|
|
|
The connection between Peak Oil and White Nationalism For me, certainly, and no doubt for many other MR folk the suddeness with which “Peak Oil” has come on to the scene, like a great wave rising out of a calm sea, has produced rather more questions than answers. One of these is: why is it of such interest to nationalists? Obviously, it does not seem to matter at all yet to the mainstream political parties. In the UK none of the three mainstreamers have indicated more than a passing acquaintance with the concept. It’s true, though, that they all have deep ideological investments in ever-rising productivity, consumption and GDP, and that may explain it. But interestingly, even the Green Party has paid scant attention thus far to Peak Oil and its staggering economic, social and political implications. The one exception in my little country is the British National Party, which is striving with might and mein to interest its membership in the issue. Yesterday Nick Griffin put up an article on the BNP website and also announced the launch of a special Peak Oil section in its newspaper. The latter has a very interesting resumé titled Opportunity?. It is either a piece of frothing at the mouth by frustrated, second-rate minds and political no-hopers ... or it is rather visionary and the source of hope for those who don’t welcome an endlessly diverse future. Read and decide for yourself. In Griffin’s article he reveals that he expects to “challenge for power” around 2030. Yes OK, far enough away to be faintly possible, near enough to keep his supporters digging into their pockets. But cultural marxism, our ruling ideology, will not last indefinitely anymore than classical marxism did. 2030 is certainly within the range of possibilities for an ideological collapse no less spectacular than 1989’s. Griffin may be right about his March on Westminster, you never know. He may be right about Peak Oil. The latter would hugely help the former, though, and that’s the point. He believes the Peak can be scaled, and nothing happens in politics without belief. Comments:2
Posted by Phil on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:46 | # David, Whether or not peak oil helps us or works against us, it is a fact that we must acknowledge. Those who refuse to acknowledge it will pay for their blissful ignorance. 2030 is too far way - I’ll be in my 50s by then. No it’s a reality that will face us in the next decade - at the very latest. It will hit us in the face with all its might. What happens next depends upon whether we have thought about its implications or not. It may or may not be an opportunity. It works against us in the sense that it would embolden the government to take repressive measures to maintain “National Unity” (does Griffin think about that?). I mean, in these times of such prosperity, if people like Griffin struggle to speak their minds, what would happen when economies sink deep into a seemingly endless depression? Wouldn’t governments assume the power of absolute tyrant to impose its will upon the populace? However, what works for us is the fact that multiculturalism and “diversity” are ideologies that depend overwhelmingly upon the goodwill and passivity of the majority. When the money is flowing, there is plenty to drink, plenty of distractions for the herd to engage in, the powers that be will have nothing to worry about. They can import millions and not worry - America proves it, it is the richest country in the world and also has the poorest immigration controls. But once scarcity hits, suddenly the generosity may evaporate. Multiculturalism is a house of cards. Times of scarcity will test it out to the fullest. And then who knows. What I say is: as sound men of education, we must understand the implications of a global peak in oil production. Its implications are not only economic but political in a very very deep and fundamental sense. And if we are prepared for it, we shall do better than if we aren’t. 3
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:49 | # Both peak oil and a revival of nationalism are fantasies—that’s what they have in common 4
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:59 | # Oil won’t run out but it probably will continue to get more expensive—thus stimulating a turn to other energy arrangements—such as nukes and ethanol. If you use nuclear power, anything is possible—coal to oil conversion, hydrogen, you name it. We seem to be seeing a turn in that direction now with GWB encouraging new nuclear construction and Merkel moving that way in Germany too. Nukes are already full speed ahead in China, of course and France has never renounced them 5
Posted by Phil on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:02 | # Both peak oil and a revival of nationalism are fantasies—that’s what they have in common Indeed Sir. But a 78 fold increase in the global production of sugarcane (resulting in a a positive energy balance) - that’s no fantasy. 6
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:04 | # If Brazil can run its cars on ethanol, so can we 7
Posted by Phil on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:08 | # 78 fold increase in Sugarcane production John? 78 fold?????? You aren’t tipsy I hope! 8
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:09 | # And the scale of farming needed to replace most oil by alcohol will depend on the technology used. Brazil’s combined mill/distilleries PRODUCE electricity as a byproduct of ethanol production. They don’t consume energy at all. And practically the whole of the tropics is suitable for cane. At the moment most of the tropics is subsistence farming. 3rd world farmers would be delighted to have a cash crop 9
Posted by Phil on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:13 | # A 78 fold increase will only serve CURRENT demand. But demand is increasing at a rate of 3 percent a year (or more depending upon the rate of economic growth). So even if a 78 fold increase could be accomplished, how long can we keep increasing it to meet global energy demand before we hit a brick wall? Also, how do you increase the production of sugarcane to such a degree without massive use of pesticides and Fertiziliers (which are totally dependant upon Oil for their production)? 10
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:21 | # I have already commented on your 78rpm record so I will note that phosphate rock is the only essential ingredient of superphosphate—the main fertilizer used in sugar farming and that rotating the crop with legumes also works 11
Posted by Phil on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:30 | # Let’s see now.......
So essentially, we would need to increase the areas under sugarcane cultivation 78 FOLD just to meet CURRENT DEMAND. So thats, 32 million acres X 78 = 2.4 Billion acres just growing sugarcane. Or 130,000 square Kilometres X 78 = 10140000 square Kilometres JUST GROWING SUGARCANE. 10 Million square kilometres or 2.4 Billion acres for SUGARCANE PLANTATION, to meet CURRENT demand for OIL. But this only meets CURRENT demand. So we would need to increase the areas under sugarcane cultivation by 3 percent each year….......... Also, this does not take into account EROEI for sugarcane. Let’s assume it is (to take the most optimistic estimate) 4.0. So for every 4 gallons of Ethanol we produce, we would need to produce 1 gallon for next year’s production. So all those figures I quoted above need to be INCREASED 20 percent. (And that’s assuming an EROEI of 4.0. If its 2.0, then the figures would need to be increased 50 PERCENT). 13
Posted by Phil on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:00 | # In that case, you should talk to Dick Cheney. Teach him a few lessons about energy and ask him to stop fretting about falling Oil production. 14
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:03 | # JJR, Can you refute Phil’s fact based argument? Or will you only attack: Malthus, Ratbag, or Jew Basher? 15
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:06 | # Yes John, it is easy to use the “‘cause I says so” argument without having any facts to back your assertions. Your Brazil is not the Holy Grail as I have said before. This argument has grown quite tiresome so I suggest for you to find facts that back your assertions or do the gentlemanly thing and shaddup about it. Phil has clearly shown how untenable Ethanol is as a substitute for Oil. Now I would be eager to hear your argument of why nationalism is a fantasy. Uhh, at least a better argument than your Ethanol one that is. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:44 | # It works against us in the sense that it would embolden the government to take repressive measures to maintain “National Unity” (does Griffin think about that?) I imagine he thinks about that rather frequently. He goes before the courts later this month on hate charges many people outside the BNP see as nothing more than state persecution. Good luck to him. 17
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:14 | # If Nick Griffin is banking on “peak oil” to be competitive by 2030 he’s nuts. Shows how desperate they must be over there. WNs will have to figure out a winning formula under the assumption economic growth remain above 0%. Peak oil does not mean economic collapse nor the end of innovation; merely a gradual increase in the cost of a single (albeit major) input. For instance oil prices have gone up 3x in recent years without a noticeable blip in world economic growth- and what of it for WNs? Nothing. 18
Posted by Phil on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:18 | # I imagine he thinks about that rather frequently. He goes before the courts later this month on hate charges many people outside the BNP see as nothing more than state persecution. Good luck to him. -GW I have a feeling he will survive. Making a martyr out of him won’t be the best thing for the Multicultural state. 19
Posted by sr on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:54 | # Vindication is sweet! Allow me to explain myself. Not only am I interested in both peak oil and white nationalism, but I actually started with the former: it was the facts (as I came to understand them) about the immediate future of our world that forced me out of apolitea and into the arms of the National Bolshevik Party. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:52 | # “Allow me to explain myself.” (—sr) I wish you would, sr. You’re posting from Russia? (So your e-mail address would seem to imply.) What’s the Bolshevik Party got to do with anything? Or was that just some sort of anti-BNP wisecrack? (In which case don’t bother to explain, because you’ll bore everybody to death.) 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:35 | # Fred, Visit:- http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng/ One of the leading spirits of National Bolshevism is Aleksandr Dugin, and many of his writings are on this website. I don’t know much about him myself - I missed the chance to learn a couple of months ago when he lectured to a seminar in London which I was unable to attend. Offhand, I would say NB is Russian nationalism allied to nostalgia and Nietzsche. Some background info on NB is to be found at Troy Southgate’s rather beautiful site here:- 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:40 | # GW, I checked out both those interesting references, and chose an essay, <u>this one</u>, from the Russian reference to read. It has some good stuff and some strange stuff. An example of its good stuff: “3. Ethnic: the ideology of the New World Order insists on utmost racial, national, ethnic, and cultural intermixing of peoples, giving preference to cosmopolitism of large cities. National and mini-national movements, used earlier by the mondialists in their fight against ‘greater nationalism’ of the imperial type, will be decisively suppressed, as there will be no place left for them in this Order. On all levels, national politics of the World Government will be oriented towards intermixing, cosmopolitism, melting pot, and so forth.” An example of its strange stuff: “4. Religious: the ideology of the New World Order is preparing the coming into the world of a certain mystical figure, the appearance of which, is supposed to sharply change the religious-ideological scene on the planet. Ideologists of mondialism are themselves convinced that what is meant by this is the coming into the world of Moshiah, the Messiah who will unveil laws of a new religion to humanity and will perform many miracles. The era of pragmatic use of atheist, rationalist, and materialist doctrines by mondialists is over. Now, they are proclaiming the coming of an epoch of ‘new religiosity.’ “ All in all, it’s a movement I want to learn more about: any body of thought that opposes the New World Order is something I want to know more about. I see the New World Order as the instantiation of maximum nothingness, maximum meaninglessness, and maximum entropy—a shortcut to the Void, in other words. 24
Posted by Delmore Macnamara on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:32 | # Is this National Bolshevidsm connected with all the Limonov stuff in “the eXile”? I am sometimes genuinely unable to distinguish between the satire and the factual content at that site at first (and sometimes second) glance; it is rather like watching “Brass Eye”. 25
Posted by sr on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:31 | # Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scrooby thinks that I am “posting from Russia” because of my mail.ru address. There happens to be a free mail server there: whether the actual physical server—the one with the hard disk—is REALLY in Russia I’m sure I don’t know. NBP and BNP are anagrams, but so what? Yes, Dugin is important. For my development, he - his writing - was very important. Come, all ye weary bloggers, and read about Leviathan and its (and our) future: 26
Posted by sr on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:07 | # This is a bit off topic, but Malthus has come up already, and it made me wonder if anyone here has read Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty”. Paraphrasing from memory: “We sail through space on a capacious vessel, living below decks; and whenever victuals grow scarce, we have only to throw open a new hatch to find untouched supplies on deck.”—a sentiment prefiguring Julian Simon. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:33 | # “sr,” if you can bring yourself to be plain for a moment instead of trying to appear inaccessible, can you say whether or not you are you in sympathy with the following (which I quoted in my comment above) as a criticism of the New World Order? (If you aren’t, why aren’t you?) “3. Ethnic: the ideology of the New World Order insists on utmost racial, national, ethnic, and cultural intermixing of peoples, giving preference to cosmopolitism of large cities. National and mini-national movements, used earlier by the mondialists in their fight against ‘greater nationalism’ of the imperial type, will be decisively suppressed, as there will be no place left for them in this Order. On all levels, national politics of the World Government will be oriented towards intermixing, cosmopolitism, melting pot, and so forth.” I gather Bolshevik Nationalism absolutely abhors the Bushes, père et fils. Is that right? 28
Posted by sr on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:45 | # Dear Mr. Scrooby: Post a comment:
Next entry: Go Jacques! Go Paris!
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:35 | #
Britain is now - without any question - entering the ranks of the oil importers. The North Sea field is in decline, this is not speculation, but fact.
Setting aside the global Peak Oil issue, Britain does face its own unfolding mini-peak crisis.
Was it only a year or so ago truckers in England were staging protests over higher gas prices?