Please don't kill me, Mike Ruppert.

Sure, he wants input from "religious leaders." And sure, he wants the plan arrived at through a democratic process that would make Jefferson proud. But should we not be somewhat disturbed the Mike Ruppert wants the plan in question to be a process of "population reduction."

Now before you read this, which I have copied in its entirety from his site, so that in the unlikely event he reads this site he can't complain about lack of context, please understand this. When Ruppert talks about population reduction he's not talking about aggressive birth control. Note that he does not deny the premise of the question, that he is talking about eradicating segments of the population, only that he has a specific plan to do so. Are his readers aware of this aspect of his thinking? My only suggestion is that he put himself at the top of the eradication list. After he's gone, we'll all engage in a democratic process to see if we want to continue or just call it a day. Here's the segment that discusses genocide as salvation and here is the linkto the full article.

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?"

ANSWER: No I do not. But I am certain that the Neocons and Neolibs do have a plan. That's what frightens me so much.

If there is a man who sees a horrible train wreck about to happen, and attempts with all his energy to warn people that the train wreck is coming and many lives may be lost (more than need be), does that mean that he is responsible for causing the train wreck? Does it mean that he likes or enjoys train wrecks; that he wants the train wreck to happen?

I have no list of people who should be in charge of this. Everyone should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor might best include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in an effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely.

In my view, people like the Rockefellers (with whose appalling research on eugenics I am quite familiar), should not have a say, nor should the lunatics currently running the country.

To be ethical in the face of an inevitable disaster, the entire human community will have to share useful information as equably as is humanly possible. I believe that is called democracy. Fully feasible or not, it seems to me the only ideal worthy of pursuit, whether in times of relative stability or of unprecedented danger.

I have never had any other position.

Here is just one example of what is happening as Peak Oil makes itself known. It is a good model for many of the other decisions now being made by some members of powerful elite circles, without the knowledge or assent of the non-elite majority (who depend for our survival upon the same scarce resources).

In Nantucket, home to some of the wealthiest families on the planet, including Martha's Vineyard, a taxpayer-funded wind farm is being constructed with funding from the poorer tax bases surrounding this ultra-wealthy enclave. The problem is (and FTW has just begun an in-depth investigation of developments like this around the country), the wind farm itself will supply only enough energy for the rich folks while being paid for with middle and lower-class tax dollars. Roughly translated, the rich folks will be warm and have electricity while the middle and lower classes freeze and go dark after losing financial resources they needed to protect themselves. (Source: Boston.com, 9/27). We have already begun our investigation and come up with very some disturbing answers on these developments. We will be doing a large investigative series on this sometime in the next few months.

My point is, as it is with any proposed solution to the planetary carrying-capacity train wreck, is that everyone should have a fully-informed say in the discussions and, let us hope, in their outcomes. Ultimately, this will involve spiritual questions; hence I think that spiritual leaders chosen by various peoples should have input because that is how you get real ethics inserted into the discussions. Or do you advocate making these tough decisions solely on the basis of money, property and prestige? I advocate no particular religion of any kind (never have). But spiritual leaders, chosen by the people affected should be involved in the discussions and solutions so that broader ethical and moral considerations will be included.

Of course, history is rife with episodes in which clerical leaders - whether in the red robes of a cardinal, the black robes of an Imam, or the white lab coat of a scientist - abused their authority and their charisma, escalating the harm they were called upon to diminish. The present moment is at least as burdened with such characters as previous centuries have been. But the particular possibility we all deplore - a repetition of the professionalized, bureaucratic, technologically efficient horror of the Nazi period - is surely more likely to occur under the advisory leadership of, say, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon, and Porter Goss than that of, say, Helen Caldecott, Ramsey Clark, the Dalai Lama, and Dick Gregory. These are just names plucked from the air, chosen to illustrate the point.

I do not have an answer or a plan. I want all the people to come up with a plan, the way Thom Paine and Jefferson would have wanted.

I agree with Matt Simmons: "There is no (public) Plan B." It is the "secret" Plan B which scares the bejeesus out of me and should also scare you; especially since the secret plan appears to involve the development and deployment of gene-specific bioweapons, enforced starvation, and possibly nuclear war.

I don't advocate any of these options. I am trying to prevent them.

Any reader of my publication From The Wilderness or my book Crossing the Rubicon will see that clearly. The book is my fullest answer on this point.

If one advocates a policy of genocide, I'm not sure why these options listed at the end are any worse than any others. Nuclear war would be somewhat democratic. In fact, it's the best option, because the rich nations would bomb each other and maybe, just maybe, the poorer, non-nuclear nations might survive.

But I think a better idea might be to COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE DEMOCRATIC GENOCIDE, WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MIGHT BE. I don't know, maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Meanwhile, please warn anyone you know that this guy is dangerous, deranged or both. I'm not qualified to address the idea of peak oil, but I'm pretty sure, as a human who might come out on the short end of the democratic stick when it comes time to pick the sacrifice victims, that I have some expertise in opposing genocide. Please don't kill me, Mr. Ruppert, even if the majority thinks it's a good idea. Thanks.