman's theories of virtual particles and borrowed energy that underpins modern quantum physics, so it's probably not surprising that the government seized Tesla's documents in 1943. They probably held clues that might have compromised the work of the secret Manhatten Project among other things.

If that's true then Tesla was probably going down the same road as Oppenheimer more or less which when viewed in retrospect might not have been such a good thing.

The promise of nuclear energy has yet to be realized because of all the unintended consequences surrounding its generation. In fact it bodes very badly for the future since no one seems to have any clear idea what should be done with the waste that's already been created.

Part of that waste is being stored on my ancestral land and I don't relish that one bit since it essentially makes that land unsafe for habitation, probably for thousands of years.

The disposal of the waste is a persistant problem for reservation people, especially in South Dakota but also in Utah and elsewhere because indian land is seen as suitable for sacrifice in the interests of so-called national security and the strongest power on earth aka the military-industrial complex will virtually stop at nothing to insure its agenda gets executed no matter who it hurts.

For these reasons alone I think you might appreciate why I'm very reluctant to endorse any schemes involving the exploitation of nuclear or quantum energies.

There's a very old story about how the earth was once inhabited by monsters who made the earth uninhabitable for people. The people were hiding underground and that's how things continued until some brothers were given a commission by the earth mother to deal with the monsters.

So those brothers went above ground and defeated the monsters who were subsequently confined under the earth so the people could emerge on the earth's surface and live there.

Now some people think the whites have dug into the earth and released those ancient monsters to vex the people again and I think there might be some reason to credit that belief when we see the fire flowers blooming in the atmosphere and the debris of their birth heaped around the foundations of people's houses that make the people sicken and die.

This is not a good thing, Sneaky, not good for anybody really but especially not good for us.

Now again, hydrogen?

I don't think a generator could ever generate enough energy to change water into fuel for the generator and still have any left over for other uses, certainly not by combustion. Maybe if the energy could be extracted from a plasma jet or something like that, but then again what are the consequences?

At the very least it probably needs to be studied a lot more carefully to both figure out how to get something for nothing and how to avoid getting something you definitely don't want in the process.

My roommate, Rita, says you're almost totally off on your understanding of the petroleum cycle. The reason previously empty fields were brought back into production is because no field is ever empty. The petroleum fractions into thicker and more fluid material.

The more fluid material is the first to be exploited because it can be easily pumped out of the ground. If petroleum prices get high enough then it becomes economic to inject steam into the reservoir to release the thicker petroleum that's still there but there's always a remnant that can't be extracted economically.

She also says that petroleum is a product of geothermal energy only to the extent that a relatively narrow range of heat and pressure is required to change the organic goo into useful petroleum. This temperature range is actually evidenced by the color tints of conodonts found in the goo. Conodonts are small shelled fossil organisms that live in the ocean.

Petroleum derives then from organic debris that accumulates on the seafloor especially near shore where basins or synclines are likely to develop.

But it still requires the previously mentioned narrow range of temperature and pressure for its transformation and it also needs to migrate into what are called stratagraphic traps that will cause it to pool sufficiently to make recovery economically feasible.

If it were being continually generated in the earth's molten core, then we should probably be able to find plenty of it when volcanoes erupt, but that doesn't happen.

Rita says most of the earth's crust is recycled but the timespans are very, very long. So while we can expect more petroleum and coal to materialize in the future, that might be longer than any of us want to imagine.

In any case, utilization has so far been way faster than the recycling processes.

This is also true with the fossil water aquifiers in the West. The water from those things is in some cases hundreds of thousands of years old so we probably could expect they might take at least that long to recharge fully and that ain't happening in the few generations its taken to pull them down so that even the surface of the plains or desert areas has subsided noticably.

Coalbeds are another place where aquifiers naturally develop and when the coal is extracted and fill is substituted the aquifiers tend to become more tainted with heavy metals that constitute a greater proportion of the fill than in the original coal. That's bad news, as bad as the tainting of surface streams by mine or mill tailings.

All this suggests that mineral extraction has a lot of adverse impacts on future generations and we've only begun to scratch the surface, literally, of how adverse those impacts can become.

Okay, so what do I suggest we do instead?

Well, whatever we do, I suspect we can't continue to utilize things at the present or projected rates. Even if we somehow discover a free lunch somewheres, we need to backoff now in order to have a decent chance of catching up.

There are many ways of utilizing resources.

Passive solar energy has been exploited for centuries in the large towns of Hisatsinom. It requires very little in the way of infrastructure investment other than human labor, mud and stone, which are renewable well within human lifetimes or fairly abundant.

Most of the world's population does without not only computers but telephones and electricity. There's really no reason those technologies benefit anybody other than those who need to keep track of the loot or support the massive system of deprivation dedicated to acquiring plunder.

That's not to say there aren't other less pernicious uses, as we both probably can see simply because this discussion is happening, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be devastated if we had to discuss things face to face instead.

Rapid transit provides some people with previously unexplored travel opportunities, but at the same time it also provides a faster way of spreading diseases and culture shock.

Wind power holds some promise but not in the huge wind farms the energy companies are promoting that again require huge infrastructure investments beyond the means of most local communities.

Europe was probably self-sufficient in energy production by 1000 CE simply utilizing wind and water power locally, but it evidently squandered that on destructive wars and conquest.

The Americas were self-sufficient in practically everything before the conquest that began in 1492, and the population was probably comparable to Europe in the same era.

Now, of course, we can't go back and I happen to believe that the life road goes only one way anyways, but I think there might be clues to how to provision people for the future as long as they're willing to give up the obsession with evermore acquisitiveness and other manifestations of greed.

In short we need to learn to feed need not greed in order to survive and prosper in a world that can shared among many as long as it doesn't have to be dominated and looted by a few.

Seemed a better subject title, as that is what we are discussing. I think we are trying to say the same things, only using different ways of thought to filter the words. Part of the beauty of diverse cultures being able to discuss anything they want. You should be proud, I actually had to take notes this time. I don't have to take notes in collegiate courses, and I maintain A's. Of course I've had to give up on any further education. They won't teach the truth as I see it anyway. The only further the propaganda. Notes were the only way to remember what I wanted to say in reply, you wrote so much. I'm not complaining, just pleasently surprised. Short term memory just ain't what it used to be. One of the main differences I see in what we've been talking about is our perceptions on how bad it really is, how deep the lies go. Everything is an illusion. This theme is explored in movies like 'In The Mouth Of Madness' and Clive Barker's 'Lord Of Illusions'. Interesting to note that depictions of people breaking through the reality illusion are almost always in horror. Just makes me wonder who is really afraid of that happening? It's obvious to me that those most afraid of change are the ones fostering the illusion upon us. Also along those same lines, I've noticed that in almost all sci-fi portrayals of contact with alien races the aliens are of a hive mind, and out to conquer. Again, seeding the fear of change. In fact, this hive mind is explored in many themes. I recommend re-reading the novel '1984' for a better look at these modern times.

On to the fun stuff.

When I refered to the plains peoples having a perfect culture, I was refering to the social structure, not the agricultural practices. Now I admit that I really don't know much more than the history written by the conquerors, but even those histories describe the social anarchy that reigned for over 10,000 years on this continent. The part that makes it perfect isn't the aberations you pointed out, but the fact that they were allowed to develop along different paths even while sharing resources. How many different cultures developed just in the American midwest? That is what attracts me to that way of life.

I've read about the Tesla coils, even seen some impressive pictures of the experiment you mentioned. Even Tesla said that this form of energy production needed to be studied further. I understand why the gov would want anything relating to the Manhattan Project research kept secret back then, but all that information is in the public domain now. Why isn't Tesla's research being released as well? Hell, I've seen plans in Time magazine (or was it Popular Science? was in a waiting room when I read the article) that would allow a person to build their very own big boy, so that can't be the reason the info is still being hidden. I'm a rather paranoid person, wait, no I'm not, there is no such thing as paranioa. Anyway these questions make me think there is a lot more to Tesla than we are being allowed to know. More mind kontrol by the Amerikan aristokracy. A lot of quantum physics was correlated in Teslas work. That his work is being suppressed is irresponsible, childish, and may just lead to catastrophy. One of the main differences between what I've read of Tesla's work and Oppenheimer's work is the structure of the atom. Tesla was mostly concerned with the electrons and the spaces between atoms, while Oppenheimer was concerned with the nucleas and the splitting of such. Destruction of what Mother originally designed always leads to problems, especially when concerning the very structure of physical existance.

Nuclear tech. Probably the single most inefficient and environmentaly harmful energy source ever developed. Those reactors need to be shut down. There cannot be a benifit big enough or nessisary enough to allow the poisoning of Mother in that fashion. Ignites my anger incredably. Wind power generation is about to become a viable alternative to coal production. I've recently been in touch with a company that will be releasing a turbine based wind generator that produces megawatts of energy with just a light breeze. I'll try to find that info for you. The sceduled release is sometime next year. The adds for it look fantastic. Unfortunately they will be relying on a form of multi-level marketing to promote the product. Worked for the catholics, could work for others as well.

I'm not sure what you've read on the subject, but the experiments I've done show that water is easy to split into component atoms. I've achieved this with just a 12v flashlight battery. That is a very small current, nothing like what is produced to keep an automobile running. Since the initial split would be preformed by a standard 12v auto battery, though one of the larger ones would be needed, I see no reason why this couldn't be feasible. Espessially with the alternators, transisters, and extra battery setups some people use just to power their car stereo systems. Some of the competition bass systems require huge amounts of current just to produce any sound at all. Generating the current is no problem, and the only limitation to how much power comes out is cylinder size and the size of the magnets being turned. Tell ya what, when I get my car running on hydrogen, I'll drive it out to where you are and let you test drive the thing. Should only take me a few years. I just really need three things to make it happen. A car to convert, money, a machinist that will ceramic coat the cylinder walls and the pistons. The rest I could do myself. Time is about all I have working for me at the moment. After I prove my point, I'll give you a copy of the plans. Unfortunately, somehting of this nature could never be marketed without changing the political landscape of the world. It could be implimented by individuals and the plans distributed by hand for free. I plan on making my fortunes in other areas, not just monetary either. It's my belief that there are many ways to be fortunate. Ok, that's really more of a theory, but I'll take that theory over some presented in economics.

Hydrogen's not the only alternative, just the best that can be implimented relatively soon. If the destruction is slowed down to a small fraction of what it is today, we may just buy enough time to find a better way. 'The longest journey begins with a single step', forgot who said that.

Your story about Mother sounds an awful lot like what's happening in Iraq right about now. There is so called depleted uranium being dropped all over the countryside on top of the depleted uranium dropped on them twelve years ago in Gulf War 1. There is the burning of industrial plastics releasing poisonous gasses into the air in every major city there. Then there is the starvation and sanitation problems that every conquered people in history have had to deal with. All because Saddam wanted economic freedom for Iraq. Unfortunately for Iraq, those that control these massive militaries (not the gov) have a global map plotted out that has every country in a role pre-assigned for them by these globalist elites. I think of these elites as Nazis. Iraq was apperantly supposed to by a supplier nation, not a producer. The plastics plants that Saddam had built was a big no-no, so he got the shiite bombed out of him. Pun is of course intentional. Same reason Africa has been plagued by a non-existant virus. Same reason there is a never ending feudal drug war in South America. So many of the world's conflicts are artificial, intended to distract and delude. Someone once wrote that to achieve a lasting peice accord in the middle east is to take two farmers, one muslim and one jewish, and let them talk. These uneducated peoples would find a way to get along in a single day. The problems are at the top of the pecking order. I'd like to see the leaders of these peoples lead the charge. Maybe they would change their tune if it was them dying for their petty jihad. Maybe not.

The reason I say that petroleum is not fossil fuel is based on some things I've read recently. I'm not very knowledgeable aobut geology, but the reasoning was sound. Put as simply as I can (which is probably too complicated for most anyone else, I'm always happy to find someone with a mind they can actually use), the depths that petroleum is being drilled from would make it impossible for it to be formed from organic means. Not that there is no oil produced that way, just most of it is too deep. Take into consideration that oil is lighter than water, if an organizm is to be changed into hydrocarbons (the basis for petroleum) then it would be on or near the surface where it died. How would it be able to collect in pools below the water table? Even it there were to be a fissure that would allow this, the water below the oil would fill it first, especially if most of the oil is produced in the oceans like you roomate suggested. Also, organic matter decomposes too rapidly in an ocean environment. There isn't enough organic matter left to change into oil by the time it reaches the bottom. Then there are the bottom feeders that survive off of what organic matter sifts down to those insane depths. Since it seems to be logically impossible for the oil to seep down, then by Occam's Razor it has to be seeping up. As for you volcano example, there are huge amounts of hydrocarbons being found around volcanic eruptions. The only problem is that it just isn't economically feasible to extract these hydrocarbons from solid rock. Though ancient volcanic activity may be why there are abundant pools of oil close to the surface. Another interesting tidbit I've read is that the organic form of hydrocarbons found in oil are contaminates picked up by the oil as the pressure of the earths core forces it up through the cracks and pores of the crust. Also the oil feilds that have been opened back up have nothing to do with differing thicknesses of the oil, the feilds have refiled. To the top. Like I said just a moment ago, I don't really know all that much about geology, but these arguments followed logic. I just can't present the evidence as clearly as I've read it. My main point was that nothing currently accepted at truth is absolute. There are always other answers, and some make more sense then others.

There is one thing everybody seems to agree on, and that is that we are using oil at a much faster rate than it renews itself. The only thing I'm positive on is that there must be a balance in everything. Technology was what was hiding in Pandora's box, so a balance needs to be found for that as well. The knowledge used to create these things will never go away, but can be mitigated by responsible use. That and I'm addicted to the net. Slightly skewed perception there, I'll freely admit.

I think I've hurt my brain, so I'll save anything else for later. I think I've covered everything anyway.

I come from a very practical bunch of people okay? A lot of people don't seem to appreciate how practical actually. So then some dude comes down from the mountain and says, "Hey I just talked to the thunderbird and he told me it's going to rain pretty soon."

So the people sort of ponder that awhile and if it rains pretty soon, they say, "Hmmm.. maybe you can do that again huh?"

So if the dude goes back up on that mountain and talks to that thunderbird again and he comes back down and says, "Hey I just talked to the thunderbird and he told me it's going to rain again pretty soon," then the people ponder that too and maybe wait awhile and if it rains that's cool and if it doesn't they go about their business and say, "Well maybe that thunderbird don't like you so much no more eh?"

Now, you build that car that way and I'll ponder it just like that thunderbird talking maybe. Get it?

In the meantime, you probably should bone up a little on your geology because your objections are sort of starting to sound like what the fundamentalist Christians do with their Creation Science crap. For example, if you ever had pumped oil you'd know it's chuck full of salt water and that salt water came from the ocean.

Also, there's a boat sitting in 600 feet of Black Sea water and it's practically untouched by the borers that get to boats higher up because that water ain't got much oxygen in it and that's the same as the goo that accumulates on the seafloor as Rita described. It's call a reducing environment. Whether critters eat or are eaten they all end up in those places sooner or later.

There's a highway cut for the interstate that goes through a hogback around here and you can smell the hydrogen sulfide being given off of some dark rocks that are 120 million years old so there's still plenty of organic material there that ain't been eaten up. It's too close to the surface now for the pressure and temperature to change it to oil but the same strata farther east which is thousands of feet below the surface has produced oil. The mountains west of the hogback bent everything up so that's why you got those dark rocks where they are doing what they're doing.

Even so it doesn't matter like you say because people use it up as fast they used up whale oil and you can recharge a whale a good deal faster than an oil well.

Which is sort of my point. You can use things as long as you respect the interlocking web of life that produces the things you need and don't use anything so fast you can't put it back with your own body or other products you might make with it.

There's another story about that that comes from that plains culture you were talking about.

http://www.computerstuph.com/rco/voices/white_buffalo_calf.htm

Please note the thing about how the people turn to grass so they can feed the buffalo who then can feed them. That's the general idea okay it's probably part of the reason the Americas were self-sufficient until the Europeans conquered the continents. That's the magic trick okay? I told you we were practical people.

So no matter what you do or Tesla thought of or whatever, you need to remember to be able to give things back, to stay with the cycles that sustain life on this planet. So you need alcohol? Don't want so much that you can't spare the corn. You need oil to burn or cook frybread? Don't want so much that the creatures that grow it in their fat get wiped out. You want fire for cooking or warmth? Don't want so much of it you can't find enough wood or manure to burn unless you go all over the world and take other people's wood or manure that they need to burn. Get it?

That's really what's at issue here. Keeping things in balance. Now you can try to force that balance, push hard, but then you're going to find out that things push back hard too and that's what you see as the problems.

So that's why I'm saying sometimes you'll keep the balance out of respect or regret, but you don't force it really. It forces you. That's why showing humility is important. Many ceremonies might or might not bring us what we want, but they will almost always bring us what we need because they put us in the proper relationship with all the other powers in this world and then we help keep things balanced and everything is beautiful, everything around us, and we can share in that beauty.

That's all.