NOTE: The following article is being posted under the threat of a lawsuit from Mike Ruppert. In the name of fairness, we have extended to Mr. Ruppert an open invitation to respond to these questions on WING TV. We sincerely hope that he takes us up on our offer.

After reading my 36-page expose, Mike Ruppert Unmasked, the subject of this article – Mike Ruppert himself – responded on October 4, 2004: “Can’t anybody do any better than this? This is boring.”

Boring? With all due respect, Mr. Ruppert, there are many of us who don’t find the advocacy of population reduction (i.e. wiping human beings off the face of the earth) boring. Nor are we bored to discover that a certain 9-11 researcher has ties to shadowy underworld crime figures, or discredited con-men like Mike Vreeland. In fact, many of us were actually enlightened by this information! But for some odd reason, whenever you have been asked to address the many issues brought out in this essay, you’ve completely avoided them, or opted to instead self-servingly tell people to “buy your book” ($$$$$).

But if the number of people who have contacted me in regard to this article are any indication, your flippant wisecracks are, quite bluntly, simply not good enough. In other words, many people (including myself) expect some answers, and until they arrive, I think it’s fair to say that your continued silence makes us highly suspicious of your motives and agenda.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) POPULATION REDUCTION: You are quoted as saying that you would like “to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction.”

          Question: Do you have a specific program in mind to achieve this goal? Who do you           feel should be in charge of it – someone like the Rockefeller family, who has a history of           such endeavors via their eugenics programs? In your opinion, how many people should           be eliminated? And finally, what “ethical” criteria do you suggest using to determine who           is eradicated?

2) PINNACLE QUEST INTERNATIONAL: In Daniel Hopsicker’s article, Cointelpro 9-11: Peak Oil & the Level Above Saudi, he writes about a company named Pinnacle Quest International, which was involved in banking scams, money laundering, wire & mail fraud, and tax evasion. Yet you admit to being the recipient of two all-expense paid trips by them, and are even quoted as saying, “I have great respect for Pinnacle Quest International.”

          Question: Is your opinion of Pinnacle Quest International still the same today; and in the           future do you plan on accepting any payments from them (or any other entity engaged in           criminal activities)?

3) AMR IBRAHIM "TONY" ELGINDY: I am in the possession of e-mails between yourself and Tony Elgindy, a “short seller” who was arrested for running a racketeering ring using information obtained from corrupt FBI agents. He has also served time for, or been charged with, insurance fraud, bribery, illegal stock market manipulation, and extortion.

          Question: Please explain your relationship with Mr. Elgindy (who now faces conspiracy           and racketeering charges in a Brooklyn federal court), and also the circumstances           revolving around your public apology to him in November, 2002.

4) MIKE VREELAND: Over the past few years, Delmar “Mike” Vreeland’s credibility as a witness and/or information source has been severely eroded by 9-11 researchers, law enforcement officials, judges, lawyers, radio personalities, and virtually every other individual who has ever come in contact with him.

          Question: Since you devoted two entire chapters of Crossing the Rubicon to Mr.           Vreeland, do you still place credence in him as a reliable source, and if so, please           explain why?

5) ALAN GREENSPAN: On June 1, 2002 you relayed an incredible report to a Yahoo public forum where you stated that Mike Vreeland had been poisoned by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

          Question: At the time of that message, did you find it even remotely possible that Alan           Greenspan would try to poison a career criminal and con-man with two bottles of           delivered wine? If your answer is “no,” do you find the above post an example of “shoddy,           error-prone” journalism?

6) LAWSUITS: After reading about your propensity to threaten detractors with lawsuits, a well-known 9-11 researcher/chronicler e-mailed the following to me: “I can assure you that at least 5-7 people came forward in the last two years telling me that Ruppert tried to take legal steps against them too. The last bizarre, almost public threat was against the writer of the play j’accuse Cheney two weeks ago.”

          Multiple choice question: During the past five years, approximately how many people           have you threatened to sue: (a) 1-50 (b) 50-100, or (c) over 100?

7) POISON PEN: Your attacks on detractors (and even colleagues) are legendary. Since Mike Ruppert Unmasked blazed across the Internet on October 1, 2004, I’ve received scores of reports from others who were also subjected to this type of onslaught. One such illustration originates from a woman who is well-known to 9-11 researchers. She wrote: “I have an example of Mike at his finest, exhibiting just those traits you describe so perfectly. He attempted to intimidate me on the 9-11 Truth Alliance list when I alerted people to his new stance on the Air Force stand-down and criticized his war games line back in June 2004. In response to this, he posted the following flames: per Ruppert, I am a “crazy woman,” I’m “stupid,” I’m a “fool,” I’m a “nuisance and distraction,” “I have an IQ under 50,” “I filter every piece of information through [my] psychological needs,” and I have put erroneous words and interpretations into his mouth – all this while I was quoting directly from his written work, and linking to a recording of him at a public gathering.”

          Question: Why do you find it so necessary to continually lash out at fellow researchers;           and in your opinion, is this pattern of behavior one that generally harbors positive or           negative consequences? Secondly, do you make a habit of treating women this way all           the time? If so, do you feel anybody should have any respect for you whatsoever after           reacting in such a fashion?

8) PATRIOT FOR HIRE: In a response to Mike Ruppert Unmasked (October 4, 2004), you carefully avoided and/or ignored 99% of the content (36 pages worth), and instead boasted about how many books you were selling on Amazon (i.e. money money money).

          Question: What is more important to you – the truth about what actually happened on           the morning of September 11, 2001, or the revenue which can be generated from it.           Also, how do you plan to dispel rumors that you’re a Patriot for Hire when revenue from           your various activities seems to be of such prime importance?

9) MEDIA: You stated in an e-mail to me on September 1, 2004, “I will not now or ever be on your television show. There will be no discussion.”

          Question: What criteria do you use to determine which media venues you will appear           on, and have you ever compiled a J. Edgar Hoover-like “black list” such as the one your           publicist mentioned to me over the telephone?

10) FLIP-FLOPPING: When my review of your Truth and Lies of 9-11 video first appeared in The New World Order Exposed, the people operating your From the Wilderness website were so pleased with it that they gave me a free one-year subscription to your newsletter. But then, just last month, you completely flip-flopped and denounced my research as sub-standard.

          Question: How frequently do you undergo such dramatic, almost schizophrenic           turnarounds, and do you foresee any other flip-flops in the near future when they become           “convenient” for you (i.e. peak oil)?

****************************************************************************************

To bring this article to a close, Mike Ruppert concludes an update on Peak Oil in his From the Wilderness newsletter (September 23, 2004) by declaring: “Now the real work of caring for the human race, and especially its children, begins.” Considering Mr. Ruppert’s bizarre views on population reduction, I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy of such a statement.

Likewise, in a response to my Unmasked article, a 9-11 researcher shared my sentiments when he very eloquently wrote that you, Mr. Ruppert, have, “resorted to threats with lawyers rather than defend your views against critics/questioners/opponents etc. – acting for all the world that you want to keep people from telling other people about your true pro-negative population growth Club of Rome sounding [views] – so congenial with the Malthusian justification of keeping wealth from the breeding masses that has been the mainstay of the Anglo-American ruling elites justifying their accumulation of wealth in their own hands for about 250 years.”

He continued, “I think you should put your views out for all the classes to see – that would have avoided the current loss of support of the little people that you didn’t really deserve in the first place. I hope your wealthy sponsors will continue to keep you well-fed and happy, even if your capacity to control and deliver the minds of the ‘ordinary people’ has, by these revelations, been diminished.”

This individual concludes, “I believe [the author] has done a great service to the many people who supported you but would never have supported you had they known your views on “surplus population” and trashing and destroying a large segment of the population to achieve the American financial oligarchs’ idea of sustainability of their fortunes against wealth, happiness and survival of now-living humanity whose creativity and industry and discovery is the ultimate guarantee that continuing worthwhile futures will unfold in ways the Club of Rome, much less, Thomas Malthus could never predict.”

In the end, we must now decide: is Mike Ruppert a gloom-and-doom Peak Oil Pied-Piper leading his followers toward annihilation? The only way we’ll find out is if he directly answers these questions once-and-for-all.