Apocalypse, Man

Apocalypse, Man

2014, Environment  -   238 Comments
Ratings: 8.05/10 from 200 users.

The planet is being destroyed all around us. Using money to try to address that problem is like shooting yourself in the foot. Evolve or parish, grow up or die... an entirely new level of human consciousness is needed right now or we're all dead. Mankind openly descends into a world of bloodshed without end. Dog-eat-dog until everything is killed and the last man commits suicide or he's poisoned.

When you believe you're already dead and you got nothing to live for, you fight better than you've ever fought in your life. When your back's to the wall that's the only time when humans actually choose to evolve... at the moment of death, at the moment when we face our destruction, that's when the greatest leaps in human consciousness and the leaps of human heart take place.

This documentary is about the apocalyptic thoughts of one man. His name is a Michael C. Ruppert and most people would know him from the documentary Collapse. He had written two books: Crossing the Rubicon in 2004 and Confronting Collapse in 2009. He started off as a whistle-blower. He's a former LAPD narcotics detective and he caught CIA bringing drugs into the country in 1976/77 and he tried to blow the whistle on that. Then he received the whistle-blower treatment... there were attempts on his life.

He comes from a CIA family and he was promoting very rapidly in LAPD, but when he discovered that what they were asking him to do would be to protect CIA drug shipments coming into the country he couldn't do it. That was a bit of suicide that he couldn't commit on himself. What put him on the public stage was the confrontation with the CIA director John Deutch in 1996.

In 1998 he founded a newsletter called "From the Wilderness" which lasted for eight years and broke great many scandals and exposed many government crimes. He walked that walk for a long time and as the world situation deteriorated he could no longer normally function. So he left Northern California and all his relations and came to Colorado to die or to commit suicide.

More great documentaries

238 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to Eric Michelson Cancel reply

  1. Can someone tell me why having a white yak is better than having brown and other colors of yaks? Who made that up? How deep into history does that statement go? Was that idea fed (or force fed) to the native Americans when the imperialists showed up? Just sincerely wondering. I guess I can just Google it.

  2. "Evolve or Parish" LOL!

    1. I can't believe this site is still alive. I last visited this site on 2010. Good job keeping this site alive Vlatco!

  3. Some thought provoking stuff Man. and little to much California smoke, but hay the message is out. Walter Sobchak once said " Has the whole world gone CRAZY? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules? You think I'm f@*kin' around."
    The Dude "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you." We know what it should mean. BUT HAY....Isn't all set up to fail, I,mean it all get recycle in the end. who knows. even you sad there hope, if you live a former life.

  4. The problem with all these people here saying he is insane and a conspiracy theorist is that they have obviously not been paying attention to anything written or said by any scientist or professor or doctor or phd holder at all. NASA itself ran model studies that show at our current rate of growth and consumption humans are damn near guaranteed to go extinct. Not to mention the fact that we lose between 150 and 200 species of plants, animals and insects PER DAY. That can be found on the United Nations website. Inevitably, at that rate, one of those species is one day going to be us.

  5. We live in the most industrialized planet of the known universe, now We have evolved our reptilian brain to appreciate the complexity of nature and the nature of Ourselves to a degree that we have conquered the laws of nature and subjugate them to our frivolous needs and mirage desires to become the "masters" we decreated to be.

  6. This guy is nuts! When you see one conspiracy typically everything becomes connected and then you take that last step over the cliff, realty breaks, next thing you know you lizard people and a cthulu cult members are closing in around you.

  7. I don't knot what to think about this strange, eccentric man, but I agree with so much he has to say. It's such a shame he had to take his life.

    1. I believe I know something about why people take their own lives, but I'd far, far prefer that they be able to the forces of nature take care of that.
      Some people are in the wrong in the wrong time. Some have seen too much. We all know how that can feel.

  8. Some people grieve for their descendants, but I say if you grieve for your descendants shouldn't you also grieve for your ancestors with equal bitterness?
    I am not afraid of death; but I hope I live long enough to see the beginning of an evolution in the consciousness of the human species. But if I don't, I'd like to die thinking that I just probably died too early.

    1. Unfortunately an evolution in consciousness requires enormous outside stress. There has never been a period in history where mankind has evolved his thinking without being forced to do so by violence. You see this happening to a degree right now with police actions.

      Americans do not want a police state, or communism or a totalitarian state, they want a blend of capitalism with socialism but they are being force-fed an oligarchy-aristocracy-style system of totalitarianism in which the regulators (police) have such contempt for the common people they are literally murdering them.

      This is what you get when the rich run politics; a banana republic.

      Capitalism has gone too far having become a fascist-totalitarian blend which will only continue to control the people and enrich the top earners if it is now turned into communism. America today is Nazi Germany, it is the aggressor in the world, it is no longer capitalist nor free and I fear that unless the people violently overthrow this new government you will not see an evolution, you will see something all too familiar from history.

    2. And unless our economics (particularly in the U.S. and China) radically curtails its energy spending habits and starts making the move right now to alternate energy sources, we're going to see a conflagration that makes the very concept of nation states as we know them now moot once the oil starts 'really' running out.
      We are facing acute decimation if not extinction of our species. But what a bummer it is that the vast majority of people's minds are trapped into seeing this world through the lens of fear instead of with raw courage. Unless that balance is tipped little will change for most people in this world.
      The earth is an extraordinarily beautiful treasure; its beauty peaks at the end ranges of what we can perceive as miraculous, and even so we are hell bent on raping it and turning it into a vast cesspool. We have, in fact, as a prelude to another 'really big war' declared on war on the earth itself. 'What a piece of work is man.'
      But we are not hopeless or helpless. We have been in the spin of revolution in thought for over two hundred years now. Knowing the enemy, one most act with a presumption that the best is yet to come.

    3. People fail to realize that the life as we see it today took 4.5 billion years to create...it took 4.5 billion years for this planet to be able to support life in these quantities...4.5 billion years for soil to become what it is now, for the ocean to sustain the level of life it does now...

      It takes one thousand years for nature to create one half an inch of soil.

  9. Great guy. I would love to meet with him for a couple of beers...We
    wouldn't have much to talk about though. What is to talk about when
    most of what he has stated have been already obvious to me for more than a decade?

    He is sad and depressed but this is only because he is a rare example of sanity in this sociopathic uncivilized world. What is he supposed to do surrounded mainly by indifferent and ignorant idiots? How is he supposed to feel?
    Sadness is a natural reaction of a sane person to the hell that countless thugs and criminals ruling the world have created for us all.

    His anger comes out of compassion.
    Watch and learn!

    1. He's dead.

  10. Michael is angry in this and has every reason to be... we are fast heading for extinction and most of us are totally oblivious to it. Sadly he recently took his own life - and I believe his frustration with getting the message across played a big part of his decision. It's ironic that we use technology and follow weather forecasts every day - but when the same science alerts us to environmental doom, we choose to ignore it

  11. The "Occupy Movement" was created by the rich bankers for a reason, they wanted to bring about a police state in America and they have! We are doomed and no politician can change anything, they just fill their pockets with money!

    1. You know what bother's me is a lot of people seem to think that because they still have the right for now, to have a stack of ak's in their coset that they are safe.. 'I'd like to see them come and try and take MY guns!!' The problem is is that this isjn't WW2 and we won't be able to just go hide out in the woods, or the mountains, or an underground bunker, because with the kinds of technology the government has access to now, if they ever decide to start rounding us up, we are f***ed. They will just come after us from behind a computer screen.. Then again, once we are all implanted with some type of chip, then they could just shut off your access to absolutely anything, from your own banking to being able to enter a store or building, christ, even just having a warrant could blacklist yuou from everything until they come and get you. Needless to say, if the police/
      military don't switch sides and help us arrest all of the baking elite (to start), then we are pretty much screwed...

  12. Just another fantasist.

  13. if there is a hero in this film, it's not Ruppert. It's the farmer. He's the man.

  14. Beautiful proclamation of God's New Message to Humanity.
    More than intellect is needed, Knowledge is required, Knowledge intrinsic to our nature and our connection to the Universe.

  15. Peace be with Michael. Unveiled truth NOW.

  16. Wow do I feel like a jackass! I made fun of Rupert because it seemed he was surrounded by people that could help him. Not the first time i put my foot in my mouth. /sigh. Michael C Rupert, you did things in your life I could only dream of. You brought to light many things that people are afraid to admit or confront. Your legacy will grow and continue in your absence. In death you have shown me how heavy the burden of truth can be. RIP

  17. LOL, the fact about plastic is not false. Plastic breaks down into molecular sized plastic, as it does not biodegrade. This means that even the plankton are consuming plastic as are just about every other organism in the ocean, to the point it can be detected in our ice caps, in our rain etc. Not to mention passing up the food chain. Moreover, plastic at this level is like a sponge to toxins like heavy metals...its all good fun chemistry until your consuming it. But hey the FDA have their safe consumption levels so its all fine, carry on consuming please don't question anything be good robots. On to the so called Teenager and his super plastic energy machine.....Er not being used on an industrial level......so end of that argument......same as for every green source of renewable energy....the patents are all owned by big industry. Will you see them used? Not until they can frig you all for a profit. Hey that's the American way after all. Further more plenty of independent nuclear analysts have examined fukushima, and many have commented on the explosion on reactor 3, which was using Mox fuel rods, a combination of plutonium, uranium and zirconium or some such other metal (forgive my mistake if this last one is wrong), which they were using in a Mark 1 reactor. There has been no accounting for the missing fuel rods, or the plutonium or uranium, and there is no public talk of Strontium or any of the other highly radioactive elements from the nuclear process. The explosion was not a deflagration but a detonation, there is a fundamental difference of great importance here, and pieces of the fuel rods have been found up to 3 miles from reactor 3. As to the continued pouring of highly radioactive material into the pacific from ground water, some of which has now been found moving through local sewer systems, its not a mushroom cloud you need to worry about. But more the long term consumption of fish from the North pacific....Not to mention fukushima is ongoing and in a very dangerous situation. One must also question the media black out in Japan, the new laws passed there also preventing the freedom of information over this, and the fact the official story has changed so many times, and the evidence and information so mixed up....but hey its only a frigging potential extinction level event.
    No the difference is I am a realist and have seen first hand all over the god damn world what the greed of the human race is doing. So please carry on buying food in plastic, buy your plastic crap from wall mart, and enjoy your plastic laced water and your genetically modified food crops....your future is rosy, your future is bright.......enjoy. Its amazing how when ever anyone points out the truth they are credited as a loon, or a conspiracy theorist or a scare mongerer.....Never has there been a war, an assassination, industrial espionage or imperialist action taken that has not been the result of carefully planned conspiracy. History is full of examples, as is big business and the military. But I would recommend you go jump on the politically correct liberal band wagon and carry on consuming least you miss an opportunity, certainly don't embrace the truth, people might think your a nut. Imb*ciles

  18. Got to laugh at the i*iots who go on about scare mongering. Its not scare mongering to admit the truth of our current situation on earth. This species of ours is busy over fishing the seas, while at the same time polluting them. 47 pieces of plastic for every plankton is not scare mongering, its damn well terrifying. Plastic degrades into the molecular it does not bio degrade period. Fukushima is not scare mongering.... ofc no one says jack all about the excrement coming out of Tepco's mouth about the Pacific diluting the radiation.....a mantra that the US dances to. Fact is the situation there is so bad that the truth once again is beyond scare mongering. You id*ots who whine on about scare mongering and depression need to go and do some serious research. I am not going to repeat figures, and data, because in all honesty it wont mean anything to you other than provide you with ammunition to launch some ridiculous counter argument based on your idiot opinions. However, what I am content to do, is sit back and watch the inertia of human greed consume everything in front of us until this depressing fear mongered situation is on your doorsteps and is cramming its nasty self down your throat in the form of fear and the realisation that you were wrong......the other reason being you are sheeple and I have no problem eating sheep. I got a place for the defacto m*rons here.

    1. It's unfortunate you can't express your opinion without slandering the people who would rebut your argument. You lose credibility when you do that. A teenager invented a machine that currently cleans the plastic out of the ocean and turns it into useable energy. I could go on and on listing things like this, but your insults lead me to believe you have already made your decision. Perhaps you should find Rupert and get all hopped up on phsycidelics till the end arrives....

    2. 47 pieces of plastic for every plankton...You might want to google plankton and find out what they are before making up obviously false facts like that and passing them off as true.

      I'm not saying there isn't too much plastic in the sea, there is, it's ridiculous.

      Fukushima however, was hit by a tidal wave AND and earthquake and still no mushroom clouds...there is considerable scare mongering revolving around Fukushima.

      you'll undoubtedly avoid me by calling me an i*iot and pretending that's an argument, but i just wanted to get my point out there.

  19. a biography...?

  20. Strong Medicine.
    Great poetry is Truth. To hear real truths, to heed those truths, to live in our own truth is to walk the hard path of Courage, a free being whose Will is also the Way.

  21. Where in Colorado is this being filmed?
    Thank you.

    1. Crestone. In the Northern part of the San Luis Valley.

  22. i have such a HUGH level of respect for this man !!!!! He has sacrificed his entire being to make a difference in this world. AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. All those saying this guy is depressed...I wonder what your schpeel would be if you were filmed for 75 minutes while talking about world poverty and hunger, peak oil/fracking/ tar sand/, species extinction, rapid climate change, wars, nuclear proliferation, global water crisis, population growth, global economy collapse, planned obsolescence.
    You'd tell us it's all a lie, right?

    1. Given it is not a profession, declaring someone else to be depressed, especially from a distance, might be a projection mechanism.

  24. There is one thing forgotten to be told about.
    One of the roots of the problems of human civilization, is the pursuit of eternity. We want everything to last forever, which is impossible... everything must crumble one day, nothing can remain static and usable... It goes against thermodynamics... but Nature has found a loop in the system... all materials eventually are recycled... which permits new stuff at the cost of forbidding STATICITY (cannot change, will remain the same, will not evolve). Human activity tries to override the recycling process by making lines of separations and using materials that are not of natural origin.
    Also mr Ruppert, I agree we should not fear death. Because not only where we end up is determined by the experiences engraved in the soul, which exists in a reality outside of which comes through our senses and our reasoning, but we are given a choice for the future of our souls. We can chose to remain in the afterworld shapen by experiences of living, but also we can chose to be reborn and live more experiences... as long it respect one principle... it must enrich Nature as a whole if not, then it defeats the point of living.
    Life exists to make more life! Not comodities!

    1. The only death I fear is a slow and painful one.
      I'm very eager to know what happens next.
      At this moment, I certainly do believe people's souls continue to exist, somewhere, somehow.
      If I'm wrong, and there is nothing left of "me" after death, then I won't even be aware of it, so who cares?
      I do wonder though, if our planet was to disintegrate; how would this affect souls who have remained connected to it?

    2. Who is the "I" that you are referring too.?. Who is the one that fears.?. Who is the one that eagerly awaits? Ha.. Just having fun.. Ever listen to any Alan Watts.?. (just another voice echoing so many others, but I like his style)

    3. How dare you have fun while participating in these ultra intelligent discussions? :)
      I'll google him when I get the chance and learn something new.

    4. Funny how I thought all humans being live a painful (at times) and slow death.

    5. That all depends on who you have to live with!

    6. I would say a hundred years (at best) is a long slow death. As for the pain...it does not depend on others, it's a personal feeling. What pains one may not pain an other.
      My dad slept on a dentist chair performing a root canal.

    7. Err, he wasn't the guy performing the root canal, I hope?
      You're killing me here!

    8. The pursuit of eternity and the avoidance / fear of death and discomfort. I have often thought that it is the fear of death & discomfort that leads us to pursue many of the avenues we do, often to the detriment of future generations and even ourselves. To be comforted by avoiding pain & the promise of longer life is carrot dangled in front of our faces that is hard to resist. The willingness to turn a blind eye is and has been a trait of the majority from the beginning of our modern civilization. In order to achieve this illusory comfort & extension of life it most be provided by (compensated for) the life or existence of something else. True life feeds on life.. Beautiful thing.. Humbling and generates respect for all life. When I must consume food (animal/plant), I kill. I take life away from one to give to myself. I can also promote life by planting and protecting... There is a balance here. If everyone on the planet grew food it would only be beneficial. Our modern life moves beyond that line of balance to a place where only a few (statistically speaking) benefit. If everyone on the planet flew in airplanes and owned multiple vehicles and 2000 sq foot homes our planet would collapse even faster. Imagine all of China living like Americans who already use over 25% of resources, they are 3 times larger.. Even the idea that some benefit could be argued as an illusion. The water is dirty, the air is dirty, the food is dirty, all this for a lifestyle that has been held as advanced and why, because it is comfortable (avoids pain) and extends life for more people. It is however a temporary, thousands of years, experiment that is crumbling as we speak and possibly ruining the opportunity to experience life on this planet forever.. The beauty of this experience is the experience no matter the length, pain & comfort irregardless. Would you rather live for 35 years and be fully engaged and alive or live for 90 years and be comfortably numb but not really know what it means to live.?.

  25. This is the best VICE doc I've seen in a very long time. It's a very raw, real and heartbreaking picture of a sane individual struggling in an insane society racing towards extinction.

    I'm right there with Mr. Ruppert. I don't think it is possible to be both intelligent and caring in this world without being driven somewhat mad. I'm glad he hasn't killed himself and seems to have found a few honest human beings to connect with.

    1. Nice post.. Vice does some good stuff.. It is safe to say that Mr. Ruppert has read, researched, and fought more than most all the people who will ever comment on this video. Fought more & touched more than all the people in here combined. Being one who has studied, conversed, and experienced an admirable amount I find the comments taking shots at this mans character saddening. Experience is obviously the best teacher, however, there is a wealth of information for vicarious exposure today. Anyone who has spent thousands of hours doing their homework and listening to their heart & spirit would easily have compassion for not only Ruppert but his message.. I would dare say that the venomous comments, that stand in majority here, are only a reflection of the world we live in.. Congrats to the majority..

    2. Unfortunately, he did kill himself 3 days ago. R.I.P. :(

  26. He's really looking bad. The dialog reeks of depression. I'm sorry he gets to write into so many people's minds when he's in this condition. I hope he can pull himself together b/c when he does he'll be much more cogent and rational and objective.

  27. BWAHAHAAA @ 7:40 of part 6 he admits to doing drugs....

    1. Why is that laughable?

    2. It's laughable because he blames our lust for cocaine as our eminent demise. He is being a hypocrate from beginning to end, I thought that was obvious in my statement. I will be more clear next time. Of course drug addiction is not funny.

    3. Until you have tried ayahuasca, you haven't earned the experience to condone it.

    4. Ayahuasca is not a "drug", the prescribed pills you buy over the counter however are. Ayahuasca is a sacred "natural" plant medicine, a probe into our own subconscious (where most of our problems and solutions lie) and a portal into other dimensions. I was privileged to experience Ayahuasca in the Amazon last June and I hope one day soon you and many others on this planet would experience it (before it's too late), because experiencing Ayahuasca is experiencing our true selves which we have disconnected from a long time ago. It's time to reconnect, discover who we really are and put a stop to our self-destructive paranoiac and psychotic behaviour.

    5. Anything with phsycadelic properties certainly is a drug. I am glad you had a good experience with it, it is not the same for everyone!

    6. That is laughable because people only believe what people in 5000$ suits and people in white coats with tiny "smart" glasses say. And that's a huge problem when people judge others according to looks and those who want to discredit people like Michael take advantage of that. :-/

  28. Thank you for this Documentary, I truly enjoyed the view points shared here.

  29. Michael Ruppert cites the work of Dr.Guy McPherson who uses satellite image/models to prove that methane release is exponential
    and we have 20 years before extinction. Nature Bats Last.

    1. If it's true, it's too late to do anything then.
      It's not like we can stop methane release all over the globe.
      Why doesn't he say, do whatever you want, it's over, party for 20 years instead of being that gloomy??? And why the hell does Guy McPherson has a donate link on his website if it's over? He should let us keep our money to enjoy the 20 years left!

    2. Fabien, we must all live with ourselves. Both McPherson and Michael Ruppert suggest that "we live a life of excellance". Whatever that means for each individual will be something different. Personally, standing up for justice as well as being kind and enjoying nature as long as possible is excellant enough for me. As far as a donation link, Here is the addendum to the donate link. McPherson helps various groups that support justice and truth.
      "I promote and practice an economy based on gifts. Humans exchanged gifts for about two million years before bartering and exchanging currency. I speak and write for no charge, although I accept gifts of fiat currency here."

  30. A mixture of insights, simple conclusions and a message for hope or 'awakening' that is actually driven by a view of fear.
    A weird combination that might keep you going.
    Fear and hope, as motivators, are both states of mind which one often chooses, perhaps even foolishly so.
    Not to make a statement, but to question one's fear and perhaps one's hope:
    What if the apocalypse is truly about, does it truly matter?

    1. The only reliable piece of information about all the doomsayers that predicted the apocalypse so far in human history is that they were all reliably wrong.

    2. Good point! But some people might still believe in a doom scenario. So, that's why i brought up the question.

    3. It's a legitimate question. I guess it matters if you value the persistence of the human race and have hope we will not auto-destroy ourselves by trying to improve our life conditions without foreseeing all the possible consequences of our acts. Self-inflicted apocalypse would be cynical since so far it's been thought it will be cast upon us by an external force.

    4. oh, i didn't expect you to answer that. But since you did...
      Some people will say it doesn't matter, from a philosophical point of view, absurdism for example, the meaning of live...unless 42 really does mean something. :)

    5. I am with the school of thought that life doesn't have to have any meaning for me to enjoy it. The alternative doesn't seem better to me yet. Now if there is a TDF after death, that changes everything! :D

    6. Eventually, some smug bugger is going to predict it right ;)

    7. I thought the meaning of apocalypse was "to uncover" , who would fear that?, who would hope for that? in the uncover context the title makes sense to me. I don't see any hockus pockus in , is it possible to predict an uncovering?

    8. I wasn't aware of that. I always thought apocalypse meant an end of world scenario. So, i looked it up, you are right, the original meaning of this Greek word is revelation.

    9. I think what you thought of as an apocalypse comes from the Biblical association with "The Apocalypse". Most of us have this understanding. The word has morphed into what the average person thinks of when he hears this word. In a way, it now has two meanings.

    10. If I knew for sure all mankind would cease to exist within a specific time frame, I'd want to put my personal affairs in order. ie, make amends, tell friends and family how much I love them. It would give me a sense of peace, make accepting the end of my life easier.
      I don't think I'd be fearful. Perhaps eager to learn what will happen after death.

    11. And if you didn't knew for sure, wouldn't you want to do these things as well?

    12. Had to edit this, realised it wasn't the answer that you were looking for.
      Because people die suddenly every day. You never know from one day to the next what can happen.
      Some of us have learned this the hard way.

  31. Seriously makes SOME good points which can be done through reason ALONE. I dont know why he resorted to this Indian jive. He also makes some horrible points. Gas cars were not the only technological fix for shit so it cant be a reason why technology is bad. Guess what cool guy? The fire your sitting in front of. thats a FEAT OF TECHNOLOGY. its the technofix for being cold. gawd i always love people who have no qualms about telling you what THEY KNOW is right and that your dumb and wrong. If there is one fact that rings true throughout this man's scaremongering infomercial. is that he has left rationality behind.

    1. Its not the technology that is the problem. It is the lack of forethought into design and implementation of the technology that is problem. Whether you agree with this guy or not, humans are not rational beings, and as long as personal wealth is the primary consideration in doing anything we are in trouble.

  32. Everybody here who is taking chunks out of this guy is simply a hater. At least he is trying to do no harm. Who among us doesn't have faults and mental hang ups.
    I think he's a damn cool guy.
    He stood up against the CIA when he was in the LAPD. Standing up to the CIA means you are one hell of a guy.

    1. Bin Laden stood up to the CIA too.

    2. "Brilliant" analogy. :-/

    3. i'm not saying their both the same...but if going up against the CIA is your only qualifying factor for being "One hell of a guy" then you're going to be letting a lot of dubious people into that club.

  33. He always looks like he's about to cry.

  34. So he thought of his hut ... and he thought of his boat,
    And his hat and his breeks, and his chickens and goat,
    And the hooks (for his food) and the spring (for his thirst) ...
    But he never could think which he ought to do first.

    And so in the end he did nothing at all,
    But basked on the shingle wrapped up in a shawl.
    And I think it was dreadful the way he behaved -
    He did nothing but bask until he was saved!

    From Now We Are Six - A.A. Milne

    1. I like that.. it is good.. I think about how our modern time is 10,000 years or more in the making and how when you walk deep (I imagine half way for the story) into the forest the only way out is to keep on walking.. It is a challenge to notice the depth of the forest we are in and it takes even more courage and conviction to walk out.. the easiest thing to do is make commentary on others efforts, like me.. just a word spewing fool...

    2. The poem is called The Old Sailor, you should look it up, and The Engineer from the same book. I have some sympathy for the chap in his tent, he searched so hard he got lost. Can't see the wood for the trees ;)

    3. Thanks, I will look it up..

    4. have you seen any of the Godfrey Reggio films? the can't see the forest for the trees metaphor reminded me of the films. I liked the poem ,

    5. I saw the famous one that I can't spell , coy anna scatty or something? Is that the fellow? Saw it years ago, when I was too young to appreciate it properly, I remember not being that keen. Should try again now I'm older and not so easily bugged by films that lack running, shooting and aliens ;) If you know any six year olds you should get the book, perfect excuse to indulge your inner child ;)

    6. Coy on a Squat Sea, arpeggios by: Philip Glass, arpeggios by: Philip Glass, arpeggios by: Philip Glass, arpeggios by: Philip Glass, arpeggios by: Philip Glass, arpeggios by,

    7. Shouldn't that be Koi on a squat sea, Carp-eggyo by Philip Glass? ;)

    8. Edge-yo and you've got it.

  35. I like Ruppert, and I enjoyed this docu too. "Collapse" was also very interesting :)

  36. It is sad when people who do know about the cost analysis of modern technology continue to live in opposition to their message. If they won't change, the ones who burn with the knowledge, then no one will...

  37. One of my favorite things is when "civilized" americans who use over 25% of the worlds resources, resources that are extracted in ways that destroy the lives of all sorts of life, type responses like "this guy is just depressed" he needs to lighten up and enjoy life... The guy has a F'n conscious and feels sad that a particular lifestyle is screwing everything up... Whether he changes his life is another issue, but the realization is a heavy one.. people who don't get it basically are uninformed or don't care either way it clears the way to live a self centered life based on consumption without care...

    1. Anyone who runs into the desert and contemplates suicide is over-reacting to life's problems. He faces the exact same things we all do. Self pity helps no one. I never once said to ignore the problems. I said and this is copied and pasted from my earlier statement " Lighten the f0ck up, change what you can and accept what you can't." Change what you can, but don't wallow in misery because things aren't going quite as planned. Life is short. If you can't enjoy it, you're wasting it.

      Every living creature consumes to survive. We consume more than other creatures but it is to ensure our immediate survival. It's not the fact that we consume. It's what and how we consume that is going to be the difference. Our homes, transportation systems and all the trappings that go with it is what makes life worth living for the average individual. We have to find ways to make that consumption sustainable and it's not going to happen overnight.

    2. First, if you have never contemplated suicide then you haven't really lived outside your illusory safety bubble. Do have any idea how many Vets commit suicided everyday, do realize more people die from suicide than car wrecks in the US.. That is the first point that demonstrates your lack of insight. There is a difference between changing what we can and changing what we want. We could change all sorts of things but we are selfish humans who live through our animal desires and worry more about our "feelings" than creating equal opportunity age old sustainable consumption. Second statement of ignorance on your part. We need food, shelter, water, air and maybe a few other things to survive, this is basic survivor consumption (and statistically proven that once these are filled "happiness" doesn't improve much). Ipods, computers, cars are not necessary for life to exist, never have never will be essential it is a temporary (hundreds of years) fade. If you think that your material possessions are what make life worth living you must be another generation wuss member.. and your third ignorant statement.. The only sustainable age was the stone age.. and if you think people who know how to exist in earth based community are short on intelligence, happiness, or high standard of living then you can silently noticed your fourth point of ignorance.

    3. First of all, you have no idea about my life or what I've had to endure. Hardship and heartbreak is not just the lot of the those who are depressed and suicidal. It is something we all have to deal with at some point in our lives. He contemplated suicide, which demonstrates a severe depression. That is not a normal existence for a human being and people spend millions on psychiatric help to defeat those feelings of desperation. Years later, the guy nearly burst into tears talking about his personal demons. He still hasn't gotten his life under control. That is the sad part. What is infuriating is that he has decided to take the rest of us down his road of despair and defeat. Well, I won't go. I wouldn't go that route when I suffered great personal losses and I definitely will not because of his apocalyptic visions.

      My material possessions do help to make my life worth living. I have a nice modest home that keeps me warm and dry. A fridge and stove to help in the preparation of food. Clean clothes, a comfy bed, and the transportation that helps to maintain this modest lifestyle. The same things that most people value. I do have a computer and obviously so do you. Welcome to the wuss generation.

      The stone age may well have been sustainable, but I doubt you seriously want to return to that age and have to live that lifestyle. I did say that there are changes to be made. I never once denied it. Life is change and when the time comes, we will adapt. Maybe some people like to give up and live a life of isolation and paranoia, but I'm not going to live my life that way. I'll help to make the changes that are possible and try not to dwell on things I have no control over. My despair or my optimism affects no one but me. I choose optimism. Despair is a lousy choice.

    4. I always get a good chuckle when people start out defending themselves by stating no one knows about the life they have lived or are living.. It is so funny because this follows their assessment of someone else's life.. Jacka@@ just got done giving his peer review of Michael's state of being then says no one can understand his own.. clearly demonstrates Jack's character...

      Suicide: the one truly serious philosophical problem — Camus

      I understand, Jack, if you don't like the idea of suicide but you aren't the final word on what it is or isn't.. It isn't always a question of mental illness. Many argue that your strong desires for a refridge, a stove, a car, electrical wiring, phones, tv, internet, endless distractions is in fact a mental illness... Your lifestyle is in route (the lifestyle in general some would say has already) to destroying life for the future generations.. that is a fact.. That fact that you defend your comfort and state that you wouldn't want, in my opinion are too lazy and live in fear of, to live in the nature based methods is a mental sickness. You have addiction problems that are harming people now and well into the future.. but lets not focus on the guy who can't even see his own sickness... no jack thinks we should tear down the guy whose heart has come face to face with disease and evil we support daily.. heart that aches knowing our shortcomings, our blindness, our addictions.. lets tear him down for having moments of vulnerability.. Jack YOU are an unintelligent a@@. Live Jack's motto "change what you want, consume what you can, the only person that matters is his or herself in the end"... Jack and the modern dunces...

    5. Why did you edit your post into something quite different? Of course you have every right to do so, since it wasn't replied to.
      But still, for those who read the first version, it gives quite a different impression about your initial intent.

    6. I believe this is the only sentence I changed, and did so cause I thought it didn't read correctly.. I do apologize please explain how the message changed.. Thanks..

      "That fact that you defend your comfort and state that you wouldn't want, in my opinion are too lazy and live in fear of, to live in the nature based methods is a mental sickness."

    7. Oops, my mistake. you are right. I scrolled up and down and then scrolled back to another post of yours thinking it was the same.

    8. No worries.. glad you read it close enough to think that something was removed.. I appreciate you taking the time to respond..

    9. That's the biggest string of nonsense I've read in awhile. First, I didn't say that you can't understand what I've been through. I said that you don't know and therefore have no right to make assumptions.

      I want a fridge to keep my food in...food keeps me alive. The stove cooks that food. I, all of us, are not in an never ending search for the fuel to cook the food and and can now preserve it so it remains healthy to eat because we have electricity at our beck and call. Modern transportation guarantees that food is always on the store shelves. These modern tools are a result of a human desire for survival. Primitive man was at the mercy of the weather, spent endless hours foraging for food, clothing, shelter and fuel, watched the majority of his children die at a very young age, and then probably met his end prematurely. If wanting to ensure my food supply, have adequate shelter and clothing, and make it possible for my children to survive childhood is a mental disease, then I'm sick...really sick. By the way, so are you. I can guarantee that you have a stove, fridge, computer, have decent clothes and live in a dry warm home. You're as sick as the rest of us. You're also a hypocrite.

      Once again, I didn't say that there were no problems. I said we should try and change what's possible and I'll add necessary. I also said that wallowing in misery because things aren't going exactly as we please is pointless and serves to further degrade the only life we have.

      Name calling doesn't validate your position one bit. Stop with the school yard behaviour and try and discuss issues like an adult.

    10. dude, I agree with you for the vast majority of this argument. But he does have a point...Granted I know nothing of you, but I don't get the impression you've ever been at that lowest point...depression isn't just something you can pull yourself up out of...It's literally a chemical reaction in your brain that removes all of the joy from life...If your attitude is how you get by then more power to you, but for some of us it isn't as simple as lightening up...not without some pretty hardcore drugs at least.

    11. To clarify, I was reacting to how he makes assumptions about individuals he has never met. He believes that depression hasn't touched me personally. How would he know that? He sneeringly dismisses another commenter because of her age and then paints a picture of her as a vapid teenager, uneducated and driven by cultural imperatives, despite the fact that she watched the same documentary he did. I mention that I grew up during the hippie era and off he goes generalizing about what type of person I must be.

      I have every sympathy for those suffering from depression and I understand the clinical aspects of the condition. Some suffer due to chemical imbalance and others have had the condition triggered by traumatic events in their lives. What I resist is the notion that if I don't support the ideas expressed of one, who is clearly suffering from depression, that I must have sort of mental disorder. Depressed people find that certain events overwhelm the thoughts and can affect their lives in negative ways. To suggest that we all should aspire to live this way, in a state of depression, is unreasonable and he is either being argumentative or maybe has issues of his own.

    12. i see...that does that does make sense in that context.

      fair enough.

    13. I think it's a very human trait, to try and avoid reality and instead exist in denial. Or to react to a truth as "a deer in the headlights". We are only human.
      That said, I am very comforted by knowing a man like Michael exists in this world.
      I don't care if he smokes, or swears. It is irrelevant.
      He has found peace. He's tired of arguing. He's made his contribution and argued his points for 30 years.
      Nor am I prepared to argue scientific data or conspiracy theories. I'm simply one of the sheeple, and I'm living the best life I can, based on what I think I know, (and feel). and hope I have made the right choices for me.
      I am very glad to have met this man Michael, and wish him, and all of those who care about our world, a safe and contented life, come what may.

    14. nice.. i like it and red wine..

  38. Wow, I didn't realise it was the same Michael Ruppert from the documentary 'Collapse'. I remember how disheartening that doc was, watching an otherwise descent guy gradually lose the run of it. I'd wondered since then what had become of him so this doc was a bit of a shocker. It's not nice to see such well intentioned people unravel before your eyes but if you're the type that rubber necks for car crashes then I'd advise watching 'Collapse' first, then this. You sick puppy.

    1. Wow, some pretty interesting comments here tonight. I'm going to take your advice and happily watch "Collapse" first.
      And it better be good!

    2. Sorry, it's me again. The doc "Collapse" on TDF is only a trailer now, but I tracked the full length version down and it's on Youtube:)

    3. I could have sworn I watched here. Ah well, I hope at least you get something out of it after me sending you on a wild goose chase that ended up with having your retinas scarred by youtube comments.

    4. Hey you. No worries!
      I watched both docs and posted a comment about it, on Youtube and here.
      I also told other friends about "Collapse" because it really mattered to me. (they're very tolerant of my rants).
      Thankfully, I've met some pretty decent commenters lately on Youtube; but some days my eyes are indeed burning.
      I post using a different name on Youtube.

    5. I didn't get the impression he's unravelled (maybe because I'm pretty weird myself).
      I think he's tired and resigned, and has moved on to a different phase of his life.

    6. Really? A lot of what he says and does in this doc sets off alarm bells for me. Then again, I may have fallen prey to fanatical skepticism recently, I'm still not sure.

    7. My friends are pretty "out there" and I mean that in the nicest way.
      It takes a lot of weird behaviour/words for me to raise an eye brow.
      I can assure you that I don't believe everything he says, but I don't think he's crazy

    8. To be fair I don't think he's crazy, no more than anyone beholden to a set of beliefs outside the norm. But it's obvious he's paying a high price for those beliefs and it's eating him away. The transition from cop with legitimate concerns regarding CIA complicity in drug dealing to harbinger of doom and full scale conspirasist is remarkable if you step back and look at it. There's a warning in this story regarding what you chose to belief and where it leads, but unfortunately the people that most need that warning are the ones that will probably miss it.

      Of course there's always the possibility that we're the crazy ones and he's the lone voice of sanity.

    9. To me he is the voice of sanity, about what to expect and how to prepare for it.
      I was crying into the wilderness about Oshawa's GM truck plant closing, back in the mid 1980's.
      People thought I was completely insane. My husband worked there and it was thriving.
      We decided (at my urging) that he give up his secure job on the assembly line and pursue a degree in teaching.
      A new plant was being built and it was portable.........
      It closed in the 90's.
      Now I'm looking for a home with a wood burning stove or fireplace, near a source of water.
      Not interested in one that can only be heated by gas, oil or electricity.
      My friends and family still think I'm nuts.......

  39. I couldn't watch this drivel for very long. This guy worries himself into an abysmal state of depression, starts accusing those around him of nefarious plots, and runs off into the desert, or so he claims, to die. There he hooks up with a bunch of hippie types and they all play Indians. I quit playing Indians when I was around twelve.

    Are there problems in the world? Well, of course there is. There always has been. This guy, however, takes every challenge facing modern civilization and turns it into an end of world scenario. No solutions, just doom and gloom and bitterness. I'll be dammed if I live my life with that kind of attitude. Lighten the f0ck up, change what you can and accept what you can't...and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones.

    1. Well.. Maybe he's seen the monster in the eye and knows what we're facing?
      Why do I have the feeling that you haven't seen the monster?

      And stop saying "conspiracy" please. With all things coming forward now with surveillance, police state, destroying the environment and so on.. it just makes you look foolish because we have been shown to have been right all along.

      Now please feel free to say that "I didn't hear you say anything about this in the 70s, 80s and the 90s." because that would complete the picture.

      But we d i d say it then. But you didn't listen because cocaine and money was so much fun. Now you won't say we're right because then you would admit you know less than hippies. And that kinda stings doesn't it?

    2. It doesn't matter if a certain conspiracy is finally proven true or not in the argument whether they're all true or worth considering. What matters are the facts to support the theory. Poor and no facts render the idea irrelevant even if it is true. You do not want the standard in a court of law that allows the idea to be legitimate when stated. The stated idea must be accompanied with facts to convict and the conspiracy presented must be accompanied by facts to be accepted. Each item stands on its own merit. One has nothing to do with the other.

      Most of your comment to too vague to really comment on. What makes you think that I was involved in the use of cocaine? Does everyone on this comment thread now have to accept it as fact that Jack1952 is or was a cokehead until I prove otherwise? I don't think so and deep down neither do you. To turn it around, my accusing you of something would be and should be met by protests and should always be dismissed unless I can prove that my accusation is valid. Until I can, I should be embarrassed by my accusation and gossipy behaviour.

    3. "And stop saying "conspiracy" please. With all things coming forward now
      with surveillance, police state, destroying the environment and so on..
      it just makes you look foolish because we have been shown to have been
      right all along."

      I agree with this. Conspiracies are a fact of life, so many, like Operation Northwoods, have been proven true.

      EDIT: I agree with everything said in that quote, except for the last part: "because we have been shown to have been
      right all along."

      I didn't realize they said "we", I thought they were saying "some".

    4. There is no plot to destroy the environment. It is a by product of economic and social activities.

      Humans are predisposed to self interest and are therefore corruptible. That corruptible nature is at the root of the unethical practices that we all engage in. Even the American constitution and the Bill of Rights recognizes the human propensity for corruption and tries to mitigate a behaviour that will certainly happen.

      I was referring to the more outlandish conspiracy theories...where every school shooting is a Black Ops exercise, where there are alien moon bases on Mars, the moon, in the hollow earth, beneath the sea, where there is population control through chem-trails, Haarp, vaccines, fluoridation, where the NWO, Illuminati, Free Masons are plotting for world domination, Reptilian overlords, false histories, false sciences...the list goes on and on and on. All based on the flimsiest of evidence, yet appealing to the paranoid mind.

      Of course there are conspiracies. A conspiracy is a plan by two or more people. For anyone to say that it doesn't happen would be ridiculous. However, that is not what I'm talking about and you know it.

      Operation Northwoods never happened. It was a proposal that was rejected. One rejected conspiracy does not prove the litany of conspiracy theories that I recited in the last paragraph to be fact.

    5. "There is no plot to destroy the environment."

      I never said there was, I was only making the point that the term "conspiracy folk" is meaningless.

      Conspiracy folk don't invent problems, people being foolish do.

    6. conspiracy folk is a perfectly reasonable tag...i personally use the term Wingnut.

    7. An equally meaningless term.

    8. They're both derogatory generalizations.

    9. Most of the time they are deserved.

    10. Deserved by who though?
      That's the thing about generalizations/stereotyping, it's the same basic flaw of logic that racism has, they attribute qualities to an entire group of people that only a percentage of the group actually possesses.

      Do you also think racism is deserved?

    11. deserved by the wingnuts that think either everything is being run by space lizards, or that the reincarnation of Jesus Christ walks among us, or that communist Facists are using the UN to take over the world, or whatever other kind of insanity you care to mention.

      I think comparing conspiracy theorists to a race of people is a hysterical reaction to criticism.

      lol i can't believe you genuinely tried calling me a racist for badmouthing conspiracy theorists...that's pathetic!

      you seem to have no perspective whatsoever!

    12. I never called you a racist, re-read what I wrote.

      I was only pointing out that using a term like conspiracy theorist, or conspiracy folk is meaningless, because the term is not defined.

      And that saying something like: "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."
      is making a generalization.

    13. Get off the back pedal...why make that comparison if that's not what you wanted to imply?

      I personally think the term is very well defined, someone whose belief structure is based on paranoid observations and cherry picked evidence.

    14. I'm not backpedaling at all.
      As I already said, I made the comparison between making a generalization about a group of people and racism because they have something in common, they both have the same flaw of logic: "they attribute qualities to an entire group of people that only a percentage of the group actually possesses."

      My point was that to say "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."
      Is EXACTLY like saying "and for you cops out there, stop being corrupt and bullying people."
      They're both generalizations.
      I also never said all generalizations were equal and on the same scale either.
      Racism, sexism, ageism, they're all generalizations, that's why I made
      the comparison, not because I was implying you were a racist.

      That definition is yours and yours alone, it is completely subjective.

    15. methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    16. Sometimes when someone mistakenly accuses you of calling them a racist, you protest: "Protest: Verb: 1) express an objection to what someone has said or done. 2) declare (something) firmly and emphatically in response to doubt or accusation."

      I was explaining generalizations, comparisons, subjectivity, and now protesting and explaining.

    17. again i'm compelled to ask, why make the comparison if that's not what you wanted to imply.

      all this effort for a half baked special pleading argument...safe to say i'm thoroughly bored with your circular logic now, can we get back to the argument at hand or would you prefer to keep talking semantics?

    18. For the 3rd time now, I made the comparison between making a generalization about a group of people (such as saying: all cops are corrupt bullies), and racism, because they contain the same flaw of logic within them; they both attribute qualities to a whole group of people, that only a percentage of the group actually possesses.

      They are SIMILAR, that's why I made a COMPARISON, not because I was EVER implying you were a racist, anyone can see that's obvious by reading what I wrote.

      I'm also getting bored, bored of having to explain simple concepts to someone who can't seem to grasp them, and who is also rude.

      Back to the argument at hand? I've been addressing everything you've wanted me to address up until this point, and now I'm done, because I feel like I'm getting trolled.

    19. Also, how is it special pleading or circular logic to point out that it's stereotyping/generalizing to say: "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."?

      How is that special pleading, or circular logic?

      Please point out the instances in which I used these things, because I cannot find them.

    20. Because there's no new world order, there's no illuminati, there are no evil space lizards, there's no lord Xenu, there's no Satan. All of science isn't involved in a big conspiracy against you. Conspiracy theories are by and large 99% of the time utter bullsh1t, and by whining on about them as if they have any sort of validity all your doing is distracting people from the REAL problems out there by indulging in an utter fantasy world where someone in a suit is really in charge of everything.

      Because it terrifies the crap out of you all that the world is run on chaos. You think maybe if it's all a big conspiracy then somehow there's some sort of method to the madness, well there isn't, reality is messy and nobody is in control.

      If you can't find the instances i'm talking about then suprise suprise we have another logical fallacy...cherrypicking. You're just outright refusing to see what i'm talking about...i'm sorry but i'm not holding your hand through our entire discussion all over again. i've explained myself every time.

    21. "Because there's no new world order, there's no illuminati, there are no
      evil space lizards, there's no lord Xenu, there's no Satan. All of
      science isn't involved in a big conspiracy against you."
      theories are by and large 99% of the time utter bullsh1t, and by whining
      on about them as if they have any sort of validity all your doing is
      distracting people from the REAL problems out there by indulging in an
      utter fantasy world where someone in a suit is really in charge of
      everything. Because it terrifies the crap out of you all that the world is run on
      chaos. You think maybe if it's all a big conspiracy then somehow
      there's some sort of method to the madness, well there isn't, reality is
      messy and nobody is in control."

      But not all of them are bullsh1t, there are real conspiracies as well, that's why it's generalizing/stereotyping.

      "If you can't find the instances i'm talking about then suprise suprise
      we have another logical fallacy...cherrypicking.
      You're just outright
      refusing to see what i'm talking about...i'm sorry but i'm not holding
      your hand through our entire discussion all over again. i've explained
      myself every time."

      No, I'm not cherry picking, I literally cannot find the instances where I allegedly used "circular logic"
      and "special pleading", hence why I asked you to point them out for me, duh.
      Can you point them out or not?

    22. The point was, you're stereotyping when you say: "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."
      You're making a generalization about a whole group of people (in this case "conspiracy folk", presumably defined as anyone who's interested in or theorizes about conspiracies) accusing them of doing something only a certain percentage of them do.
      It's a generalization/stereotyping. If you were referring to a race, it would be racism.

    23. A conspiracy theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it. Operation Ajax and Watergate are examples of conspiracies that have been proven to be true. If one has a suspicion, there is nothing wrong with voicing your questions and ideas about your suspicion and giving reasons for why you feel that way. It should also be coupled with ongoing research, objective research, that uncovers all aspects of the subject at hand. When all information is gathered, ALL information, then one can say that your suspicion is now probability and maybe fact. You do not gather information with the intent of proving a desired outcome. Information gathering should be neutral and subject to the highest degree of scepticism and scrutiny. If information passes all the tests of reliability, only then can one say whether his suspicions are well founded or not.

      There are those who approach every news event, every state of human existence with the intent of proving how it is the work of some type of favourite power elite. They filter out all evidence that proves them wrong and insist they, and only they, have the insight and the ability to withstand the brainwashing, to see the proof that eludes the rest of us. These are the conspiracy theorists that I'm referring to. They pop up in almost every discussion and you find yourself engaged in dialogues about government ops, and hoaxes and plots all supported with little or no evidence. Rational people will accept overwhelming evidence, even if it means giving up certain ideas and beliefs. The irrational conspiracy theorists will not accept any evidence unless it supports their own personal agenda. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it would seem likely that you have your own conspiracy theory and that my comments have hit a nerve.

    24. "There are those who approach every news event, every state of human
      existence with the intent of proving how it is the work of some type of
      favourite power elite. They filter out all evidence that proves them wrong -"

      They are not called "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy folk" though, are they? They are called idiots, correct?

      Hence why saying:
      "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."
      Is exactly like saying: "and for you cops out there, stop being corrupt bullies."
      Or: "and for you mechanics out there, quit ripping people off."
      Or: "and for you actors out there, quit being so vain."
      Or: and for you teenagers, quit being so lazy and irresponsible."
      Racism, Sexism and Ageism are all generalizations as well and could be used as more examples of stereotyping.

      Do you see the problem?
      You're looking at "people who are both irrational, and conspiracy theorists" and incorrectly labeling them as "conspiracy theorists".
      Conspiracy theorist by definition of the words (and not some made up subjective definition) means people who theorize about conspiracies, not all of them are irrational, correct?

    25. for every conspiracy that's proved true, i guarantee there are a hundred that aren't.

    26. Of course there would be, because they're just theories about people conspiring.

    27. yeah and if you throw enough mud, some of it might stick, or at least leave a nasty confusing smear all over everything.

    28. Why would there be more theories proven true than there are theories? Think about that.

      And just because some theories are nonsense, doesn't mean they all are.

    29. So because some theories aren't nonsense they are all relevant?

      Do you not see how flawed that logic is?

    30. I never said they were all relevant.

    31. yes you did...that's what your very first comment was all about.

      you said: We (meaning conspiracy theorists) have been proved right.

      wether you intended to or not, that statement implies that all conspiracy theorists are right about evertything and should never be questioned again.

      a sentiment i thoroughly disagree with because 99.999999999% of the time you're all completely wrong.

    32. No, I did not say they were all relevant, read it agian, I said: "I agree with this. Conspiracies are a fact of life, so many, like Operation Northwoods, have been proven true."

      "wether you intended to or not, that statement implies that all
      conspiracy theorists are right about evertything and should never be
      questioned again."

      Since when does "so many have been proven true" suddenly mean: "implies all
      conspiracy theorists are right about evertything and should never be
      questioned again."

      Do you see the difference? If not, I'm not sure how to help, and
      judging by how our other conversations are going, I don't think
      explaining it clearly and thoroughly will help either.

      "a sentiment i thoroughly disagree with because 99.999999999% of the time you're all completely wrong."

      You seem to think all conspiracy theories ever made should be put into one big pile and judged as a whole, rather than individually.

    33. but "So many" haven't been proven true!

      There have been conspiracies throughout history...but an actual conspiracy is completly different to a conspiracy theory!

      not one conspiracy theory has ever gone on to be proved correct. Not one. sure some of them have had aspects of them come true, but that's down to exactly the same logical mechanisms as psychics and mediums...if you throw enough out there eventually some of it will stick, and sorry but that's a really sh1tty way to try and make your way through life!

      Conspiracies are uncovered by whistleblowers, not lone cranks on the internet who think they're the only ones with their eyes open.

      This is why i think all conspiracy theories should be dumped into one pile...only rather than judging that pile i'm more inclined to burn it like the trash it is...All conspiracy theories follow a pattern...because they're all made up, and fiction follows a narrative.

    34. "There have been conspiracies throughout history...but an actual conspiracy is completly different to a conspiracy theory!
      not one conspiracy theory has ever gone on to be proved correct."

      What are you talking about? A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy.

      "This is why i think all conspiracy theories should be dumped into one pile ... All conspiracy theories follow a pattern...because they're all made up, and fiction follows a narrative."

      Really? That's the logic you're going to use? Because a percentage of them are nonsense, you're going to throw every single one of them out with the bath water?

      Interesting strategy. Personally I'm going to continue to try and find out what is true, regardless of how much nonsense I encounter along the way.

    35. i've been trying to explain the differences to you for days now, and you either can't grasp it, or you're purposefully not seeing it, and to be honest i can't really be bothered anymore because we're going to be having this argument until the end of time. You've stated loud and clear that evidence has nothing to do with your process, and that's fair enough, you carry on macduff...just don't expect anyone to take you seriously once you're done.

      when 99% of the bathwater is filthy and useless yes i think it's about time to chuck it out...you may think it's worth wallowing in it for a bit longer, but i'm done.

    36. "i've been trying to explain the differences to you for days now"

      The only difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is that one is a theory until it's proven either right or wrong.

      People will be making "theories" about people "conspiring" everyday, some of them will proven right, some of them wrong, and others will remain theories, because that's all they are, theories about people conspiring.

      "not one conspiracy theory has ever gone on to be proved correct."

      There must be thousands of theories about people conspiring that have come to be proven true.
      You're using the words "conspiracy theory" as if it means something other than what the words actually mean.
      You're using a subjective definition, one that has no objective meaning.

      "when 99% of the bathwater is filthy and useless yes i think it's about
      time to chuck it out...you may think it's worth wallowing in it for a
      bit longer, but i'm done."

      Then you've already made up your mind about every theory to conspire that ever was or ever will be, before even bothering to find out what the truth is.
      Surely it would be better to stay open to all possibilities.

    37. look it's all about evidence.

      Conspiracy theories never progress beyond theory because there's NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

      I'm not the one misunderstanding what terms mean, you're the one using coincidences to try and justify all conspiracies...i'm just explaining to you why that's a dumb outlook.

      I've always liked the saying "if you open your mind too much your brain falls out." because it's true, and that big vacant space usually gets filled with cattle effluence.

      I'm not saying no conspiracies ever happen, the roman empire was just one big long line of conspiracies, but you know the difference between them and say the JFK assassination?

      There is EVIDENCE that they took place in the way they took place. The guilty parties are known, All conspiracies eventually come to light, because someone always talks...which is why these theories that have existed for decades (and all follow a similar narrative) are not realistic.

      Follow the possibilities all you want, i'm just saying have some sort of critical standard over what you consider to be a possibility.

    38. "you're the one using coincidences to try and justify all conspiracies"

      I'm not trying to say that all conspiracy theories are true, that would be an absurd thing to say.
      What I'm saying, and what you're disagreeing with, is that a conspiracy theory is something that is yet to be proven right or wrong, not something that can never be proven right or wrong.

      The fact that the government (NSA) are spying on people is just one example of a conspiracy theory that is no longer a theory, because it was proven to be true.

    39. ok...whose theory was that then? Because as far as i know, not even the people with the biggest tin foil hats knew about the NSA until Edward Snowden (a whistleblower) leaked the story...It wasn't a conspiracy theorist that uncovered it, it was someone who was actually involved.

      Whilst Edward Snowden was uncovering the NSA abuses, conspiracy theorists were busy talking about chemtrails and other nonsense that doesn't exist.

      When George Bush lied to the USA about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the tin foil hatters were too busy imagining how he might have done 9/11 to see the blatant conspiracy unfolding in front of their faces.

      The way i see it, you're taking a complete coincidence and deeming it a successful prediction when it's nothing of the sort.

    40. Just the idea that the US government would secretly spy on it's own citizens is something that was a conspiracy theory that then changed from a theory to a fact.

      Miriam Webster dictionary:
      Conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal.
      Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.
      Conspiracy Theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

      That's the real definition of conspiracy theory. It doesn't have to be "widely known" or anything else to qualify as a conspiracy theory.
      If someone get's caught doing something illegal for example, if someone says: "How did they catch us? Maybe the government is spying on us!"
      That is a conspiracy theory by definition, that has now become a fact.
      Pick an example.
      If any new conclusive evidence comes to light in any current conspiracy theory out there, then they will also change from theory to fact.

      That's why generalizing about so called conspiracy theorists/theories, saying they all deserve to be called crazy people etc. It's just as nonsensical as generalizing about any other group of people.

    41. again, you're taking vague predictions and deeming them to be hits.

      I asked you for a name...Who theorised that the NSA was spying on everyone? Surely if this is a prediction come true then you can provide me with the name of the person who predicted it?

      Just because one wild stab in the dark hit's something, that's no reason to assume every wild stab in the dark will do the same!

      I know you've got a dictionary...we're arguing over your misinterpretations of what those words mean and what qualifies them.

    42. "Just because one wild stab in the dark hit's something, that's no reason to assume every wild stab in the dark will do the same!"

      I'm not saying that all conspiracy theories are going to become true.
      You must have missed when I said this:

      "I think the confusion is coming from this:

      "EDIT: I agree with everything said in that quote, except for the last part: "because we have been shown to have been
      right all along."
      I didn't realize they said "we", I thought they were saying "some"."

      I mistakenly agreed with this comment because I thought they were
      saying "some" have been proven right, not "we" as in conspiracy
      theorist's, as in all conspiracies.
      They must be judged individually, not as a whole.
      Sorry for the confusion, that was my mistake, I hope I've cleared that up now."

      I accept responsibility for the confusion that would have caused, you have my apologies for that.

      The only thing I'm pointing out now, is that not all, but some conspiracy theories do and can become true.
      Therefore, you can't logically dismiss all conspiracy theories as nonsense, and you can't logically dismiss all conspiracy theorists as crazy people.
      To say that they're all nonsense would be just as nonsensical as saying that they're all true, because some are true, and some are not.
      As to what qualifies as a conspiracy theory, I refer to the dictionary definitions I provided in my last post.

      If you can acknowledge this much about the nature of conspiracy theories and theorists, then I believe we will be in total agreement on the matter.

      Once again, I apologies for the confusion I caused.

    43. "it just makes you look foolish because we have been shown to have been
      right all along."

      Actually, I take back what I said, I didn't realize the person I agreed with said "WE have been shown to have been right all along", for some reason I thought they were saying "many" have been shown to be right.

      I agree with the "many", but I cannot agree with the "we", so that is my mistake.

      However, my point about "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones." being a stereotype and generalization still stands.

    44. It's like you're saying: "some conspiracies are nonsense, so why should I bother with any of the rest of it?"

      The answer, is that there are a lot of different theories about a lot different things. Some things are true and some are not true.

      It's up to you to do research to find out what is objectively true, and what is not, and come to your own conclusions (make theories) about whatever it is.

    45. Or you know...you could use logic, evidence and reasoning to find out what the reality actually is.

    46. Yes, you should use those things also.

    47. on their own is more than enough.

    48. You have to use those things in order to find out what is objectively true, hence it was implied when I said: "It's up to you to do research to find out what is objectively true".
      Therefore it was unnecessary for you to mention them.
      You also have to breath to find out what is objectively true, but I didn't feel the need to mention that either.

    49. On the TDF homepage, we are invited to "share our thoughts and enjoy".
      Not all of us come armed with logic and evidence in these discussions.
      And much as I disagree with some contributors' comments, they are for the most part worth examining and reflecting upon.
      I'm very grateful for the opportunity at TDF to do this.
      It's a shame that commentators' opinions which are not backed up by concrete evidence are readily dismissed.

    50. the type of argument you just used is so common it has a name. It's called "Special pleading" it's considered a logical fallacy.

      It's called special pleading because that's exactly what it is, a plead for us to treat your pet cause as a special case that doesn't require evidence to back up it's claims.

      If you're not prepared to deal with logic and evidence then perhaps a public forum isn't where you should be.

      I love TDF too, but freedom of speech cuts both ways i'm afraid. If you're allowed to say whatever you want then i'm allowed to question it.

    51. I'm not expecting you or any one else to accept my "pet cause".
      We all have as much right to be here as you do.
      We are all free to express our thoughts, and as you emphatically state, you ARE allowed to question them.
      It just seems rather harsh to dismiss another's thoughts and anecdotes right off the hop, like you're swatting away an annoying house fly.
      But you don't care and that's fine.
      And if you're trying to demean or humiliate me it's not working.

    52. Lol, yes you are, that's why you're making a special pleading argument.

      You're asking me to not think about evidence or logic specifically for something you support.

      Anecdotes are terrible sources of information because they can be completly fabricated, even without the fabricator realising.

      I'm not trying to demean or humiliate you...you're doing that all by yourself with your hilarious outlook toward evidence.

    53. I'm talking about any poster's comments here.
      I don't care what you think about mine specifically.
      How do you know what contributors here have read, studied, experienced and seen with their own eyes?
      Just because someone doesn't post a link or cite a reference you argue and nit pick.

    54. yeah i like to see a bit of evidence before i consider something...that's a standard, not a crime.

      Freedom of speech cut's both ways.

    55. Dismissing factually plausible arguments wholesale as "conspiracy theory" is an example of Special Pleading.

    56. lol no it isn't...how is asking for evidence special pleading?

    57. Is English not your first language? What part of "Dismissing factually plausible arguments wholesale" eludes you?
      Every argument should be subjected to factual scrutiny. In science for every hypothesis that develops into a theory there are a thousand that do not.
      It is the evidence, not the label, that matters. To shut off inquiry based on some propaganda label is to say "I don't care about your evidence, this is a special case" i.e. an example of "Special Pleading"

    58. yeah...what you've just done is called a "Strawman" argument.

      You've taken what i've said, and built up something else around it that's much easier to attack than what i'm saying...it's also a logical fallacy.

      If people had evidence for their claims then they wouldn't need to resort to special pleading or strawmen arguments to make their point...would they?

    59. Your last paragraph is a straw man argument.

      BTW neither Straw man nor Special Pleadings arguments are "logical fallacies". They are both rhetorical devices intended to mislead, but are not in the same family with "post hoc" Et al.

      There are many forms of flawed argument. The ones you suffer your readers with most are over-generalization and appeal to authority.

      The term "conspiracy theory" is a manufactured cousin to ad hominem argument. It is meaningless and using it to dismiss any hypothesis is a substitute for rational criticism of the argument presented.

      If you take exception to someone's argument attack it on its merits.

    60. you may want to actually google straw man argument before trying to change the definition to suit your argument.

    61. Every conspiracy theory, idea, scientific concept presented should be dismissed until or unless there is substantial evidence to support those claims. My claim that the ghost of Napoleon is living in my bedroom closet, should never be taken seriously, unless I can prove that He is actually there. That is my obligation. Until I can, you and everyone else, has every right to question and dismiss my claim. This goes for any other idea from government ops to chemtrails to NWO theories. Prove it and you have my attention, but until then, I may listen but I won't accept anything unless proven.

    62. "If you're not prepared to deal with logic and evidence then perhaps a public forum isn't where you should be."

      Perhaps, but a public forum doesn't require that. I would believe a public forum allows for diversity, however that might be.
      It's you who requires it, of which you have every right.

    63. yes a public forum will allow anything,..even total bullsh1t.

      Like i say, freedom of speech cuts both ways. If you want to vomit your crazy theories all over the internet then i'm perfectly free to call you out on them...You may not like that, but that's life i'm afraid.
      (please note i don't mean 'You' as in you particularly)

      Perhaps a better way to say it would be: If you're not prepared/mature enough to have your beliefs challenged, then don't share them.

    64. More than fair enough.

    65. Which of course would support many of the perfectly legitimate speculations which are dismissed with the counter-intelpro label "conspiracy". Fact Check all the positions raised and I trust that the ones that will most often fail will be the "official" versions of anything

    66. lol fact check? How can you fact check paranoid speculation?

      As soon as you provide actual legitimate evidence that all "official" versions are false i'll start believing you...until then i'll put you in the same wingnut box as all the all the others.

    67. "As soon as you provide actual legitimate evidence that all "official" versions are false i'll start believing you"
      ok well that settles any vestige of doubt as to your indoctrination

    68. Indoctrinated am I? well gosh that's awfully convenient for you.

      Does it make life a bit easier for you to get through if you just assume everyone who asks you for evidence is a part of the big conspiracy against you?

    69. You apparently have no grasp of the concept "burden of proof" or much else re: argumentation

    70. Ok...shifting the burden of proof is another logical fallacy.

      Your interpretation of the burden of proof is 100% wrong.

      The burden of proof is on the claimant not the establishment.

      If you think Satan is using lizard people and the illuminati to take over the world with Miley Cyrus, then i'm afraid it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it...

      In science, if you want your claims to be taken seriously, tyhen YOU have to provide evidence of them.

      what you DON'T do is turn up with a crazy theory and say "Disprove me if i'm wrong" (which is what you're doing with your misunderstanding of the burden of proof)

      You should at least google a term and find out what it actually means before you start throwing it around.

    71. Once again it is the pot calling the kettle black.
      Your position "As soon as you provide actual legitimate evidence that all "official" versions are false i'll start believing you" assumes a presumption and shifts the burden of proof to those who challenge any official version.
      There are plenty of examples of government deception (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, "yellow cake") and I encourage everyone to be skeptical of ALL arguments and to hold them to an evidentiary standard. There are stupid arguments on both sides if every issue. It is the evidence that matters no matter who or how it is brought to your attention
      This is my last post on this subject as I know very well from past experience that brain washed people are immune to reason and you have flown your flag

    72. That is the number one fallacy of those who present a conspiracy theory. It is up to the person who has the suspicion to prove his ideas with facts. Those ideas mean nothing without proof and I and others are under no obligation to support or refute their claims. That claim is false, like an accused is innocent, until their case is proven without a shadow of a doubt. It is the obligation of the one with the theory to prove that his ideas are indeed correct and that they must understand that without proof their ideas are just interesting little stories.

    73. Jack, how can a documentary possibly present all of it's information in a way that's going to require no verification?

      For example, if the doco says: "Operation Northwoods was authorized by
      the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy."

      Even if they show you images of all the documents, it's not going to be proof of anything until you look it up for yourself and verify it to be true.

    74. If an allegation is made, it is up to the person making the allegation to provide the evidence to back it up. That is why credible publications post references. I cannot count the times "conspiracy theory" types have told me to "do the research" and never give me any indication why they believe as they do. In other words, they accuse and expect me to accept it until I can prove otherwise. That is not how accepted knowledge works. Einstein didn't just present the equation E=MC2. The final equation means nothing without the legwork to prove it as fact. That legwork is inspected by those qualified to verify and then is universally accepted. Then it can be presented as fact. If I think it to be inaccurate, then it is up to me to show why. I shouldn't state, smugly, that it is so and now you must prove me wrong.

      Even if Kennedy approved "Operations Northwood" and it did happen, it doesn't prove the moon landing was a hoax. It might show that it is a possibility but one incident is not proof of another. Each incident stands on its own and must be proven on its own.

      Showing me the images of all the documents is what you must do to prove an allegation. It provides me with the evidence and shows me that you have something of value to present. It shows me what you have and where to look to verify. To withhold those documents and then tell me that your allegation is fact and go do my own research would be suspect. I can't state 2+2=5 and expect you to accept what is universally known to be incorrect. I have to show why it's true.

    75. Yeah, I know all of that, and I agree with you.

      I think the confusion is coming from this:

      "EDIT: I agree with everything said in that quote, except for the last part: "because we have been shown to have been
      right all along."
      I didn't realize they said "we", I thought they were saying "some"."

      I mistakenly agreed with this comment because I thought they were saying "some" have been proven right, not "we" as in conspiracy theorist's, as in all conspiracies.
      They must be judged individually, not as a whole.
      Sorry for the confusion, that was my mistake, I hope I've cleared that up now.

      However, I still think that saying: "and for you conspiracy folk out there, stop inventing problems. We have enough real ones."
      Is a generalization, like saying "and for you cops out there, stop being corrupt and bullying people."

      Because not all conspiracy folk do that, like not all cops are like that.

  40. I agree with a lot of his thoughts but his conclusions just don't make sense. He is too extreme. All the negative practises in this world have their consequences, take for example the communities in the US that are affected by fraking, or the communities in Canada where I am that are being poisoned by the tar sands. people get cancer and diseases and die, so what? What is anyone doing? Is there a huge revolt of humans bringing down the corporations and governments that allow it? No. there are countless examples of corporations slowly killing us for profit, most of us know this on some level but never stand up to it. This is the way, there will be no revolt, or collapse, simple and slow deaths that are excepted of our brothers and sisters and we will remain idle, we will go to their funeral and grieve and then go back home and turn on the kardasians or some other crap and eat our chemical food and do nothing. I have about as much faith in humans as I do the corporations.

  41. He's right about a lot of things, although I'm not sure why he has a problem with "techno-solutions" and technology... It's not technology at fault, it's a tool, and like most tools it all depends on how it's used.
    Technology can provide many solutions.

    1. lol, what is he suggesting 7.1 billion hunter gatherers?
      erase all technology and there would not be a remaining stone spearhead imagine that kind of world. as far a the bits he is right about, imagine a person looking for information after realizing something is wrong with the world, and stumbling onto this doc and taking it as the truth. i would gamble that it would do them ore harm then good. what would be more effective? how about listing a problem then a solution with a coherent methodology. one after another using language anyone could understand.

    2. Well, he himself uses and enjoys technology. But he knows his computer use can't last if we run out of oil. Perhaps he would support techno solutions If man could develop new technologies that don't require oil to create or ultimately function.
      I can't remember everything he said word for word. This is just my speculation.

  42. "Mankind openly descends into a world of bloodshed without end.
    Dog-eat-dog until everything is killed and the last man commits suicide
    or he's poisoned."

    the world is actually at it's least violent point in all of human history. that's a statistical fact.

    "When you believe you're already dead and you got nothing to live for,
    you fight better than you've ever fought in your life. When your back's
    to the wall that's the only time when humans actually choose to evolve."

    you don't choose to evolve...even as a metaphor this doesn't work!

    "at the moment of death, at the moment when we face our destruction,
    that's when the greatest leaps in human consciousness and the leaps of
    human heart take place."

    i would like a single example of this sentence to be presented. It's a lovely bit of rhetoric but it has no connection to the truth...Darwin wasn't near death when he figured out Evolution...Newton wasn't near death either when he figured out gravity. Gallileio wasn't near death until after he figured out the world went around the sun. the list of examples against this little pearl of wisdom is endless.

    The blurb does not win my confidence, when i get round to watching this it will be with a pitcher of salt next to me.

  43. turned it of at the praying part. critical thinking is not part of this guys ability. talking to yourself isn't going to save the planet.

  44. this guy is all over the place and cannot even formulate a critical thought.

    1. Oh, pass the scepter to the Queen of Critical Thinking here.

    2. what information is contained within this statement?

    3. i think it's just a knee jerk reaction to the sight of a woman out the kitchen speaking her mind...pay no attention to it.

    4. What have I been missing? I cannot believe the comments I'm reading tonight. Someone is really stirring up the pot!

    5. says the 20 year old girl who has done & seen what with her childhood.?.?. Anyone who has spent years independently studying world history, the socio-economic system, environmental health would easily understand where he is coming from.. Reality doesn't care about positive or negative, who wins or loses it just is.. our story as humans on this planet is one of the most fascinating (mostly dark) stories.. you should pick up a real book (not some college propaganda), get off facebook, instagram, your reality tv, and get a clue... janeen clark generation wuss

    6. You're making a lot of assumptions about someone who don't know. I happen to agree with her statement and I come from the hippie, love mother earth, generation.

    7. You, her, I all made assumptions.. You make assumptions when walking down the street amongst people all the time. That guy is probably old, that guy is probably into drugs, that girl probably listens to Bon Iver, that woman is a bad mother.. When she says he cannot even formulate a critical thought, I will respond with my own thought as well.. you don't know Jack about Jack son... F hippies too.. they are consumers who fly a green flag, preach about a bunch of stuff they never do.... love my VW bug.. love my solar panels and battery packs (so environmentally friendly), love to burn jet fuel to cruise the globe to stare at people who wish I would just stay put and grow some food.. spiritual this, spiritual that while they are so wrapped up in materialism it isn't funny... Anyone that says they love mother earth and hasn't hand built there own tiny home, grows there own food, lives by the light of day is a fake, fake fake.. and the only reason they get away with it is because everyone they talk to is just like them and they all pat each other on the back.. we are so conscious.. so earth friendly.. sick psychosis... sick..

    8. I guess I was trying to be nice. What I meant was, if you don't like what she has to say, bring out a clear and coherent argument stating why you disagree with her statement. Don't attack her with back handed insults about her youth and then dismiss, not just her statement, but her as a person. You don't know her and she has every right to give an opinion without someone insulting her.

      Then you do the same with me. You attack with a battery of insults, never once addressing why you would disagree with her original statement. A couple of very nasty comments which really came out of nowhere. If this is how you like to deal with people on an internet forum, try youtube. You can be as nasty as you want.

      You have not shown us one single reason why this guy isn't all over the place or shown how he is capable of critical thought. Her statement stands as you have not presented any credible challenge.

    9. I'm sorry but did you just attack my method.. I believe you did.. You didn't like what I wrote so you let me know, and didn't really provide any information related.. It's ok for Jack & the young lady to criticize the message Michael offers but no one can criticize them.. Jack you can say what ever you like about me you and I can say that you have proven multiple times that you are a hypocrite.

    10. No he can and he does. You just can't hear it. Cause you're afraid.

  45. This guy is a genius, which describes why some think he's psychotic. He has a ton of valid points--one being the current economic growth imperative. I mean, how insane of an idea is that? How can an economy grow infinitely on a finite planet with finite resources? It simply can't. I disagree with him about imminent danger to all human existence, but I may be proven wrong with that one. There are times when I personally own all the problems of the world, but it's super exhausting. When I realize I'm getting too gloomy I take a step back from thinking too much about the state of the world, but I don't back down from my ethical commitments. Ruppert hasn't come to that point yet, and maybe he shouldn't. Maybe his voice has led others to change their lifestyles and that's why he continues. Good on him!

  46. VICE seems like the new NatGeo or LIFE...

    Such great material.
    A little over the top predicting human extinction by 2030.
    But the other 98% was extremely interesting and personally touching


  47. This guy clearly suffers from depression. I won't even talk about how he is using a computer and smoking, yet stands against both those things. We certainly are polluting our planet, and probably wont stop burning fossil fuels till they are gone. This planet has revived itself after far greater apocalyptic events. To think that the 1% that rule us would allow our demise is naïve. To cry about the end of life as we know it...? Humans way of life on this planet is constantly changing, as seen by the alpaca farmer, we can and will adapt.

  48. Ruppert does nail it with the comment that money is not value. Money is a sad excuse, a very poor representation of value. Actual tangible value is food, water, shelter, and security. Money can only continue the illusion. It is a temporary fix. A band-aid on a bullet hole. Eliminate money and replace it with actual, tangible value. Everything else becomes a reason to kill those with whom you disagree.

  49. so !!!!!!!!! wath the solution ????????

    1. There were a few solutions in the doc, a couple being becoming food autonomous and stopping personal use of petrochemicals (including gas for driving cars). Of course those would only be useful if we don't all die from nuclear winter.

    2. do you have any idea the kind of wars that going "food autonomous" would start?

      As much is it seems like a happy go lucky hippie dream, it's actually reverting back to a similar kind of land issues that were the ebb and flow of Roman life...and guess what the Romans did!

    3. thats wath i thought (no humans solution)

  50. I started to watch this presentation and will continue to the end, but why is the background music so loud? It serves as nothing but a distraction.....overpowering the message which is why we watched this presentation in the first place.

    I finished watching the video.....a great presentation. I have a lot of respect for the presenter.

  51. Watch the videos. I find it all interesting ! ! You don't have to believe or accept.

  52. That guy urgently needs psychological help. The American way of life might be close to an end but we are far from man's extinction. Many empires collapsed in the past yet humanity kept going. 150 000 years ago, we almost got wiped out by climate change in Africa with population falling down dramatically below 10 000 yet we recovered. Short of a huge meteor, I don't see what could wipe us out with the means of survival we now have compared to the pre-civilization era.

    1. Consider a global economic collapse. That would force 7 billion people to run in the woods and eat everything that walks, crawls, flies, or swims. We could kill and eat all other lifeforms on this planet in less than a month. Granted this is highly improbable, but not impossible.

    2. Much easier to eat each other then trying to eat all other lifeforms.

    3. WOW!! so brilliant D.U.D.

    4. Hmmm, it is strange but I could easily picture you eating human flesh.

    5. this is why we are being mutated into zombies via gmo's and chemtrail. we will eat ourselves problem solved.

    6. except GMO's don't do that and chemtrails don't exist.

    7. And zombies don't eat themselves and we are not being mutated into them. So basically everything.

    8. I dunno...Depends what rules you're going by...Romero rules don't rule out mutation, and neither do Walking dead rules...

    9. Yeah...I know. Everyone that doesn't think like you is no more than an brainwashed zombie, stumbling through life on a diet of chemicals and misinformation,until we all die off. Fortunately for the rest of us, those chemicals don't affect your brain and propaganda bounces off you like bullets off Superman. People like you are humanity's only hope.

    10. in my opinion a nuclear exodus is much more effective at wiping out life than a huge meteor because it would even kill life forms that dont need the sun. well sept for maybe mushrooms.

    11. nope. A huge asteroid would be far more cataclysmic. Tough to recover from starvation and no water.

    12. i guess it depends on how big the meteor is like if it split earth into a million pieces then yes i agree its worse but short of that nuclear radiation is worse beyond 1000 Becquerels kills everything. just a few weeks back there was a huge leak at fukushima 300 tons of water leaked into the ocean with a radiation level of 3 million becquerels.

    13. It is theorized that a meteor about 40 miles across would pierce the earth crust and trigger a mega volcano event that would add to the initial impact and wipe out pretty much all life except maybe some microbial organisms.

    14. you took the blue pills for sure !!!

    15. The second he starts referencing The Matrix he loses his credibility with me.

    16. Ah! That's what it was about. For a second, I wondered if that conspiracy theorist had hacked the spying apparatus of the global government and saw my erection...

    17. Isn't there a bikini sale somewhere?

    18. must concentrate ,must concentrate,yep you took a pink pill lol!