They also sever who only stand and wait.

That verb was misborn by orthographic transpositon, subtype accidental, aka “typo”. It shall stand. The time is not yet; yet he who thinks it will not, seeing that it has not, come, is a fool.

Discuss.

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3377#more

There are those among the Peak Oil community who suspect that we could be facing a failure of our interdependent society that may be sudden, profound, and complete. I have repeatedly said that I am not numbered among them. My opinion is that our way of life will have to change significantly, but slowly. I don’t expect to be clubbing anybody with a femur in any foreseeable future. This opinion is on record in both print and electronic media, and I don’t expect to be issuing a retraction any time soon…. but a recent event forced me to admit that I may have to hedge a little.

Posted by Søren Renner on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 02:37 PM in
Comments (6) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by zusammen on January 06, 2008, 03:20 PM | #

No, there isn’t going to be any sudden collapse. Change will be very gradual, like stepping down a ladder having many rungs. We’ll be better off anticipating and adapting, as those before us anticipated winter and prepared accordingly, leaving us as survivors today.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/  offers numerous essays on this subject from a naturalist perspective.

2

Posted by James Bowery on January 06, 2008, 08:04 PM | #

Don’t worry.  President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Obama will save us with technosocialism:

From His Iowa victory speech:

“I’ll be a president who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.”

Let’s put the bit in the mouths of those white boys.  Gee!  Haw!  Whoa!  Giddup!

“By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.  Once we take the risk out of investing, the second thing the government can do is to let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels. “

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/

We can rest assured that the smart guys President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Obama puts in charge of picking winners will only give money to your competitors if your idea is worse than theirs and deserves, therefore, to be driven out of business by frightening your private investors away.  No private investor who isn’t a member of the KKK or NeoNazi cult will worry about investing in your idea without first demonstrating political favor with President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Obama’s really smart guys.

3

Posted by James Bowery on January 06, 2008, 10:00 PM | #

Oh, I almost forgot the climax to His speech:

http://gotwavs.com/0058536645/MP3S/Movies/Idiocracy/giveyoumyword.mp3

4

Posted by Maguire on January 07, 2008, 11:52 AM | #

Soren,

The Peak Oil cult has fascinated me for a long time.  Like all religious cults, it’s based on open contradiction of observed natural facts.  In this case the Foundation of Faith is the proposition the Earth is about to run out of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms and heat, while remaining capable of sustaining carbon based life forms.

“There are those among the Peak Oil community who suspect that we could be facing a failure of our interdependent society that may be sudden, profound, and complete.”

And we see a division of eschatological opinion in the Peak Oil cult that mirrors identical divisions in other religions.  In Christianity this division is between Millenarians who anticipate a physical Armageddon of global destruction, and Amillenarians who regard the Book of Revelations as symbolic and allegorical.  In both religions the Apocalyptic vision is most popular among the mass congregants and commands the largest donations, even though the shamans know or suspect differently.  The reason is the Apocalypse serves as an irresistible force of destruction that permanently overthrows the old order and clears the path for Heaven On Earth. 

(note: white nationalism may or may not have its own analogous Apocalyptic belief in expectations of an imminent political collapse of the federal government of the USA.  The precedent of the USSR and other multi-racial empires at least shows this belief would have more grounding in experiential fact).

“Several years ago, sweet light crude oil started getting a bit more difficult to obtain. In response, we stopped talking about “oil” and started talking about “liquids”. The word “liquids” covers Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), ethanol, heavy oils, tar sands, and an increasing number of other oil-substitutes.”

Peak Oil began around the supply question of light sweet crude oil.  As the scientific facts regarding carbon, hydrogen, heat, coal, oil shale, tar sands and biomass circulated more widely this original faith basis became untenable.  In reaction to this the Peak Oil Cult is now undergoing a process of religious syncretism with the Global Warming Cult.  The new Combined Faith holds that even though carbon atoms are not about to run out, it is still evil under any circumstances to use them if you are white.  If you are a negro, oriental or Jewish then various indulgences at white heterosexual working and middle class expense are available. 

It is also unsurprising that existing Judeo-Christian religions are now adopting elements of the Peak Oil/Global Warming Cult.

Maguire

5

Posted by James Bowery on January 07, 2008, 03:21 PM | #

Maguire, while I agree with your assessment of the “cult” aspect of “peak oil” there is a very real aspect that I illustrated with my satire about Obama:

The current regime is incapable of allowing any high profile technological arena to operate without molestation.  By molestation I mean attempts by politicians to take credit for advances in the high profile technology—attempted deception which requires them to meddle to the point that progress is stopped for decades.  This is what I refer to as “technosocialism”.

I have direct experience in the reform of technosocialism in the two highest profile technologies:  Spaceflight and fusion energy.

In both cases, massive, high profile, multi-decade government programs were pursued with no real advancement.

The dynamics of this failure are fairly straight-forward when you consider the incentives at work:

1) Credit-seeking politicians must be intimately involved in an ongoing manner in allocating funds to politically favored bureaucrats and their bureaucracies.

2) Since the arena is technologically challenging, on-going failure is always excused by the difficulty of the task and the budgetary limitations that are always looming as a year-to-year issue.

3) A permanent bureaucracy builds up that, itself, must take credit for any advances in the field lest they be exposed as a massive betrayal of public trust—hence any politically unapproved entrepreneurs in the field must be treated as enemies.

4) The ultimate assault against effective invention is for the technosocialists to start up a government program in the unapproved entrepreneur’s technology which immediately terrifies any private investors into abandoning the politically unapproved entrepreneur—leaving the technology in the hands of politically approved technosocialists that have neither the competence nor the incentive to implement the technology.

Other than the Apollo program, which was really a cold war competition for territory and involved a clear military-style objective, the only time tecnosocialist suppression was averted in post WW II history to my knowledge was with satellite communications when the authorizing legislation for NASA specifically barred the government from engaging in competition with private efforts—primarily because Bell Telephone (and perhaps Hughes) had sufficient political clout.  More recent legislation, which I was a principle grassroots coordinator of (PL101-611, the Launch Service Purchase Act of 1990) which barred NASA from competing from private launch services, was decades later and not nearly as effective at reigning in the technosocialist beast—which is why I pursued private prize awards leading to the CATS prize and ultimately to the Ansari X-Prize.  The reason the private prize awards have been funded (aside from the obvious danger of someone like me receiving direct funds from wealthy individuals for his own prize in a high profile technology) is that there have been a series of high profile failures of the space shuttle.  Unfortunately, unless your high profile technology has “acid tests” like launch/reentry in which it can spectacularly fail, there are few conditions in which failure can lead to escape from technosocialist suppression of invention in high profile technologies.

With oil now at $100/bbl levels and climbing, there is every chance that it will become high profile enough that guys like Obama will have to spray their pheromones all over it thereby inhibiting any advances indefinitely.

6

Posted by Matra on January 07, 2008, 04:23 PM | #

Environmentalism, like libertarianism and aracial nationalism, while occasionally useful in the short term, is a distraction for whites that delays them from realising where the real threats to their future are coming from. I don’t understand the attraction of environmentalism to so many WNists. How does Nick Griffin help his party’s cause by encouraging an interest in Peak Oil? On numerous occasions I’ve read on WNist forums posters saying all racial issues will come to a head when Peak Oil kicks in. Good luck with that fantasy. Promoting environmentalism will not convince leftists to give WNism a chance. It will also confirm the suspicion right wing conservatives - potential long term recruits - have that those to their right are apocalyptic fantasists.

It is also unsurprising that existing Judeo-Christian religions are now adopting elements of the Peak Oil/Global Warming Cult.

There is a Christian element to environmental cults but the cultists are rarely believers in traditional Christianity themselves. They’ve dropped the God part and picked up on humans as custodians of the planet with an evangelical zeal.  They’ve also added a heavy dose of guilt -  white guilt, of course. Environmentalism, unlike conservationism, is an ideology that fills the gap created from the spiritual emptiness that many feel in the post-Christian West - and it is Westerners (ie., whites) we are talking about here, environmentalism being of no interest to blacks, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.  Environmentalists are almost always secular middle or upper class white liberals who have few, if any, children. Perhaps they have transferred their own looming mortality to the entire planet.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: (not needed for preview)


Next entry: Ethanol Nightmare

Previous entry: Eduardo the Individual

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 01:11 PM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 11:34 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 11:20 AM. (go) (view)

the river commented in entry 'Soren Renner at VoR' on 02/08/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 11:05 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view)

arguerplayday commented in entry 'SAT State Ranking Adjusted for Participation Rates' on 02/08/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)

John commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 10:43 AM. (go) (view)

Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:40 AM. (go) (view)

Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:36 AM. (go) (view)

Thorn commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:32 AM. (go) (view)

Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:30 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:26 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:06 AM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:04 AM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:55 AM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:14 AM. (go) (view)

daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:22 AM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:30 AM. (go) (view)

MOB commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:25 AM. (go) (view)

anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 01:42 AM. (go) (view)

Rusty commented in entry 'Will someone arrest, and prosecute, this fine lady?' on 02/08/12, 12:40 AM. (go) (view)

daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:41 PM. (go) (view)

Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:16 PM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:03 PM. (go) (view)

Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 10:58 PM. (go) (view)

Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 10:53 PM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:52 PM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:17 PM. (go) (view)

uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)

anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 09:49 PM. (go) (view)

daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 09:15 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa