SIEGECRAFT: SIMMONS AND PEAK OIL | nationalsalvation.net
That hydrocarbon energy is limitless or if it reaches its limits that technology will replace good old-fashioned crude and gas. This thought then chains in with other assumptions of economic growth and other nostrums of progress. You chided me on Peak Oil commentary saying it was both wrong and off topic with your "basics" approach, but what I tried to add was that cheap energy is the crux of the modern welfare empire we have.
Comment by Simmons
Is "peak oil" a point or a process? The word "peak" seems to indicate a point. But what will happen is that AS oil runs out other, marketable energy alternatives will develop.
"Nothing concentrates the mind like realization that one will be hanged at dawn." By the same token, you are dead right that the crap preached today is entirely the result of the opposite of being hanged at dawn. Al Parker would never have hinted that there is no sociopath race if he had to talk down streets in the ghetto every night.
My disagreement here is racial. A white society can adapt to anything. A white society will always advance. So this doctrine of progress works until a society's SKIN turns BROWN.
A lot of people insist that we are going through an unprecedented period of change. But look at the generation that came up from 1830 to 1860. Since the horse had become the basic unit of transportation "somewhere among the Scythians"," for thousands of years, the horse was the best and basic land transportation. It is hard to even begin to conceive what a change the RAILROAD was.
In battle, a major proportion of the effort had to go to messengers and outdated information. The 1860 Pony Express was the latest technology in terms of the year 1830. Then came the telegraph. You could message California in the time it took for your voice waves to reach across the room.
I think cheap oil is holding us BACK. As it really disappears, all the drivel about wind and solar energy will die out. We don't want energy that bureaucrats can develop. We want energy we can USE.
You said, "This thought then (chimes) in with other assumptions of economic growth and other nostrums of progress." So who in the hell lets ME make a general statement like this? This ain't poetry man, this is WAR. I know writing is work, believe me, but why don't you go on and TELL us what you mean by that? And stop bitching that I called you down. You and everybody else have to get over the idea that what I say is the last word. If you have a theory, SAY IT! You know damned well I will publish it if it's not too many words.
I reserve the right to give you hell.
So I can practice what I just preached, now let me expand on what I said about cheap oil has held us back. The Jane Fonda's are taken seriously because we have cheap oil. People to drive to meetings in the latest cars use money for solar energy. Nobody invests real money in alternative energy because we ALL know it's hare-brained Yuppie crap.
Nothing makes the brain into a feather like something as absurd as lakes of cheap oil. In Reagan's day, the same Massachusetts delegation that was fighting nuclear power was also screaming against Reagan's DEREGULATING oil prices. Because the price of oil was kept artificially low, FOR TWO GENERATIONS, to take Southern resources for the Northeast without paying the market price, New England was able to fight nuclear power.
Yes, everybody I know has totally forgotten that Federal regulators set the price of oil until Reagan took office.
If oil had come from the Northeast instead of the South, that would not have happened; more important, if the price of oil had been left up to the South, New England would have been a hotbed of PRACTICAL research for PRACTICAL energy alternatives.
Because it owned the Union government, New England did not NEED energy alternatives. That left the field wide for Harvard and the Boston Globe to concentrate on attacking nuclear power.
Please note that Massachusetts had precious few Reagan voters by 1980, when both Carter and Anderson got a healthy share of the vote there. But in 1984 Reagan carried the state solidly by a clear majority. Among other things, with oil price deregulation, Massachusetts had to LIVE with what it advocated.
Theoretical crises help the other side expand on its nonsense. REAL crises work in OUR favor.
I don't really believe in the global warming/cooling that they say requires that bureaucrats run the economy worldwide, but I wish it WERE true. It would concentrate our minds miraculously if the danger were real, and serious people, not the Al Gores, would deal with it. When the ideological horseshit is abandoned, the problem gets solved.
But while we have cheap oil and no immediate problem, for example, the only people who notice are in the bullshit brigade.
Nobody remembers the banes of the South like railroad rates and government-set oil prices. No one remembers 2YK. But the Al Gore's were shrieking and pointing to the end of the world on January 1, 2000. As usual, once serious people saw it as a problem, it was fixed.
Let's go back to my earlier point to show the crap analogy may be literal. If anyone in 1830 thought about the present New York City population of 20,000 per acre, living at their present standard, he would be a Practical Man: "At such a high living standard there would several horses per capital. How could you possibly get the horse dung produced by ten million horses out of the city, as well as the horse dung produced by the removers?"
So, "How can we have a higher living standard if the price of oil goes up?" Because we replaced the dung-makers and we will replace the oil producers. And, of course, a major part of our cheap oil goes into tires and other parts we do not pay attention to in our obsession with oil.
If there WERE a major world crisis, the people surviving it would be white. But until the problem gets up close and personal, the mythmakers OWN it.