Abby Martin’s Personal Tribute to Investigative Journalist Michael C. Ruppert

Abby Martin gives a heartfelt tribute to investigative journalist and former LAPD detective, Michael C. Ruppert, highlighting his career from exposing CIA drug trafficking to his groundbreaking research on ‘Peak Energy’ and remember his sincere devotion to truth and justice.

LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

, , , , ,

  • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

    Rest in peace Brother, Neighbor, Light Worker… we will NEVER turn away from the blinding light of truth you cast upon us, from deep within your heart of hearts.

    #foxmagic

    • Rhoid Rager

      You don’t understand peak oil.

      • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

        I assure you… I’m more than familiar with the narratives on both sides of the argument.

        • Rhoid Rager

          Sidelined from what exactly? Remembering Ruppert by cryptically libelling him?
          And, if you think peak oil is a concocted narrative to drive up oil prices, then you don’t understand peak oil. No debate necessary–you are ignorant in that regard.

          • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

            That’s unfortunate you feel that way…. perhaps you’re unaware the the largest oil and gas reserve on the planet have only recently been tapped, and that the US/Canada stands to be the largest exporters of oil and natural gas.

          • Rhoid Rager

            I was waiting for that kind of response. Most ignorant of peak oil usually cite reserves (tar sands, tight oil plays, drilling off the coast of S. America etc.). Perhaps you’ve been reading Daniel Yergin? I implore you to look into peak oil deeper than an industry analyst. EROEI is the linchpin to understanding peak oil. Basic thermodynamics. Industrial civilization finds itself in the situation it is in now because of this basic misunderstanding of the concept of entropy. Good luck in your research.

          • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

            No, I won’t “look into peak oil deeper”… it’s a well established fact that the entire planet could be fueled for the next 200 years by the oil in Canada alone. That’s not including untapped natural gas, coal and nuclear energy.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZeDFwTcnCc

            #guninmouthblues

          • Andrew

            Solar and thorium could fuel the entire planet for the next 200,000 years.

          • Echar Lailoken

            According to this article from the Ecologist, thorium is still risky business. Although it’s 3 years old.

            All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.

            Tickell says thorium reactors would not reduce the volume of waste from uranium reactors. ‘It will create a whole new volume of radioactive waste, on top of the waste from uranium reactors. Looked at in these terms, it’s a way of multiplying the volume of radioactive waste humanity can create several times over.’

            Putative waste benefits – such as the impressive claims made by former Nasa scientist Kirk Sorensen, one of thorium’s staunchest advocates – have the potential to be
            outweighed by a proliferating number of MSRs. There are already 442 traditional reactors already in operation globally, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The by-products of thousands of smaller, ostensibly less wasteful reactors would soon add up.

            http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

          • Echar Lailoken

            Also, I don’t think that helped at all. Just something I found, and thought I’d share.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Any nuclear energy is also incredibly energy and resource intensive to build. Nuclear energy has a terrible upfront EROEI, and the resultant waste product pretty clearly underlines why it is no kind of solution to our energy problems.

          • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

            Right, which is why debating oil and gas in the first place was something I attempted to avoid. Surely we have enough oil and gas to transition off of them as primary fuels, and I don’t really care if suburbanites have to pay $10 per gallon to fuel their SUVs.

          • Rhoid Rager

            I know you’ve been pushing solar hard recently, but I’m not convinced of its scalability. Until there are solar powered PV-factories, solar-powered mining infrastructure and electrically-driven shipping freighters, the solar industry will remain subsidized by fossil fuels. And conversion of existing uranium-based fission plants to thorium-based fission is an incredibly complex (thus energy-hungry) task in both social and physical terms. The momentum of existing energy-harnessing technologies seems to me to be too great to overcome. We’re beyond the point of alternate-scalable homogenous solutions.

            But isn’t that the point, in a sense? Centralized homogenous energy-harnessing is what gives industrial civilization the impetus to further consolidate itself and drive humanity insane enough to destroy our ecosystem and murder ourselves? The inevitable breakdown of centralization through entropy is the necessary precursor to our growth towards taking back personal responsibility as sentient, compassionate beings.

          • Andrew

            I believe solar will be part of that decentralization, seeing as how it provides people the potential to generate their own electricity.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            You are delusional, then. The rarity of “Rare Earth Elements” will prevent renewables from ever covering the gap lost out from Peak Oil.

            Also, there are some 800 Million vehicles with internal combustion engines. Even if we can somehow get our shit together to keep the grid working, there will never be 800 Million anything ever built again.

            Those 800 Million vehicles are the basis of our agriculture aka Global Food System.

            Watch Collapse, read Ruppert’s book(s). Then do your own research. The conclusions are obvious. Infinite Growth paradigms are cancerous and are slated to eventually and irrevocably crash.

            You are of course welcome to disagree with reality, but please do more than supply “rah rah human progress” nonsense.

          • Andrew

            I’ve read that not responding to insults with anger is a sign of a paid disinformation agent, so fuck you, asshole, I never said anything about infinite growth paradigms, I was talking about decentralization. Energy use will clearly decline, but as someone who doesn’t use that much of it, I’m fine with that.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            That sounds plausible. I’ll accept that. I apologize for not recognizing the distinction re: decentralization.

            However, to the latter statement, fuck you right back. I doubt the global south gets their rocks off commenting prolifically on the Interwebz.

            Please don’t misunderstand, I take your contributions here seriously; I respect your perspective. However, you are either first world spoiled, or some of form of gravely misguided that I have no words for.

            With regards to the larger topic, if I may proffer an opinion, what really killed Ruppert was the knowledge he couldn’t do anything to free the debt serfs chained to urban infrastructure of a dying paradigm. He saw the human sacrifice machine gearing up for a holy sacrifice slaughter and didn’t want to live through it. And he didn’t have the stomach to wait it out from some isolated cul-du-sac of doomer dystopia.

            So coming back full circle, good luck in your cul-du-sac, @disqus_qmcvukjF4e:disqus. Not all of us are so fortunate.

          • Andrew

            The word you’re looking for is called “denial.” Having been raised in an atmosphere of violence, lies, and perversion, I never had much hope for my life–in fact I hated the word–until the past couple of years. Now I don’t like to face the fact that I won’t be waiting out the slaughter, but will be one of the slaughtered. So shove your well wishes and serious consideration up your ass. They’re useless.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            m(_ _)m

          • Rhoid Rager

            Delusional cornucopianism at full throttle, I see.
            OK, let me try to set it right. Alberta tar sands mine bitumen and refine it at an energy return ratio of between 4:1~6:1 and at a maximum production rate of 2-3 million barrels per day. US demand alone is 19 million barrels per day. That’s like trying to quench one’s thirst with a few drops an hour from a very large tank of water.

            Get it now? Still no? Well how about this? The complex and expensive infrastructure required to frack shale with hundreds of independent wells (which also have steep drop-off rates), or the massive mining and refining operations of the tar sands, or the complex engineering marvels of gigantic off-shore drilling rigs drilling 1km+ under the sea floor and in rough seas do not compare to how oil used to be extracted (drilling a few hundred feet in the desert and running simple pumps to bring it up). Which is to say, it is getting increasingly harder to get to oil–entropy is a losing battle always. Complex infrastructure requires more energy inputs, which reduces net energy yields–hence the importance of energy return on energy invested. This is just the physical limitations the universe places on us to leverage fossil fuels to perform the work we call ‘civilization’.
            Add to this the social dimension–to operate complex infrastructure requires intense human cooperation. The way things stand right now, human cooperation is mediated by money (credit). To have a viable monetary system requires a functioning economy which requires constant inputs of energy, which we are gradually losing. As economic growth tapers off, contraction begins, the monetary system will not be able to withstand the social pressures. Money breaks down, people stop cooperating in the ways that they have become accustomed to through money. Infrastructure is not operated nor maintained. Oil ‘production’ suffers a steep decline.

            You don’t understand the implications of peak oil for both these physical and social reasons, and no amount of cute snarkiness can obviate these undeniable truths. You seem like a smart enough guy as I’ve seen on other threads, but you’re still ignorant of this topic.

          • MJ12

            Don’t forget about the oil under the Arctic!

          • Juan

            I do not read his statement as “cryptic libeling.” I read it as a broader statement about our current situation as far as trying to know wtf is really going on. As he suggests, we are left to make our own choices and determine what is more likely than not in an information environment that is designed to control opinion and not deliver “facts.”
            Given that, he choses to remember him as a good man with good intentions.
            I read this as conscious, not libelous.

    • Chad Burke

      Dissent is the word you’re looking for.

      • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

        Good looking out brother… that’s one of “those” words.

    • MJ12

      WHO said any of those things? Maybe these are your thoughts or maybe you are being cheaply provocative. Regardless of your intent, your words don’t exactly ring out as being sentimental. Michael Ruppert started almost every speech of his stating that he stood upon NO heresy, conjecture or theory. EVERYTHING he referenced or footnoted was a quotable printed media publication or government document. He allowed no speculation or anything of the sort in his presentations.

      • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

        It’s unfortunate you feel that way… he has many critics, as do most authors, speakers and film makers.

    • Andrew

      I’m not sure any of us have ever known “Truth.”

21