Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on December 25, 2017

Bookmark and Share

The United States of America Is Decadent and Depraved

The United States of America Is Decadent and Depraved thumbnail

In The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon luridly evokes the Rome of 408 A.D., when the armies of the Goths prepared to descend upon the city. The marks of imperial decadence appeared not only in grotesque displays of public opulence and waste, but also in the collapse of faith in reason and science. The people of Rome, Gibbon writes, fell prey to “a puerile superstition” promoted by astrologers and to soothsayers who claimed “to read in the entrails of victims the signs of future greatness and prosperity.”

Would a latter-day Gibbon describe today’s America as “decadent”? I recently heard a prominent, and pro-American, French thinker (who was speaking off the record) say just that. He was moved to use the word after watching endless news accounts of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tweets alternate with endless revelations of sexual harassment. I flinched, perhaps because a Frenchman accusing Americans of decadence seems contrary to the order of nature. And the reaction to Harvey Weinstein et al. is scarcely a sign of hysterical puritanism, as I suppose he was implying.

And yet, the shoe fit. The sensation of creeping rot evoked by that word seems terribly apt.

Perhaps in a democracy the distinctive feature of decadence is not debauchery but terminal self-absorption

Perhaps in a democracy the distinctive feature of decadence is not debauchery but terminal self-absorption

— the loss of the capacity for collective action, the belief in common purpose, even the acceptance of a common form of reasoning. We listen to necromancers who prophesy great things while they lead us into disaster. We sneer at the idea of a “public” and hold our fellow citizens in contempt. We think anyone who doesn’t pursue self-interest is a fool.

We cannot blame everything on Donald Trump, much though we might want to. In the decadent stage of the Roman Empire, or of Louis XVI’s France, or the dying days of the Habsburg Empire so brilliantly captured in Robert Musil’s The Man Without Qualities, decadence seeped downward from the rulers to the ruled. But in a democracy, the process operates reciprocally. A decadent elite licenses degraded behavior, and a debased public chooses its worst leaders. Then our Nero panders to our worst attributes — and we reward him for doing so.

“Decadence,” in short, describes a cultural, moral, and spiritual disorder — the Donald Trump in us. It is the right, of course, that first introduced the language of civilizational decay to American political discourse. A quarter of a century ago, Patrick Buchanan bellowed at the Republican National Convention that the two parties were fighting “a religious war … for the soul of America.” Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) accused the Democrats of practicing “multicultural nihilistic hedonism,” of despising the values of ordinary Americans, of corruption, and of illegitimacy. That all-accusing voice became the voice of the Republican Party. Today it is not the nihilistic hedonism of imperial Rome that threatens American civilization but the furies unleashed by Gingrich and his kin.

About the Author

James Traub is a contributing editor at Foreign Policy, a fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, and author of the book “John Quincy Adams: Militant Spirit.”

The 2016 Republican primary was a bidding war in which the relatively calm voices — Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio — dropped out in the early rounds, while the consummately nasty Ted Cruz duked it out with the consummately cynical Donald Trump. A year’s worth of Trump’s cynicism, selfishness, and rage has only stoked the appetite of his supporters. The nation dodged a bullet last week when a colossal effort pushed Democratic nominee Doug Jones over the top in Alabama’s Senate special election. Nevertheless, the church-going folk of Alabama were perfectly prepared to choose a racist and a pedophile over a Democrat. Republican nominee Roy Moore almost became a senator by orchestrating a hatred of the other that was practically dehumanizing.

Trump functions as the impudent id of this culture of mass contempt

Trump functions as the impudent id of this culture of mass contempt

. Of course he has legitimized the language of xenophobia and racial hatred, but he has also legitimized the language of selfishness. During the campaign, Trump barely even made the effort that Mitt Romney did in 2012 to explain his money-making career in terms of public good. He boasted about the gimmicks he had deployed to avoid paying taxes. Yes, he had piled up debt and walked away from the wreckage he had made in Atlantic City. But it was a great deal for him! At the Democratic convention, then-Vice President Joe Biden recalled that the most terrifying words he heard growing up were, “You’re fired.” Biden may have thought he had struck a crushing blow. Then Americans elected the man who had uttered those words with demonic glee. Voters saw cruelty and naked self-aggrandizement as signs of steely determination.

Perhaps we can measure democratic decadence by the diminishing relevance of the word “we.” It is, after all, a premise of democratic politics that, while majorities choose, they do so in the name of collective good. Half a century ago, at the height of the civil rights era and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, democratic majorities even agreed to spend large sums not on themselves but on excluded minorities. The commitment sounds almost chivalric today. Do any of our leaders have the temerity even to suggest that a tax policy that might hurt one class — at least, one politically potent class — nevertheless benefits the nation?

There is, in fact, no purer example of the politics of decadence than the tax legislation that the president will soon sign. Of course the law favors the rich; Republican supply-side doctrine argues that tax cuts to the investor class promote economic growth. What distinguishes the current round of cuts from those of either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush is, first, the way in which they blatantly benefit the president himself through the abolition of the alternative minimum tax and the special treatment of real estate income under new “pass-through” rules. We Americans are so numb by now that we hardly even take note of the mockery this implies of the public servant’s dedication to public good.

Second, and no less extraordinary, is the way the tax cuts have been targeted to help Republican voters and hurt Democrats, above all through the abolition or sharp reduction of the deductibility of state and local taxes. I certainly didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan, but I cannot imagine him using tax policy to reward supporters and punish opponents

I certainly didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan, but I cannot imagine him using tax policy to reward supporters and punish opponents

. He would have thought that grossly unpatriotic. The new tax cuts constitute the economic equivalent of gerrymandering. All parties play that game, it’s true; yet today’s Republicans have carried electoral gerrymandering to such an extreme as to jeopardize the constitutionally protected principle of “one man, one vote.” Inside much of the party, no stigma attaches to the conscious disenfranchisement of Democratic voters. Democrats are not “us.”

Finally, the tax cut is an exercise in willful blindness. The same no doubt could be said for the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, which predictably led to unprecedented deficits when Republicans as well as Democrats balked at making offsetting budget cuts. Yet at the time a whole band of officials in the White House and the Congress clamored, in some cases desperately, for such reductions. They accepted a realm of objective reality that existed separately from their own wishes. But in 2017, when the Congressional Budget Office and other neutral arbiters concluded that the tax cuts would not begin to pay for themselves, the White House and congressional leaders simply dismissed the forecasts as too gloomy.

Here is something genuinely new about our era: We lack not only a sense of shared citizenry or collective good, but even a shared body of fact or a collective mode of reasoning toward the truth

We lack not only a sense of shared citizenry or collective good, but even a shared body of fact or a collective mode of reasoning toward the truth

. A thing that we wish to be true is true; if we wish it not to be true, it isn’t. Global warming is a hoax. Barack Obama was born in Africa. Neutral predictions of the effects of tax cuts on the budget must be wrong, because the effects they foresee are bad ones.

It is, of course, our president who finds in smoking entrails the proof of future greatness and prosperity. The reduction of all disagreeable facts and narratives to “fake news” will stand as one of Donald Trump’s most lasting contributions to American culture, far outliving his own tenure. He has, in effect, pressed gerrymandering into the cognitive realm. Your story fights my story; if I can enlist more people on the side of my story, I own the truth. And yet Trump is as much symptom as cause of our national disorder. The Washington Post recently reported that officials at the Center for Disease Control were ordered not to use words like “science-based,” apparently now regarded as disablingly left-leaning. But further reporting in the New York Times appears to show that the order came not from White House flunkies but from officials worried that Congress would reject funding proposals marred by the offensive terms. One of our two national political parties — and its supporters — now regards “science” as a fighting word. Where is our Robert Musil, our pitiless satirist and moralist, when we need him (or her)?

A democratic society becomes decadent when its politics, which is to say its fundamental means of adjudication, becomes morally and intellectually corrupt. But the loss of all regard for common ground is hardly limited to the political right, or for that matter to politics. We need only think of the ever-unfolding narrative of Harvey Weinstein, which has introduced us not only to one monstrous individual but also to a whole world of well-educated, well-paid, highly regarded professionals who made a very comfortable living protecting that monster. “When you quickly settle, there is no need to get into all the facts,” as one of his lawyers delicately advised.

This is, of course, what lawyers do, just as accountants are paid to help companies move their profits into tax-free havens. What is new and distinctive, however, is the lack of apology or embarrassment, the sheer blitheness of the contempt for the public good. When Teddy Roosevelt called the monopolists of his day “malefactors of great wealth,” the epithet stung — and stuck. Now the bankers and brokers and private equity barons who helped drive the nation’s economy into a ditch in 2008 react with outrage when they’re singled out for blame. Being a “wealth creator” means never having to say you’re sorry. Enough voters accept this proposition that Donald Trump paid no political price for unapologetic greed.

The worship of the marketplace, and thus the elevation of selfishness to a public virtue, is a doctrine that we associate with the libertarian right. But it has coursed through the culture as a self-justifying ideology for rich people of all political persuasions — perhaps also for people who merely dream of becoming rich.

Decadence is usually understood as an irreversible condition — the last stage before collapse. The court of Muhammad Shah, last of the Mughals to control the entirety of their empire, lost itself in music and dance while the Persian army rode toward the Red Fort. But as American decadence is distinctive, perhaps America’s fate may be, too. Even if it is written in the stars that China will supplant the United States as the world’s greatest power, other empires, Britain being the most obvious example and the one democracy among them, have surrendered the role of global hegemon without sliding into terminal decadence.

Can the United States emulate the stoic example of the country it once surpassed? I wonder.

Can the United States emulate the stoic example of the country it once surpassed? I wonder.

The British have the gift of ironic realism. When the time came to exit the stage, they shuffled off with a slightly embarrassed shrug. That, of course, is not the American way. When the stage manager beckons us into the wings we look for someone to hit — each other, or immigrants or Muslims or any other kind of not-us. Finding the reality of our situation inadmissible, like the deluded courtiers of the Shah of Iran, we slide into a malignant fantasy.

But precisely because we are a democracy, because the values and the mental habits that define us move upward from the people as well as downward from their leaders, that process need not be inexorable. The prospect of sending Roy Moore to the Senate forced a good many conservative Republicans into what may have been painful acts of self-reflection. The revelations of widespread sexual abuse offer an opportunity for a cleansing moment of self-recognition — at least if we stop short of the hysterical overreaction that seems to govern almost everything in our lives.

Our political elite will continue to gratify our worst impulses so long as we continue to be governed by them. The only way back is to reclaim the common ground — political, moral, and even cognitive — that Donald Trump has lit on fire. Losing to China is hardly the worst thing that could happen to us. Losing ourselves is.

Foreign Policy



137 Comments on "The United States of America Is Decadent and Depraved"

  1. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:08 am 

    “Two Chinese companies arrived at the top ten of most valuable companies worldwide:”

    Yea, like HNA and several other Chinese conglomerates that can’t make their debt payments. LOL. Tulip, let’s talk real value not paper value.
    “To Avoid Liquidation Panic, HNA Assures Deutsche Shareholders It’s A “Long-Term Investor”
    https://tinyurl.com/y7q67vk6

  2. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:12 am 

    “…the EU will be at 20% renewable PRIMARY ENERGY in 2020.”

    AND maybe stuck in that range
    “Germany to miss climate targets ‘disastrously’: leaked government paper”
    https://tinyurl.com/yc53wdqk
    “Environment ministry documents reveal 2020 target for cutting emissions to be missed by a large
    margin dealing a “significant blow to Germany’s climate policy”’
    https://tinyurl.com/ya9hz2ye
    If you click this graph and you will see Germany is stuck in the 900 range since 2009.

  3. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:13 am 

    “The IEA and the WSJ are not reliable sources for any real facts.”

    BUT global research dot com is? LMFAO. mad kat you are a real fruit cake of on an old man.

  4. Makati1 on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:17 am 

    Cloggie: NET energy is not what is shown. Just total energy supply, as reported by…the suppliers who would have no reason to lie, would they? (Think stockholders) LOL. Some of that “energy” is used to make/produce that energy. i.e. How much energy was used to pump that oil, make those renewables, grow that corn to make biofuels, etc? No mention of that fact, I guess. Logic says that a huge percent of that “energy” was used to do so. NET is the important number, not gross.

    At one time, a barrel of oil energy produced 100 barrels of oil. Now, I read at numerous sources that we are down to a barrel producing less than 20 barrels on average. How is that a “growing energy?

    “Back in the 1920’s, oil was paying off at 100-to-1,” said Zencey. “It took one barrel of oil to extract, process, refine, ship and deliver 100 barrels of oil. That’s a phenomenal rate of return. If you work out the percentage, that’s a 10,000 percent rate of return.”

    But that’s not the rate of return today. Now, conventional oil production worldwide pays off at about a 20-to-1 ratio. And in Canada, where the oil comes from tar sands, it’s closer to 5-to-1.”

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-11-02/energy-costs-oil-production

    That was in 2012. It is even lower today. Subtract the energy used to produce that energy and it is a declining graph, not the one shown.

  5. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:17 am 

    “I remember 1971 very well when we had 50% less energy consumption than now and were fine then”

    AAh, we won’t be fine going back 50% and if you think we will be you need to study the reality of overshoot and systematic risks. We are surely going there eventually with or without renewables and your Euroland will be there too.

  6. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:18 am 

    ““Germany to miss climate targets ‘disastrously’: leaked government paper””

    From your link:

    Without further action, Germany’s CO2 emissions will only be 31.7% to 32.5% below 1990 levels, an internal environment ministry paper seen by the Clean Energy Wire shows.

    Given the official target of cutting emissions by 40%

    That’s not “disastrous”, that’s disappointing at best.

    But it is still 32% LOWER than 1990.

    Try to beat that, “world”.

  7. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:21 am 

    It shows stagnation and lower achievement which clouds your “peaches and cream” preaching. The worst is ahead and you are not that much further ahead of the US and China with a very shaky (REAL) economy not the MSM broadcasted one.

  8. Makati1 on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:26 am 

    Davy, yes, it is. It is not part of the brainwashing propaganda machine of your masters. At least not yet. ZH is a collection of sources that can be found at their own sites, for the most part. But you cannot refute the facts presented with any reliable sources. Any of the US MSM sources are not acceptable. They are owned by six of your masters. Ditto for government sources. All twisted or lies.

    All you can do is try to shoot the messenger because you don’t want to accept the facts. The facts are that your way of life in the US is dying. Being killed deliberately by your masters. No amount of killing the messenger is going to change that fact or even slow it down. The Great Leveling is underway. The West down. The East up. That is their plan and it appears to be working very well.

  9. Makati1 on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:30 am 

    World population in 1970 = 3,682,500,000 +/-

    World population in 2017 = 7,591,300,000 +/-

  10. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:45 am 

    “But you cannot refute the facts presented with any reliable sources. Any of the US MSM sources are not acceptable.”
    WTF are you talking about mad kat. I am talking about an individual’s ability to understand and process information. Obviously you are so warped out you don’t know the difference. Any information can be studied and digested. It takes intelligent people who want to know the truth to wade through the shit. You on the other hand create the shit so others have to wade through it. I guess in mad kat land it is either good (mad kat data) or bad (mad kat data) according to the mad kat doctrine of anti-Americanism. The worst propaganda nations are in Asia and you worship them

    “At least not yet. ZH is a collection of sources that can be found at their own sites”
    DUUH, so that is supposed to make your ZH surfing OK? Tell that to your friends here.

    “All you can do is try to shoot the messenger because you don’t want to accept the facts.”
    Sorry, mad kat, it is about neutering your revisions to the facts in your agenda peddling that get shot down. You can’t have it both ways mad kat. The truth is agenda blind but you want to only present anti-American facts. When is the last time you present anything anti-Asian? NEVER IS THE ANSWER.

    “The Great Leveling is underway. The West down. The East up. That is their plan and it appears to be working very well”
    That is a classic line from the worst of the propaganda machines of the 20th century. Have you ever thought about going to work for NK and their news network? You would do great. They would not let you into the highest levels because you are the type that believes the shit so they would keep you down on the lowest level retching the propaganda.

  11. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:49 am 

    “World population in 1970 = 3,682,500,000 +/- World population in 2017 = 7,591,300,000 +/-“
    Asia population in 1970 = 2.1BIL +/- Asia population 2017 = 4.5BIL

  12. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:51 am 

    “World population in 1970 = 3,682,500,000 +/-
    World population in 2017 = 7,591,300,000 +/-”

    I was talking about the Netherlands in particular and the West in general:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/dutch-post-war-electricity-production/

    Most increased energy consumption post-1971 went to the West.

  13. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:52 am 

    Clogg

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers

    Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Now go back to your cave Troll..Renewable s are a scam and they cause blackouts

  14. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:52 am 

    “2017 Is The UK’s Greenest Electricity Generation Year Ever”
    https://tinyurl.com/ycywmunf

    “All renewable sources combined generated more electricity than coal-fired plants on 315 days this year, according to figures up to December 12. Wind power generation beat coal on 263 days, and solar generation was more than coal on 180 days in 2017. Overall, renewable sources generated more than three times the amount of coal-generated electricity in the year to December 12.”

  15. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 6:55 am 

    Clogg

    Your source is fake news you have been duped you buffoon..I have some magic beans I would love to sell you..

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

  16. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:00 am 

    https://goo.gl/images/BJj5TE

    Dutch population:

    13 million in 1971
    17 million in 1973

    Electricity consumption increased with a factor of 3 between 1971 and 2010.

    See?

  17. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:05 am 

    not good when SHTF

    488 people per km2

    “People: With over 16.5 million people and a population density of 488 people per km2, the Netherlands is the most densely populated country of the European Union and one of the mostly densely populated countries in the world.”

    “Facts & Figures – Holland.com”
    https://tinyurl.com/y79kw5zc

  18. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:09 am 

    “Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017

    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers“

    Your point? That the US in general and cry babies like you suck with renewable energy? We already knew that.

    Europa has already 20% renewable energy and we are currently in a period of remarkable economic growth and in a position for massive renewable expansion. If we have 50% renewable energy by 2030-2035 we would be already in 1971 waters and safe from peek oil collapse disasters, you are so in love with as the fake wannabee peek oil Nostradamus that you are.

  19. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:18 am 

    “People: With over 16.5 million people and a population density of 488 people per km2, the Netherlands is the most densely populated country of the European Union and one of the mostly densely populated countries in the world.”

    Fortunately populated with kick-ass Hollanders who still manage to have an agricultural export not too far behind exporter #1 USA

    And also very important, we have an 55,000 km2 “energy province” aka North Sea, with 10 m/s average windspeed, with which we, together with Denmark and Germany are poised to become the hydrogen Saudi-Arabia of Europe.

    But I agree with Adolf Trump that the borders need to be closed for further influx from the turd world. We have way too many people.

  20. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:19 am 

    Clogg

    You dont have 20 percent energy you liar…And you never ever will. And peak oil is a liquids fuel problem. Not an electricity generation problem. You are so uneducated its astonishing.

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers

    Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

  21. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:21 am 

    Clogg

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    You are so dumb and you can’t handle the truth. Grow up and move out of your moms basement.

  22. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:22 am 

    “Europa has already 20% renewable energy”

    What is wind and solar component currently and what is the storage capacity currently?

  23. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:22 am 

    Dear Reader,

    Here are five peer reviewed scientific studies authored by top experts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that global civilization will collapse within the next decade.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
    https://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845
    http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
    http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade-off-financial-system-supply-chain-cross-contagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/

    There will be no translation to renewable’s. Remember MM when society collapses! LOL

  24. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:26 am 

    Davy

    They didn’t produce 20 energy. What he means to say is 20 percent “electricity”..And that isn’t even true either. Clogg is energy illiterate and peak oil ignorant. He is not strong minded enough to handle the outcomes of peak oil. So he puts all his faith in unreliable renewables. He makes predictions about the future without any studies or evidence to back them up.

  25. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:32 am 

    “Two highly qualified Google engineers”

    Highly qualified for what? Search engines perhaps.

    We in Europe have thousands

    America needed Germans to get them on the moon.
    Won’t be different with renewable energy. It was rockman who disclosed that all Texas wind farms were built by “f*foreigners” (sic), read Germans.

    Never forget who you are, Yankees: #2

    https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/origin-scientific-accomplishments/

    And now on your knees.lol

  26. Davy on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:33 am 

    “Fortunately populated with kick-ass Hollanders who still manage to have an agricultural export not too far behind exporter #1 USA”

    There is more to it than food, Tulip but keep trying. Overpopulation and high complexity present their own set of problems. The combination of both will make maintenance of all you brag about difficult. Add to that rising sea levels.

    You have a lot to be proud of but you are still one of the most densely populated in the world and a small country as far as defense. Still you are light years ahead of mad kat’s world.

  27. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:39 am 

    “You dont have 20 percent energy you liar…And you never ever will. And peak oil is a liquids fuel problem. Not an electricity generation problem. You are so uneducated its astonishing.”

    You are NOT a trained academic but a trained swindler. If you were a trained chemist you would quickly grasp that the 20%…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union

    …refers to “gross final energy”, not just electricity.

  28. fmr-paultard on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:44 am 

    guys i’m worried about ((eurotard’s)) PMBB confederation. It seems to me EU’s problem are labor, environmental, border, immigation. It seems PMBB don’t have these issues or whether member states could grab resources from a resource rich state.

    Will they instead go further than necessary from their backyard and grab our resources?

    That makes me worried.

  29. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:54 am 

    Clogg

    Sorry Wiki is not a reliable source. You obviously never went to college or you would know this. You are grasping at straws…so pathetic. Dont you get tired of being the peakoil dotcom useful idiot! LOL

  30. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 7:58 am 

    Clogg

    Your wiki source is counting nuclear and hydro and other things in that 20 percent number. You are so pathetic. You know solar and wind are a false hope..

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers

    Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    And those Google engineers are Stanford PhD’s..And you are Clogg? Someone who lives in his moms basement who can’t ever get laid..lol

  31. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 8:03 am 

    “guys i’m worried about ((eurotard’s)) PMBB confederation.“

    Wow, supertard is the first Yank to take PBM serious.

    Um, what does PMBB stand for anyway?

    Ah got it, Paris-Moscow-Berlin-Boise, gotcha!

    “Will they instead go further than necessary from their backyard and grab our resources?”

    What do you mean, “our resources”? The Middle East?

    We need Russia for a decade or two more and after that we will be energy independent.

    But you are right, we already have Middle America in our pocket because we have something sea board USA can no longer offer: desirable demographics. Everybody in Africa and muslim world wants to live in white countries. Now all of a sudden white Smericans want that too. This gives us in continental Europe the upperhand over Washington. We are going to take our people back and not only reverse 1945, but to a limited extent 1776 as well.

    What are you going to do about it, dear Yankee leftists?

    http://tinyurl.com/y8ydx6a9

  32. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 8:10 am 

    “Your wiki source is counting nuclear and hydro and other things in that 20 percent number”

    Nobody in Europe counts nuclear as renewable, you fool. Hydro yes.

  33. MASTERMIND on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 8:26 am 

    Clog

    Look its clogg

    https://ibb.co/g51ihG

  34. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 8:41 am 

    Clog

    Look its clogg

    It’s Clog

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVkrGJxdhuI

  35. GregT on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 11:19 am 

    MM,

    The article that you keep linking is talking about ‘renewable’ electric power generation saving mankind from runaway climate change:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

    Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach."

    The only viable answer is the collapse of modern industrial society, and a mass die off to bring human population numbers back in line with the Earth's natural carrying capacity. If not, humanity faces extinction, likely well within this century. Possibly within your natural life time.

  36. GregT on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 11:37 am 

    IMA MM,

    If the methane clathrate gun has already been fired, (which it appears highly likely that it already has) it really doesn’t matter anymore what we do.

    If that is indeed the case, the human race is already toast. If you think societal collapse will be horrific, it will be like a stroll in the park compared to a runaway greenhouse event.

    Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. On the entire planet.

  37. Cloggie on Fri, 29th Dec 2017 11:44 am 

    So these two loser guys failed with their megalomaniac aims:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ht0H6OR3_8k/VIK8WlJsJUI/AAAAAAAAEgU/IF695QGZBvY/s1600/Koningstein%2Band%2BFork.jpg

    Typical American attitude: zero patience, JIT-attitude. If it can’t work in a couple of years, it will never work.

    They project their individual failure unto the entire renewable energy project and declare it for a lost cause, just to mask their own incompetence.

    They both worked merely 4 years on God-knows-what and predictably failed.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/22/renewable-energy-so-useless-that-even-greenie-google-gave-up-on-it/

    In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.

    Thank you, Breitbart.

    Sure:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/siemens-reports-eroi-onshore-wind-of-50-or-larger/

    Interestingly enough Google bought massive amounts of renewable energy capacity in 2017:

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/6/16734228/google-renewable-energy-wind-solar-2017

    Recently, Google announced that it has purchased a whopping 3 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity — equal to what all of its offices and data centers around the world use on an annual basis.

    That doesn’t add up with the professed notion that renewable energy is a fantasy. It is apparently a private oppinion of those guys who failed to deliver anything meaningful. Just two other milliminds.

    Koningstein and Fork: two guys who won’t admit that they are total losers and shift the blame on renewable energy.

Leave a Reply

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