Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on October 28, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil: Same Nonsense, Different Day Pt 2

General Ideas

This is a follow-up to my most recent post, in which I offered a few observations on commentary attempting to debunk the concept of peak oil courtesy of this recent article by John Kemp. [Quotes here are from the Kemp article unless noted otherwise.] 

Economist James Hamilton, a professor at the University of California, recently shared a report of his which concluded that high oil prices are the new standards all of us should accept as one of the unpleasant realities of 21st Century energy supply and production. Of course, not all are inclined to accept realities which interfere their agendas.

No denier worthy of the name will of course offer up their contribution of nonsense without making certain that the “running out of oil” allegation makes its appearance, and this article honored that mandate:

The simple theory that supplies will run out has been reframed as a more sophisticated one about rising prices.
Peak oil supporters now point to the increasing cost of oil production, diminishing energy return on investment and the diminishing energy return on energy invested to claim that it is becoming harder and more expensive to sustain, let alone increase, crude output.

As I’ve noted on countless occasions, the claim that advocates urging greater awareness of peak oil by running the “we’re running out of oil” meme is simply false. No explanation of the important facts about declining production relies on that notion. Fossil fuels are finite resources, so at some point in this planet’s future, we may very well have explored, extracted, and produced all but the smallest puddles of oil.

Chances are excellent that if we do get to that point, it will be many centuries after we current inhabitants have left the building. That truth won’t stop the deniers from advancing the claim, because … well, because if you can’t deal with facts, making up your own is the obvious Plan B.

Peak oil is about the rate of production. At some point the combination of technological, economic, and geological factors will result in a high point of production—not terribly complicated, actually. Most in the know suggest that conventional crude oil production peaked in 2005; here in the U.S., about forty-plus years ago.

There’s no disputing the surge in production hydraulic fracturing has been responsible for in the past few years. So Kemp’s comment that “Peak oil supporters now point to the increasing cost of oil production, diminishing energy return on investment and the diminishing energy return on energy invested to claim that it is becoming harder and more expensive to sustain, let alone increase, crude output” is simply a recitation of the truth. Those factors won’t go away because deniers don’t like what they suggest.

Adding irrelevancies and/or working overtime to spin facts into something else is also part of the standard MO.

If oil wells were not extremely profitable, North Dakota and Texas would not be experiencing a drilling boom, with demand for both rigs and petroleum engineers at the highest level for three decades.
In focusing on decline rates, Hamilton ignores the ultimate amount of oil and gas recovered from shale wells, which in many cases is higher than from conventional wells.
The second section of the paper suggests that much of the increase in oil output since 2005 has in fact been “low quality” natural gas liquids rather than true crude, but then the fifth section acknowledges production from shale has increased U.S. crude output by a net 2.3 million barrels per day.

What does “extremely profitable” mean? Over what period of time? Current conditions? Expectations? If the “sweet spots” are now part of fracking’s past, meaning higher costs, more effort, with less to show for it all, then what’s the conclusion to be drawn? A spike in profitability because the best spots were produced first (before the high decline rates quickly inserted themselves into the narrative) will in most instances of course lead to a drilling boom, rig demand increases, and more hiring.

What’s the picture  going forward, given higher costs, more effort, with less to show for it all? That part of the discussion didn’t find its way into the script.

As for the third paragraph in the quote above, kudos for the gymnastic effort! Pointing out the facts of “low quality” natural gas liquids while acknowledging the broader definition of “crude oil” are two different issues.

Was it too difficult to explain that production totals have been massaged in recent years to include products neither part of the calculations prior to the peak nor adequate substitutes for conventional crude? Word count limits can be a pain in the ass, can’t they?

Peak oil is simply an acknowledgment that we are dealing with a finite resource which is in fact becoming more challenging to locate and extract, more expensive, and more energy-intensive than it ever has. When you factor in the reality that conventional crude oil’s peak is now a decade into the mirror and the limitations mentioned above, more of our attention ought to be devoted to education, preparation, and adaptation than conjuring up the most creative way to spin facts and reality into some farce designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

peak oil matters



33 Comments on "Peak Oil: Same Nonsense, Different Day Pt 2"

  1. Plantagenet on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 11:14 am 

    People who complain about the change in definition of oil to include natural gas liquids don’t seem to understand that this wasn’t somthing done by the fracking companies or the oilcos. It was the Obama administration’s EIA office that changed the definition of oil in their information releases and regulatory functions. Federal regulations have the effect of law, so this change is effectively the law of the land now.

  2. Perk Earl on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 11:28 am 

    Tell you what, Plant, I’ll accept that new definition as the new law of the land, if you’ll accept Obama-Care as the new law of the land. If we have a deal, maybe we can help convince lawmakers on Capitol hill to stop taking votes on repealing Obama-Care.

  3. GregT on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 11:32 am 

    Obama certainly is a busy man, isn’t he Plant? Now he runs the EIA too?

    Amazing, considering all of the time that he spends golfing.

    Obama, the Omnipotent!

  4. Plantagenet on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 11:45 am 

    @Peak Earl: Yes, Of course Obamacare is the law of the land. Next question, please?

    @GregT: Of course the EIA is part of the Obama administration. Yes, Obama does indeed spend a lot of time golfing. And no, although it may be hard for you to accept, Obama isn’t “Omnipotent.” Any other questions?

    Always glad to help. Have a great day!

  5. Davy on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 11:59 am 

    Cheers Planter, we all know Obama sucks but who cares. I would rather you give me some juicy tabloid on how Michele and BiG O fight.
    My Italian girlfriend tells me the poop from the Italian embassy drivers is Michele is a huge bitch and mean and their fights are legendary.
    Can you blame O for wanting to play golf? Between the bitches on Capitol hill and at the White House what is O to do?
    Now Planter isn’t that more fun than picking apart boring Washington political drudge?

  6. Plantagenet on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 12:38 pm 

    Cheers Daver. You are right—that is much better.

    THANKS!

  7. Northwest Resident on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 1:08 pm 

    Speaking of Obama:

    Biderman Blasts “Either Obama Is Ignorant, Or He Is Hiding The Truth”

    ht tp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-28/biderman-blasts-either-obama-ignorant-or-he-hiding-truth

    ARE YOU KIDDING?! It is Obama’s JOB to hide the truth, to sooth the masses, to make Americans feel all warm and fuzzy, to boost their confidence in BAU forever and to be the Pied Piper who leads us all over the cliff.

    I pity Obama. I really believe that he had grand ideas of helping people, of making things better once he got into office. It must have been very bitter and disillusioning indeed to find out, once in office, that he’s nothing but a rubber stamp and the designated speech giver. And to realize that in fact there is nothing that can be done to save or help the vast majority of humanity. Man, that must have hurt like hell to have to come face-to-face with that realization.

  8. Jared on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 1:14 pm 

    when will global conventional production actually begin to decline? It’s amazing mankind has maintained such a plateau for 9 years running.

    Me thinks conventional decline will far outpace fracking growth.

  9. GregT on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 1:15 pm 

    NWR,

    Totally agree. I’m sure that once ‘O’ got into the White House, he was very quickly, and quietly, ‘explained’ what his role really is.

  10. bobinget on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 2:37 pm 

    The West is fighting in the ME over who gets the last barrel of ‘cheap’ oil.

    Because technology sometimes works with spectacular results, Peak Cheap Oil has been delayed. Does it mater if anyone here is in at the end?

    I just hope my grandson doesn’t have to fight for oil in Argentina.

  11. Davy on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 2:46 pm 

    Bob, when my 7 yr. olds get to military age I will train them in what they need to know about fighting. I am also going to tell them to stay out of the military and only fight locally if a civil war breaks out which is highly likely in a dissolving BAU. From here on out foreign wars are only benefiting the Den of Thieves in DC and NY. There is no reason in hell my boys should be cannon fodder for the Beltway Boys.

  12. Plantagenet on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 2:52 pm 

    NwR & GreGT

    Who are these secret people who give Obama orders? Can you name some names? And how do they communicate their orders to Obama…..do they have secret passageways in the White House so they can slip and in out of the oval office unnoticed by the secret service to give their orders? Or do they beam their orders directly into his head via an alien implant? Or maybe they pop up out of the brush when Obama hits a golf ball into the rough and shove an envelope into the pocket of his golf sweater with the day’s instructions?

    How does it all go down?

    Surely you base your beliefs on more then just a fantasy? So back up what you are saying—Who ARE the people who you think are bossing Obama around and secretly running things? Please name some names…

  13. sunweb on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 2:58 pm 

    Perk Earl – I know this isn’t about Obamacare but I get tired of hearing such a misnomer. This is Lobbycare. Lots of money went into keeping it in the hands of the insurance companies and actually trying to set it up to fail. The whole damn system is culpable. Lobbycare the way the corporations like it.

  14. Plantagenet on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 3:12 pm 

    NwR and GregT:

    I’m going to withdraw my question. People who believe in conspiracy theories (like the theory that a secret cabal is controlling Obama) often have their own issues—things like anxiety disorder, paranoia, psychosis etc.

    If your fantasy that mysterious unknown people are giving obama orders and Obama doesn’t actually control the obama administration makes sense to you, then good on you.

    Have a great day!

  15. Davy on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 3:13 pm 

    Planter surely you don’t think Obama runs the show like we believed when we were kids growing up. $$ talks and Presidents listen. O can manage decisions but the decisions are given to O to manage. IOW O can stir the soup but the cooks in the kitchen have created the soup.

  16. Northwest Resident on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 3:14 pm 

    Plant — Slow afternoon? Looking to start another mud fight? Did I hit a nerve and cause poor little Planty-poo a little pain? None of that sarcastic goofball crap you just wrote is anything that I (or GregT that I know of) has ever stated or asserted. I’ve explained my POV on the subject to you several times. Not only do you never “get it”, you take my statements out of context and twist them into false accusations that you then use to belittle and insult. That’s what you DO. Go back to the shadows!

  17. Davy on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 3:22 pm 

    Sun, great point on the Lobbycare! DC is for all practical purposes a money laundering joint for the den of thieves in DC/NY. I lost all respect for Obama when he jumped into bed with the bankers in 08. Not that I am a liberal or conservative or a Republican or Democrat, no, this is about hypocrisy. O, said so many things contrary to what he did. One of those things was his preaching he would help the less fortunate. Now he plays golf with the rich and famous. Yet, like NR/Greg mention he is just a figure head for a force behind the faces.

  18. Joe D. on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 4:16 pm 

    “Who are these secret people who give Obama orders?”.

    It’s no secret. Former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan tells Ronald Reagan to speed it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3RqMMIwD4

    Ignorance is bliss!

  19. Don on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 4:24 pm 

    I am about as far right as a person can get, without being an anarchist. In much the same way that I hate trusting work on my car to a mechanic because I know I can do a better job and will have more attention to detail than any mechanic, I hate trusting such a large part of my life to “the government”. I am pretty sure I can do a better job protecting myself than a police officer can, and I am fairly certain I know how to spend my money better than a politician.

    As far as people that Obama is beholden to that’s easy to answer. Mary Kay Henry, Dick Trumka and the heads of other unions, Terry O’Neill, George Soros, every one of his political allies that would like to keep their cushy gov’t jobs, as well as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to keep the black community voting Democrat. The list is much larger but to be able to get himself into the position he pretty much had to affirm that he would act in these peoples best interest.

    If you need an example Plant, everyone was okay with GM failing until the UAW stepped in and let O know that their host dying would be bad for them, and that it would be his fault if all those union jobs were lost, next thing you know GM was “too big to fail”.

  20. Davy on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 4:29 pm 

    Hey Bob, tonight on “Frontline” on PBS there is a special on the rise of ISIL. Thought you might enjoy that with your interest in the current ME conflicts.

  21. J-Gav on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 4:45 pm 

    Don – A word to the wise – Go that extra step and become an anarchist! I mean a real one (no violence necessary). That’s about the only place left and right might end up joining hands.

  22. J-Gav on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 4:58 pm 

    Don again – Sorry I was a tad short there on a subject which merits some explanation.

    The essence of true anarchism has nothing to do with bomb-tossing or window-smashing. It’s simply a matter of common sense. Read Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin’s work, especially ‘The Conquest of Bread’ and ‘Mutual Aid’ and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Let the best at what they’re able to do rise as high as they can in that activity and any community will be better off. Facilitate that by all possible means. Stifle it and the community will choke, become dysfunctional and wither.

  23. ghung on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 5:42 pm 

    Regarding Plant: “Who are these secret people who give Obama orders? Can you name some names? And how do they communicate their orders to Obama”

    Orders? I think many folks miss the reality of ‘becoming POTUS’. I remember shortly after taking office Obama had that deer-in-the-headlights look for a time. Bush 43 had it, and I recall Clinton not looking quite so confident as he had, just after the election. It comes somewhere between the swearing in and the first State of the Union, just after the great “Need to Know” moment; the point where the true state of the Union is explained to the new President, along with the unpublished but very real limits to presidential power being made apparent. Rubber stamp? Maybe not, but the President’s primary job is to not upset the apple cart. Requires walking a fine line; not enough wiggle room for big changes, no matter how important and critical the need.

    It comes from deeply embedded bureaucrats who nobody ever heard of and may include things like the true state of climate change, who likely has WMDs no one else wants to know about, some facts regarding economic conditions,, and, yes, the implications and unavoidablity of peak oil; things like that which cannot be admitted to or addressed in any official sense. That’s why we get lip service on these issues, and policies that only dance around the edges of these predicaments. It must be a humbling time for someone who dreamed so big; finding those dreams dashed upon the hard road of reality.

    So we get laws and policy changes that don’t really change anything, like Obamacare and ‘economic reforms’ that reform nothing much,, or wars-not-of-necessity; whatever keeps true situational awareness assigned to the fringes, like the peak oilers or the climate alarmists, etc.

  24. bobinget on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 5:52 pm 

    I swiped this post on another energy related board
    and thought to share here.

    by

    charles_chessie

    (investor village)

    I
    EIA’s forecasts for individual tight oil plays
    In light of your well received post regarding fusion. Thanks for addressing some of fusion’s history & the likely future contribution of fusion. As a thank you, I will attempt to answer your question, “Will we be lucky again?”

    First, IMO, very little luck was involved. George Mitchell, like yourself with experience dating to the ’60’s & earlier, & as a Geologist and an Petroleum Engineer, recognized early & very clearly that the US was running out of inexpensive & easy to obtain O&G. Mr. Mitchell started working in North Texas developing prospects which he sold to get his geologic Ideas drilled. Discoveries, validating his ideas, lead to production. Mostly in North Texas mostly NG with NG liquids. Had to sell that NG to make $ to make $ to drill & to the west was this growing city, Dallas, you can figure that part of the story, so I will move on.

    In the ’60’s, 70’s & early ’80’s this same drilling activity occurred Onshore & Offshore. Someone described the US as a pin cushion, holes-wells-everywhere. & data from every well drilled, plus hard evidence, cores, samples, micro-fossils. all combined to tell a geologic story. Briefly, “shows” of hydrocarbons were encountered while drilling through certain shale intervals in specific Basins in the US. Stable Basins that preserved the rocks & cooked-generated hydrocarbons from the organic content preserved in the shale’s. The shale’s I am describing are source rocks. Described as sandy, or limey shale’s with a relatively high organic content, as in ~3-6% of the total rock material. The organic were in place during the deposition of the shale. Deposition occurred almost exclusively in a marine environment. Simple put in a body-large-of H2O. Bury the shale, with time, with increasing depth, pressure & temperature increased, basically a pressure cooker. The result, hydrocarbons, throw in some tectonics, faulting & the hydrocarbons migrated upward to actual reservoir rock. Fast forward to Colonel Drake, Oil City, PA. & the 1ST COMMERCIAL Oil discovery. The source, the Marcellus, which is now @ 16 BCF/day the largest NG field in the US & I suspect in the World by production.

    All of the US source rock is known location wise, some shale is slightly metamorphosed. That is like can a women be slightly pregnant? At this point, I will overlook frac’ing, horizontal drilling, 3D etc.. Year ago Mr. Mitchell was frac’ing the gross Barnett Shale interval in 200′ segments, thus 4-5 frac jobs were employed in an attempt to make commercial NG & NG liquids completions. Today, ~5260′ horizontals out of vertical well bores require ~26 frac jobs, same ~200′ individual frac jobs to complete a Marcellus or a Barnett well. Only today, in Central & NE PA, with $2.00/MCF as a strip price, Marcellus drilling is now, on average, non-commercial, I will not belabor the production #’s, but even a 2 BCF net Marcellus well in the 1ST year, a far above average well, @ ~$2.00/MCF will not be viable.

    As usual, far to much detail, but how did the US Shale plays get to this point without attention to detail? To wrap this up, conventional hydrocarbon production is steadily fading, now , but @ a sustainable economic rates? If here, I will not be investing in that Operator.

    & finally as a 2ND, the US will not be lucky again unless our children or grandchildren unlock fusion, or hydrogen or a hybrid that makes it’s own power & stores some of the output to extend the range of the ultra light smart vehicle.

  25. bobinget on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 5:59 pm 

    Here’s a fair minded report on the state of ‘Fusion’
    today.

    I worked at the first nuclear fusion project, the Stellarator, in 1960 as an incoming PhD student in EE. I have followed the space closely for someone not working in the area, and I know some of the people who have made contributions in this space over the years.

    We are looking at 55 years plus of efforts to “confine” the material for the fusion reaction sufficiently long to produce more energy out than goes in. Lockheed has not yet proved that it can do this, at least not at the peer review level, which is the only way we can believe results in this field.

    I am writing this because I believe fusion is still decades away from commercial use. Here’s why.

    A major, and unaddressed, problem will be to bring the energy generated to electrical generators to generate electricity. In fission plants, the surface area over which the fluid extracts heat is many orders of magnitude larger than the expected size of the containment volume for fusion. In addition, any engineering solution, I suggest, will interfere with the mechanisms used to create containment.

    In short, we still don’t have proof of a working system at grid scale, and we have no idea of how to capture the energy for external use when we do reach that objective.

    My opinion: don’t make investment decisions based on the near term use of nuclear fusion.

  26. Perk Earl on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 6:58 pm 

    “Perk Earl – I know this isn’t about Obamacare but I get tired of hearing such a misnomer. This is Lobbycare. Lots of money went into keeping it in the hands of the insurance companies and actually trying to set it up to fail. The whole damn system is culpable. Lobbycare the way the corporations like it.”

    sunweb, I actually didn’t know what to expect after it passed. But here in CA we have California Covered and it’s worked out well for my wife and I, with much lower bills. I took advantage of it and saved a bundle on several procedures I’d previously held off on. Of course one hospital tried to charge an extra 16,281.80 and I had to play defense for a while. They had no reasons they could state as to why I owed mo money, but kept sending bills and finally threatened to send it to collections. After a conference call with my insurer in which they were informed I had paid the maximum for that procedure allowed, they relented. Geez, what a bunch of crooks! But I figure they are doing that because they don’t feel they’re making enough with Obamacare in effect.

    We also benefitted from Harp II. We went from a 6.5% fixed, to a 4.25% fixed. Made a huge difference and the amortization is more favorable, so much more goes to principal.

    So actually O is the only prez that we benefitted from. How it plays out for the rest of America is anyone’s guess.

    I feel sorry for the guy now. His hair is blotching into different shades of black and grey. He looks really tired. He no longer has much power, so he just fills a role until somebody else gets in, or collapse occurs first. For him and the sake of his family, I hope he hands the sucker off to somebody else before all hell breaks loose.

  27. redpill on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 8:07 pm 

    ghung, well said! And to top it off, the new president gets advised as to the real state of things while the global economy is on the edge of kaput.

    Did ghung’s post seem reasonable Plant? Can you allow for the load of “Need to Know Only” intel that a new president gets handed putting the kibosh on any well intentioned plans?

  28. Northwest Resident on Tue, 28th Oct 2014 9:05 pm 

    True power in Washington derives from BIG MONEY. No senator or congressman gets elected without BIG MONEY on his/her side. BIG MONEY buys the loyalty and obedience of elected officials, bureaucrats, government apparatchiks, lobbyists and someday-to-be lobbyists — there is no limit to what or who BIG MONEY will buy. Nothing gets done on the Federal or international level without consensus, and consensus can be and IS shaped by BIG MONEY concerns. BIG MONEY may not be able to get everything that it wants, but BIG MONEY can stop just about any policy initiative dead in its tracks. Presidents learn this quickly, no doubt, and find themselves having to compromise with BIG MONEY on every single major policy decision they have to make, and plenty of the smaller ones too. Secret cabal telling the president what to do? Not likely. But I’m sure the president has heard something like this uncountable times: “Mr. President, my caucus is going to vote no on your initiative and we have the votes to stop it. However, if you would bend just a little on this other issue that is important to my constituents (i.e., BIG MONEY MEN), then we might be able to get your initiative passed, with considerable modifications of course.” BIG MONEY deploys ARMIES of bought-and-paid-for agents to do their bidding. BIG MONEY connives and schemes to get hand-picked favorites into positions of power — like, on the Supreme Court. BIG MONEY buys votes. BIG MONEY was there long before President XYZ took office, and will be there long after President XYZ leaves office. Who really controls national and international policy and politics? BIG MONEY. And who controls BIG MONEY? You know who some of them are, or even perhaps most of them. They are hiding in plain sight. It isn’t even a secret.

  29. Nony on Wed, 29th Oct 2014 3:55 am 

    How much of the shale boom did Hamilton predict? That guy is a joke. A trend-reading econometricist rather than a supply and demand thinker.

    His papers are puff pieces too. Lot of citations and reviews of other studies and very little new analysis, data, or math.

  30. marmico on Wed, 29th Oct 2014 7:00 am 

    How much of the shale boom did Hamilton predict?

    Nada. I don’t think he is a joke but he is definitely a trend follower, to wit:

    My conclusion is that hundred-dollar oil is here to stay.*

    Have you read his blog enough (I don’t since he allows westexas to post his crap non-stop) to get a handle on his position on Maugeri’s June 2012 paper.

    Friday, the doomsteaders will have to re-assess U.S. gasoline spending as a percent of after-tax income or total spending. Gasoline is a bargain. Here is staring you down Tverberg. Wow, gasoline is approaching 3% of income or spending. The U.S. is doomed by peak oil. 🙂

    *

  31. theedrich on Wed, 29th Oct 2014 5:11 pm 

    What Plantagenet and one or two others are saying is absolutely on target.  The obvious reason that O spends so much of his non-golfing time at Democrat fundraisers is because money is the mother’s milk of politics.  There is also one reason, and one reason only, why such an incompetent has been elected president:  White guilt.  This is the primary (though not the only) neurosis underlying the Protestant ethic of the America Way.  Lacking any serious culture based on a common ancestry, Bible-based guilt stemming from a presumed “fall” from an imaginary paradise is the root of the “guiltism” which profoundly infects even atheists and the most extreme materialists in Yankeeland.

    In reality, the Genesis story is a myth, not of a “fall,” but of man’s rise — his rise from the animal state to sapient consciousness.  The “two” trees in the myth are actually the same tree, a metaphor for the Central Nervous System (the “tree” both of life and of knowledge) with its “foliage” in the brain — the “fruit” of which is not an “apple” but knowledge itself.  The talking snake is a metaphor for curiosity, more intense in homo sapiens than in any other species.  Becoming clothed is a symbol of the recognition of selfness apart from society and the environment.  (Such progression can be seen in small children as well.)

    But this guilt theme pervades all of American history and is also used as an excuse for most of its wars:  we missionaries of righteousness are fighting people onto whom we have projected guilt.  Domestically, O is only the most recent manifestation of this neurosis, a psychopathy bordering at times on psychosis.  Our discontent with civilization is often framed in terms of such guilt, and non-Western, pre-literate peoples (e.g., Amerinds) are subconsciously presumed to be hominids who are somehow still pristine Edenic innocents.  The myth of the noble eco-savage, of the “White Man’s burden,” and all the rest of liberal double-speak derive from this twisted religious narrative, even though no long recognized as such.  (Communism, of course, was attractive precisely because it promised to return all mankind to paradise;  ditto for other camouflages of mass delusion.)

    But the game is almost up.  The guilt motif diverts attention away from such things as the massive theft of Obamacare and the TBTF institutions, as well as from the true nature of American bribe-ocracy.  O is only this motif’s most recent and extreme manifestation as we head into dissolution and dictatorship.

  32. Craig Ruchman on Wed, 29th Oct 2014 10:05 pm 

    ‘In reality, the Genesis story is a myth, not of a “fall,” but of man’s rise’

    theedrich,nothing is ever what it seems, yet it looks like you are on to something. Take the story of Cain and Abel. There were not too many career choices back then, mostly crop farmer or shepherd, and both jobs were needed to survive. So Cain found his life’s work unacceptable, while Abel and his sheep got the winning hand. If I were Cain, I would be pissed also, and as I would guess, so would anybody else who happened to be in his shoes at the time. So just what is the story really about?

    Meanwhile, the Yin and Yang concept has it that after a meteoric rise or peak, get ready for a great fall or depletion.

  33. theedrich on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 4:13 am 

    Craig,

    Yup.  Envy is baked in our genetic cake, as the Cain & Abel myth shows.  Not a good sign of things to come.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *