In particular, wind energy has been cited as a possible way to supplement the supply of electricity and thus allow reductions in the use of Middle Eastern oil. Denmark is rightfully cited as an example of a country that has made the generation of electricity by windmills a top priority, and has been successful in its efforts.
However, there are limits to how much energy can be saved by the use of windmills, no matter how efficient their design nor how extensively they are constructed.
William Tucker has an upcoming book about nuclear power, and his article from the August 18th issue of National Review (the online version requires a subscription) points out some of the drawbacks to the use of windmills as a strategy to cut back on the use of fossil fuels:
Part of the mistaken belief that wind can be a reliable source of electricity comes from a misapprehension of what the “grid” is. The national grid is not a machine for churning out electricity. It is more like a high-wire act — the Flying Wallendas balancing six people on a bicycle 50 feet above the ground.- - - - - - - - -
Electricity must be consumed the moment it is generated; there are no methods for storage on an industrial scale. This means that supply and demand must constantly match within about 5 percent. Otherwise there will be power “dips” or “surges,” which can cause brownouts, ruin electrical equipment, or even bring the whole system crashing down.
Traditionally, maintaining voltage balance has involved two things: (1) matching supply with demand through the normal daytime/nighttime fluctuations, with demand usually peaking around mid-afternoon, and (2) maintaining a “spinning reserve” against sudden losses of power, in case an overloaded transmission line brushes against a tree and shorts out, or a generator unexpectedly shuts down. Utilities generally build “peaking plants” to handle high daytime demand, then carry a “spinning reserve” of 20 percent of output to guard against shutdowns.
Now imagine introducing a power source that is constantly fluctuating. The output of a windmill varies with the cube of wind speed, so it can change greatly from minute to minute. Putting windmills on the grid is a little like the Flying Wallendas’ hiring a new crew member to shake the wire while they are doing their balancing act. Engineers who work on electrical grids have been quietly complaining for years, and over the last decade, grid operators in Denmark, Japan, and Ireland have all refused to accept more wind energy. In fact, Denmark — the world leader in wind generation — stopped building windmills altogether in 2007. After long discussions at numerous symposiums and in professional energy journals, a consensus has emerged that, even with very accurate weather forecasts and other improvements, a grid can at best tolerate a maximum of 20 percent wind energy. Above that, the fluctuations become too difficult to mask.
The upshot of the article is that all the “renewable” alternatives to oil have severe disadvantages, and other fossil fuels are not practically able to make up for the use of petroleum. The obvious solution is, and always has been, nuclear power.
The push by the Green lobby to prevent further construction of nuclear generating plants has served only to harm the environment by keeping industrialized economies, particularly that of the United States, chained to fossil fuels. Their case against nuclear power is based on Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the problem of waste disposal. The first two are red herrings — Three Mile Island was a negligible failure, and the flawed reactor design like the one that blew up at Chernobyl is not used in the West. The waste problem is solvable, given the political will to do so.
How much more CO2 has been pushed into the atmosphere because of knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power? How much more particulate has clouded the sky because of our postmodern Luddites? How many more coal miners have died deep underground in accidents or a slow death from lung disease? It’s one of life’s little ironies that the activism of environmentalists has contributed directly to the degradation of the environment.
If we’re serious about taking the oil weapon out of the hands of Islamic fanatics, nuclear power is the way to go. All of us should be talking it up, writing letters to the editor, and annoying our elected representatives with repeated communications on the topic.
We don’t have to nuke Mecca to make use of the nuclear option in the Counterjihad.
53 comments:
I just discovered Polywell Fusion as a possible solution to our energy problems.
I did some analysis last week to determine the land required by both a solar power plant and a wind farm to produce the 3.2 GW that is currently produced by the Palo Verde nuclear generating stationPalo Verde nuclear generating station outside Phoenix, AZ. Palo Verde sits on 4,000 acres, 90% of which is empty space. My calculations, which I will share after I return from a quick business engagement require a solar plant to occupy ~36,000 acres and a wind farm to occupy ~75,000 acres. These energy sources are impractical.
What I want to know, and can't get an answer for, is why are the environmentalists so quiet regarding immigration, illegal and legal.
The US Census Bureau is projecting the population of the US to reach 400 million before mid-century. That is staggering. With population growth comes the need for more energy. If the Greens hate energy so much why aren't they fighting against an increasing population?
How many coal fired power plants do 20 million illegals require? How much gasoline do 20 million illegals consume annually? Our imports from the ME?
We don’t have to nuke Mecca to make use of the nuclear option in the Counterjihad.
Oh, but the one thing does not exclude the other :-)
And we can invade and occupy the Persian Gulf and have the oil too!
Let's have all the goodies.
"How much more CO2 has been pushed into the atmosphere because of knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power?"
Law of Unintended Consequences anyone?
I recommend Den Beste's essay(s) on power generation and this precise problem.
Scalability is the point. We can and should do it all, but if it ain't scalable, it will not work. Start here:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/Energyscalingproblems.shtml
In particular, wind energy has been cited as a possible way to supplement the supply of electricity and thus allow reductions in the use of Middle Eastern oil.
This entire article very carefully prinks around the elephant in the room.
The overwhelming majority of ultra-environmentalists are of a liberal stripe. They constantly piss and moan about how capitalism has raped the earth and bewail the pseudo-fact that America's wealth is built upon a Zero-Sum game that involves robbing Third World countries of their natural resources.
Liberals, one and all, love to ballyhoo how they seek to uplift our "little brown brothers" through unqualified love and the benisons of their sacrosanct "green" power.
One niggling little question: HOW DO YOU RUN A STEEL MILL USING WIMNDMILLS OR SOLAR POWER?
Answer: YOU DON'T.
Only three basic eletrical sources can power a steel mill. Hydroelectric dams, nuclear energy or a steam-powered turbine fired by oil, coal or natural gas.
In essence, by restricting the Third World to their dreams of pure "green" power, these supposedly bleeding-heart liberals are, in fact, condemning undeveloped nations to eternal poverty.
This is the Left's dirty little secret and one that exposes the monstrous bigotry and inhumanity of their ostensibly benevolent ecological vision.
When you couple unavailability of industrial-scale power sources with liberal hysteria about The Great Warmening, any growth for developing nations is essentially strangled in the cradle.
Remember this every time you hear some leftist wing nut preach about how they love the world's poor and downtrodden. Given their way, the Third World will NEVER make any progress. Banishing entire populations to eternal subsistance level survival is one of the most vicious and brutal acts imaginable. Yet, liberals do not flinch at inflicting this sort of technological elitism even as they boast of their brotherly love.
This is the Big Lie of environmentalism and one that needs to be unmasked post haste.
I firmly believe in preserving old-growth forests, the rainforest and other primal ecologies on earth. They represent incredible treasure houses of bioceutical resources that Mother Nature has perfected over BILLIONS of years. Our modern genetic engineering is barely scratching the surface of what nature already has accomplished.
None of this changes how the Third World must come uphill in order to ascend out of eternal poverty. Otherwise, all we are left with is exactly what we see today: Incessant migration of this world's most wretched and primitive refuse into modern civilization as the only way of improving their lot in life.
Nuclear power is used to boil water too Z! :~)
As promised on solar:
Research on solar power vs. nuclear power. According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than the recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, NM, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the US is the Palo Verde plant in AZ. It covers 4,000 acres and produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors.
Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% (a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.
So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel, and probably vehicle traffic. So lets conservatively say to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day.
I wish the eco-Marxists would expend as much energy doing research into the physics of wind and solar as they do agitating for it.
Several years ago I was reading a milblog on this subject. The commenters pointed out that the U.S. Navy has run many nuclear reactors over more than 20 years without a single accident.
One person posited that the U.S. should build many small nuclear reactors, all identical, and staff them with only former Navy nuke personnel.
The reactors and their personnel would be completely interchangable and would probably have an "approaching zero" record of failure as has the Navy. (They have had a zero record of failure.)
It sounded good to me...
Exactly, Zenster.
Energy is too complex a question for our EU-drunken leaders to relate to. Thus better we look at it :)
Polywell fusion, or electrostatic fusion as I've usually called it, has great potential. I've checked the nuclear processes, and unlike that phony 'cold fusion', they're solid. Right now it's a matter of keeping pushing the idea to our politicians until some of them bite the shame of wasting money on ITER and initiate a fully funded research project to build this thing and put it into practice.
I just went through Germany, and noticed an amazing amount of solar panels of various sorts there. Things are being solved at the local level, not in Brussel, who are currently distracted by taking the honor of stopping some fighting in the Caucasus. Irrelevant.
I read about a Norwegian project that uses rivers as an energy source with a completely new approach. Instead of piping up waterfalls or building large dams, they build a station exactly where the river runs into the sea. Exploiting the difference in salt content, a height difference can be built up which is used to generate electricity.
Since lobbying this stuff doesn't offend any stupid stones, even people not interested in Islam could do something good for us all by lobbying these ideas to our clueless politicians.
There's an online petition on this subject, adressed to both presidential candidates, at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
I suggest not only to sign it, but also to post about the petition on your own blogs. It just might make the candidates step down from their propaganda tours to the level of real-world problems.
BTW, I read yesterday that the East European countries are not timid about investing in nuclear. They are life-extending, replacing and raising new plants apace, for they don't trust the Russians to supply gas without conditions, and prefer having power over freezing during the winters.
Western eco-fascists prefer the freezing, of course. Which is why they routinely engage in scare tactics when nuclear energy is mentioned. Their claim to power is a perpetuation of the energy crisis, not a solution to it.
The Green movement has been politicised (by marxists of course) who use it as yet another guilt weapon on the west.
The whole Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria is nothing more than a scam, an outright lie based on flawed computer models and dishonest manipulation of data.
Here is an excellent acclaimed editorial as to why AGW is total nonsense:
The Great Global Warming Hoax
We should be making use of as many energy resources as we can and that includes coal. That means ignoring profiteering scare-mongerers like Al Gore who have been deliberately lying to further their aims and making decisions based on facts instead.
Well I don't know what this electrostati fusion is, but regular hot fusion is ready to come into its prime. The reason it's aeppared so unsuccessful until now is because it doesn't scale well - there's a minimum size needed to produce enough power to sustain a reaction. The smaller fusion reactors aren't capable of producing enough power to sustain themselves but they demonstrate the principle. In the meantime we should be using any reliable source of fuel we have. Fission, coal, oil, gas, biomass incineration - not wind and not solar. They both use more energy in their production than you get out of them.
Wheee, spelling mistakes galore!
I forgot to mention, if you want another site that deals with the global warming stuff, try Number Watch or Watts Up With That.
For those pitching their hopes on traditional 'hot fusion' (that is, magnetically confined, superconducting magnets galore etc.), note this:
the first plasma operation is expected in 2018.
And:
Although ITER is expected to produce (in the form of heat) 5-10 times more energy than the amount consumed to heat up the plasma to fusion temperatures, the generated heat will not be used to generate any electricity.
Swell...
Here's their 'fast-track roadmap' for fusion energy:
A "fast track" road-map to a commercial fusion power plant has been sketched out.[10] This scenario, which assumes that ITER continues to demonstrate that the tokamak line of magnetic confinement is the most promising for power generation, anticipates a full-scale power plant coming on-line in 2050, potentially leading to a large-scale adoption of fusion power over the following thirty years.
Here's the _expected_ investment:
The program is anticipated to last for 30 years — 10 for construction, and 20 of operation — and cost approximately US$ 9.3 billion.
I believe the Polywell fusion reactor at $200 million, which *will* produce electricity (it's technically trivial and 95 % efficient) is a steal compared to this mega-project.
not wind and not solar. They both use more energy in their production than you get out of them.
Graham, when you make a blanket statement like that, I'd expect you to back it up with documentation.
I'm sorry, I was mixing up with biofuels. I meant to say that they cost more than you'll get out of them over their operational lifetime. They don't pay for themselves.
I know it's a rather different argument but the basic point is the same: they're a waste of money and a distraction from reliable sources of energy (And no, I don't count fusion as a reliable source right now, though some version of it will be sooner or later).
Actually, it's not difficult to find documentation on wind power. Wikipedia should be reliable on this topic. From their Wind Power article:
During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial carbon dioxide emissions "pay back" is within about 9 months of operation for off shore turbines.
With an expected operational time of around 20 years, the raw energy payback is at a factor of 25 or more.
There a similar article on solar power. It doesn't quote a energy payback factor, but does state that solar power is now (not in 2080) at the state of being commercially viable. We currently have some 10 Gigawatt photoelectric capacity installed worldwide.
The problem with both of these source is not commercial viability, but intermittency. And this requires other plants to be online when the wind is still and night has fallen. Oil, coal and Polywell fusion are good options for this, as they can easily scale output to match demand, which traditional nuclear fission cannot.
Biofuels is yet another technology with unique problems to be solved. Using grain, corn etc. is trivial, but that's food, which we need for other purposes.
Using the straw instead (usually termed 2nd generation biofuel) has much greater potential. Here in Denmark we're building prototype biofuel plants where the lignin, which is the barrier to fermentation into ethanol, is being boiled away at high pressure, giving access to the cellulose that can be fermented. Speed of throughput is crucial, and they are working hard to scale it.
Interestingly, the lignin can be burned and should provide enough energy to operate the plant.
Engineers are the true heroes in this.
Sorry for repeating myself, but:
1. The Arabs won't go out of business, if we reduced our oil consumption. China, India and others will be glad to replace us as their customers.
2. Propelling planes and cars with electrical energy is not feasible. For that reason, nuclear energy can't replace carbon fuels.
3. By researching or applying energy sources that are more expensive than oil we just hurt ourselves.
4. The advocates of alternative energy sources - be it nuclear fusion, be it windmills or solar cells - have one thing in common: They all want us to unilaterally renounce our claim on fossil energy resources. We should constrain ourselves in order to make the world a better place for others. This is perfectly in line with the fact that our birth rates are well below replacement level. By not consuming oil and by dying out we can finally achieve atonement for our sins.
5. If some people think that we have so much money at our hands that we don't know what to do with it, I have a better idea what to spend it for:
stimulating child births, particularly among stable families of the middle and upper class, and educating these children. Such an investment secures the survival of our nations and pays off big time after 20-25 years when these children enter the workforce.
Thanks, Pasta, I'll respond in kind:
1. The Arabs won't go out of business.
That's not a primary objective, and as long as we in the West achieve energy independence, selling their oil (as long as it lasts) to China instead is a lesser evil. Not perfect, but nearly as bad as parting with our own cash.
2. Propelling planes and cars with electrical energy is not feasible.
My apologies. I didn't mention this project for creating jet fuel from algae. Also, ethanol can probably be converted to jet fuel of sorts.
I understand the problem. If we don't deal with it assertively, the consequence may be that much jet travel may become unfeasable.
3. By researching or applying energy sources that are more expensive than oil we just hurt ourselves.
I think you are missing something interesting here. When we pay the Arabs $100 for a barrel of oil, the money goes from us to the Arabs. In contrast, if a government agency or a private company pays $ 100 for research or construction of new energy technology, most of that money stays in our countries. It hurts that we get decapitalized by oil import, and we need to fix that.
4. The advocates of alternative energy sources [...] have one thing in common: They all want us to unilaterally renounce our claim on fossil energy resources.
Our claim? I don't think we can soundly claim that the oil in Russia, Caucasus, Middle East etc. is _ours_. What claim are you talking about, to be exact? It's a bit confusing what is being pointed at here.
6. Engineers and other geeks should not have political power. They can't control their play instinct and spend billions of tax money on their pet projects. Henrik is a good example for this.
7. Because of point 1), the only way to stop global funding of Wahhabism is to seize the oil fields by military means and confiscate the revenue. I am not sure, though, if it's worth the price in casualties and how much it would undermine us morally.
Because of point 1), the only way to stop global funding of Wahhabism is to seize the oil fields by military means and confiscate the revenue.
Throughoutly sick idea...
Engineers and other geeks [...] can't control their play instinct
Nope. Never could.
and spend billions of tax money on their pet projects.
With pride.
Henrik is a good example for this.
Thanks :)
@Henrik
No offense, but you seem so enamored with your vision of energy self-sufficiency that there is little point in trying to convince you by a rational argument. I have had such discussions before and just wasted my time. I believe that, for you, the vision of energetic self-sufficiency will always come first and the search for rationales second. I read your counterarguments but found that they are too easily refutable, maybe I even addressed them some time before already.
My point that engineers and geeks like you should not have political power, was said tongue-in-cheek. I appreciate your views - and particularly your effort - in many other issues, and if giving you a couple of billions to play with on energy issues is the price, then I'd be willing to pay it. Again, no hard feelings, please! :-)
Pasta: Because of point 1), the only way to stop global funding of Wahhabism is to seize the oil fields by military means and confiscate the revenue.
Henrik: Throughoutly sick idea...
To the contrary Henrik, it's a throughoutly sound idea. And one that I have promoted for long in this forum.
First take your own example of us paying $100 per barrel of oil to the Arabs. This leads to two things:
1) $100 is leaving us
2) $100 is coming to the Arabs
Your suggestion only solves half the problem (the first point). Mine and Pasta's wholly solves the problem (both points!). How can we believe that you take this problem seriously when you settle for merely a half-measure, while calling the full solution "sick"? Clearly your main objective is not in solving this problem, it's muddled with promotion of some idealistic ideals.
How can we morally claim the oil in the Middle East as ours? Well, we found it and we made it useful. Furthermore, the Muslims do not hold the moral capacity to claim it. It's like saying that the forests in Sweden belong to the mooses, and that we therefore cannot cut down trees (I'm sure there are idealists who think so too). But neither Muslims nor mooses have such moral capacity. The oil belongs to us.
Furthermore, the oil fields were stolen from us by blackmail by the Muslims. The braindead and wimpy American and British political leader and companies just let them do it. Completely unjust and outrageous. Our leaders failed us. But saying we have to live with that is like saying that we have to live with all the passports handed you for free in a drunken sailor manner to masses of Third World colonizers. No way!
Our current political elites and their actions have to be fully denounced, and citizenship in our countries, as well as the ownership of the oil fields in the Persian Gulf, have to be restored back to normality. Virtually everything that happened since WWII has to be reversed.
What a passionate discussion! In which I - unfortunatley - am not aloud to participate.
However, I want to ask this, in case someone can answer me: Imagine an Island which has moderate wind (strong in the winter and fall, weak in the summer and spring) and strong sea waves. What will be best to invest in? Wind power or wave generated energy?
I cannot think about this as the West, with ot without Russia. My energetic mad plans to Portugal can not be applied to Europe (or the West) and are extremely dependent on Spain's conditions, as well as dependent on alliances with some key states like: Lybia, Algeria, the United States, the United Kingdom, Cape Verde, Brazil, Angola, Venezuela and even Morocco and Italy or Norway and Canada. I've lost my faith on East Timor. Let them be a Catholic pricipality ruled by the Australians!
As you can see, my ignorance and my views are not broad enough to keep the whole of the West in it.
I strongly disagree with Conservative Swede when he says, "let's conquer the Persian Golf!"
I think of it as highly immoral.
However, I wouldn't mind to conquer the desert to North Africans. I would think even better in terms of destroying North African navy and air force completley. I simply do not trust them.
I also think that we have to live with the dependence on oil and the rules of Russia and the United States in oil and gas. I welcome new forms of energy, I welcome self sufficiency, but I do not see nuclear as the path, nor do I see that new forms of energy will save us from American-Russian-Arab gas and oil conspirations (at least, any time soon).
That's how the world is set up to be.
"Virtually everything that happened since WWII has to be reversed." Maybe because I am naive, I would say "almost" in spite of "virtually". But our concordance stops there Conservative Swede.
The rest, is colonialism, pure and simple.
I don't want to get too personal, but, especially you being a Swede, why do you support it? Wouldn't that oil be virtually all British? We would then have two super-powers in Europe: In the West, Great Britain, in the East, Russia with all the tensions it enils.
I think you're wrong, and I can't imagine how you will going to convice me you're right. Let's see...
Afonso,
I think you're wrong, and I can't imagine how you will going to convice me you're right. Let's see...
I have already given you the arguments. But since you are a serf of the idealism of enlightenment style moral absolutes, there's no way to reach you.
The rest, is colonialism, pure and simple.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that "colonialism" is a proper description for what I suggested. Then this is how your mind works: you label it "colonialism" which is a moral absolute to you (evil, evil!) and any reasoning about it disappears into a black hole.
Anyway, without colonialism we wouldn't have had the oil in the first place (and neither the Arabs). Are you seriously saying that the world would have been a better place without colonialism?
Furthermore, any breach of UN edicts and "international law" can be labeled "colonialism": Russia's actions in Georgia, Georgia's actions in Georgia!, Americas actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
If you are going to change anything that happened since WWII, how are you going to do it without "colonialism"?
As Henrik pointed out correctly in another thread:
I think Putin and Kremlin (combined) do something almost forgotten: Foreign policy for the good of their country, not for 'prestige' or 'reputation in the world'.
Right. And this is the only moral way for a nation to act. They way of acting for the sake of "prestige" and "reputation" is deeply immoral, and it's consequences genocidal for the population (as we can witness).
So when Afonso yells "highly immoral" about what must be done, he's doing it from this morally rotten camp. I think we will hear something similar from Henrik too once he gets back. The total brainwashing of this current paradigm goes so deep that even uniquely wise and clear-sighted people as Afonso and Henrik are still stuck in the same basic pattern of thinking. They cannot see that the only (highly) immoral thing is to not act for the common good of our civilization.
The Christian concept of inversion of values has destroyed people's minds. I figure 50 years from now, the Persian Gulf will belong to China. I hope this makes Afonso feel very happy and morally superior (and maybe some of your like-minded friend will want to go in with troops and defend the Muslims!) Hallelujah!
Come on Conservative Swede, you are generalising my statements and branding them as generalisations at the same time.
For instance, I find America to be a great country, strange, but great. I would love to go to New York, Havana, Buenos Aires, and when I get rich, Rio.
Without colonialism all those places would be backward places with, at best, some nice natural views.
I am not saying that colonialism is bad or wrong though I did not make explicit my views on colonialism.
I think that one people do not have the right to take another's people resources as their own, just because...
If you had a reason to go to war with Persian Gulf States, then, I would think that the winner could take the oil but such reason does not exist. It is a dangerous precedent and the high ground isn't there.
For instance, and sorry for the akward examples but, the Portuguese discovered and inhabited the uninhabited islands of Cape Verde and the Portuguese also build the city of Luanda in Angola. With the time of decolonisation, one million Portuguese had to left Portuguese Africa. The Portuguese imported their slaves into Cape Verde and the population of Cape Verde went from white to black in few decades. With the blacks being not free men.
After decolonisation, should the Portuguese continue to controle Cape Verde giving the fact that a different people had made those Islands their land? Of course not!
And Luanda? Should the near one million African-Portuguese go to Luanda just because Portuguese people build it? Of course not.
And please, I am not saying that colonialism or decolonisation is good or bad. Remember El's assertions on black people yesterday? I am as neutral as him...
The same with the islamic oil.
I admire your statism but be careful not to become "a serf of the idealism of" any "moral absolutes".
The first world war was a stupid war. The second... I share my views with Buchannan.
Too much statism ends up in wars like that of 1914. And I bet you can think on the consequences of these New Cruzades you are wanting to start...
"and Pasta's wholly solves the problem (both points!)."
This is a falacy (I think). It creates so many more problems that it is automatically not worth the effort. And you even call idealistic to Henrik who qualifies as "sick" your "idea". Idealistic is a more assertive qualification of it, in my opinion at least.
"Well, we found it (the oil in the ME) and we made it useful." "the Muslims do not hold the moral capacity to claim it"
Like the Americas and Africa and great part of Asia, can you see into what we are heading in? When black South Africans start saying that they were better under apertheid, colonialism is therefore justified. The White devil surges as the Russian protector in Ossetia.
Also, in order to make your "ideas" valuable, you low human beings into animals. Just that should be enough to prove how non-arguments your arguments are.
Conservative Swede,
Thank you for the complements and, I think you know that I am one of the most pro-Russians here. I am that annoying little guy who will ask you to define what is the West whenever someone counts Black British as Western and leave out the Russians.
Now seriously: I agree with you. But I also think that prestige is intimately conected with the "sake of the people" but, who's this people? Would Putin mind to kill half of the Japanese eyed Orientals they have in Central and East Asia? Of course! They would do it first as they have then with the Chechen Caucasian Muslims! And Putin would step over part of his own Citizens than the Belarussians for instance...
But, will the people of Belarus (and Ukraine) join Russia if there's no "prestige"?
Why are Americans American? Due to prestige!
But all this is jut garbage as I agree with you and am sure you agree with me. It's not a people, it's our "demos".
If it was good to kick the muslims in the Persian golf, I would support it. But it looks unwise and even counter productive.
To finalise, that anti Semitism of yours that attacks Christianity is my as well. But my "idealised" pre Council Vatican II Christianity is not yours Christianity and that is to another topic.
And yes, in such a case, I would help the moslems. After all, it would be acting against the best interest of our people not to do it. Right?
CS, it's glaringly obvious that you're not Christian...
Henrik,
CS, it's glaringly obvious that you're not Christian...
So is this your whole defence after I torn your post-modern half-measures into pieces? That your suggestion is "Christian". Not that more effectively addresses the problem, not that it is more in the interest of our common good, but that it is Christian, period. Wow! So your standpoint really is identity-based and not fact and problem oriented?
Afonso,
"that anti Semitism of yours that attacks Christianity"
"you low human beings into animals"
You write the most stupid and offensive things and I'm fed up with you. Your brain is a chaos.
Their case against nuclear power is based on Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the problem of waste disposal.
And there is also the danger of a terrorist group crashing a jetliner on a nuclear plant.
CS, take a hike...
I am not going to let you bully me into your brutal position. Period.
Conservative Swede.
Go read what you have said.
You compare the muslims to caribu like creatures and I have understood that you do not apreciate Christianity too much due to its "foreign", (thus Semitic) influences. There's your anti-Semitism.
You are more than bright enough to realise what I've said. That's what I don't like in you. Many times, you simply cannot resist to demonise someone.
Afonso,
Let me take it very slowly so that even you can understand, and after that I'm through with you.
If I say that neither children nor cats hold the capacity to start a company, do I then lower the children into animals? Of course not. I have just stated something that is true.
If I say the neither mooses nor stones hold the capacity to be owners of oil fields, have I then lowered the mooses into dead objects? Of course not. I have just stated something that is true.
If claim that both 2,370 and 59 are less than 10,000, have I then lowered your monthly salary from 2,370 to 59? Well, of course not.
Regarding Christianity, your whole reasoning is hysterically PC. That objections to foreign influences implies that one is a hater of that people. So that e.g. Americans cannot object to the Mexican influx, but to you that implies that they are haters of Mexicans. You are really stuck in the vicious circle of political correctness. And I haven't even objected to people, just ideas. A foreign God is a bad idea wherever he comes from (do you understand abstract reasoning or are you still stuck in PC mode?). Surely it was the Jews who invented the morality of inverted values. And it's a disservice to them as it is to us. I cannot tell them what to do, however, but I strongly suggest that we should leave it.
The sad thing with you, Afonso, is that you do not truly believe in European civilization. The humble idea of a policy that is based on the good for our countries, our civilization, scares you and you start talking about 1914, statism, colonialism, and whatnot. They have scared you into deep distrust of your own civilization.
And regarding conquering the Persian Gulf you holler "highly immoral". With this you imply that it's of highest moral importance that the oil fields belong to the Arabs. But you see, since you are not prepared to defend this in case it would be invaded and conquered by the Chinese, these are just empty words. If you holler "highly immoral" but are not prepared to defend it with your life, it's just empty priestly babbling. And I think we have had quite enough of that.
Henrik,
I really nailed you completely there, didn't I? So what to do when out of arguments? Stop discussing and start complaining...
It's really sad that you perceive simple logic as "brutal". You are normally otherwise a good proponent for logical reasoning. There's nothing brutal with logical arguments. You can just admit that certain arguments holds true, but that you won't follow in their direction for some reason. But your way of seeing the arguments presented as something "bullying" you into a "brutal position" suggests that you see the gravity of these arguments as so strong that you literally have no defence against them.
Conservative Swede,
"A foreign God is a bad idea wherever he comes from"
"That objections to foreign influences (do not) implies that one is a hater of that people."
Sometimes I find it difficult to discuss with you Cnservative Swede, because, while I feel that we are in agreement, and while I know that you have a bright mind and master English much better than I do... too many times I feel some "hostility" from you that sinks the "healty" discussion.
So, I will have to ask you to not turn your "defensive mode" on. Please, imagine that I friendly agree with you. Because I hnestly do.
Some days ago I used the expression anti African Nationalism to explain a Medieval Hispanic feeling that conotated Africa with bad and evil. It had nothing to due with African peoples but with winds, sea monsters, Jews/Judaísm and Islam/Moors. It hardly had anything to due with hate towards Africans or indegenous African "manifestations".
I am not being PC. At least in Portuguese, the term "Semita" is used to denote anything Middle Eastern. The Abrahamic religions are thus "Semitic". And, because I believe that any religious manifestation has - or is - influences from its founders, I think we can say that the Abrahamic religions all have a "Semitic Spirit" in a metaphysical context. Some, as Islam, have much more "Semitism" and others, such as Christianity have much less. So, by Semitism I was not refering to Middle Eastern peoples but rather to Middle Eastern influences. That's what you contest in Christianity. That's the most refined form of "Anti-Semitism".
It has nothing to due with Jews nor other people but, a given cultural sphere being penetrated by exogenous (Semitic) (cultural? spiritual?) influences.
I think you can easily understand that and that my English is not that bad. So why the fuss?
----------------------------------
You say I do not truly believe in European Civilisation. You may be right. But because in so many aspects - and this you will agree with me - European Civilisation is alread dead. And European Civilisation is becoming more and more a mere veneration of the past: Of Course I will continue to venerate and salute my European ancestors and my incult living Grandparents but... what about my children? That is why I admire Russia so much. They might have a future. Look at us! Look at this wonderfull pan European forum that is Gates of Vienna. More and more, European "culture/civilisation" is becoming more and more a privilege of sanguinary racist nazis like you and me and 75% of the people here in GoV, Baron included, and less and less something alive in the Europeans wherever they are.
What is European Civilisation? Is it blood and culture (say, language, way of dressing, love for democracy and Christianity)?
I think that culture and blood is not enough and as such I may look like I do not believe in European Civilisation. Because I don't see many around... Blood and Culture would make us at the level of Native Americans or Africans and painfully inferior to the Chinese and Japanese.
But for me, European Civilisation is superior also, due to its moral standards.
Afonso,
You should try not to make "compliments" to people in the style of "well your ideas here show clearly that you are a coprophage". If you are surprised how that is not received positively, you are pretty clueless. But you are a benevolent coprophage, after all, so I forgive you.
You say I do not truly believe in European Civilisation. You may be right. But because in so many aspects - and this you will agree with me - European Civilisation is alread dead.
No my friend. Western civilization is already dead. European civilization is about to become reborn into it's third incarnation. I have already exorcised the dead parts of Western thinking (Christian ethics) out of my system, and am fully prepared for the new era. You should do the same. Prune this dead branches so that the tree can live again!
That is why I admire Russia so much.
Sure, Russia was never fully hit by the "Western AIDS". However, Russia is very weak compared to China.
What is European Civilisation? Is it blood and culture (say, language, way of dressing, love for democracy and Christianity)?
All but the last two, which are Western.
I think that culture and blood is not enough and as such I may look like I do not believe in European Civilisation.
The reason I said you do not believe in European Civilization is because you are still utterly stuck in Western thinking. But at least you are trying to get out of it. I have to give you that.
But for me, European Civilisation is superior also, due to its moral standards.
There you go again. You're still a junkie of deranged altruism.
It's interesting in the times of the Iraq war, which is accepted by people here as perfect normality. That a very similar operation, but one that unlike the Iraq adventure has a moral purpose and motivation, is described as "highly immoral", "sick", "brutal position", "take a hike", etc.
This is what inversion of values does to people. To act in our own interest is considered the greatest evil. And the more it is in our interest, the more evil it is. We get the sort of allergic reaction as Babs got regarding what El Ingles wrote about blacks.
The Iraq war is an expression of derange altruism. This does not scare Henrik and Afonso. But a similar operation with a real purpose is describe as if the heaven would fall down over our heads. The Iraq war is a bad and destructive war precisely because it is an expression of what Henrik and Afonso cherish as morality. This is precisely what makes it have no purpose and no defined end goal. This makes it far more hazardous than what I suggested, it's an "eternal" war with no purpose and no end, and it can only go badly.
Why not do a similar operation to get oil? According to the leftists and the Muslims that's already what we did. So their reaction surely cannot be any stronger. And why not reward them with exactly what they ask for?
People are strange...
Conservative Swede,
While I can hardly understand the difference between your definitions of Western and European Civilisations, I try the most to say "European" instead of "Western" due to the lack of meaning of the latter.
Russia is not that weak compared to China, the Russian Empire however, clearly is. No way we will witness a new Mongol Invasion. At least not in the National level, at the level of the Russian Imperium, may be.
Concerning what I think you are tell me, I have to reply that I have many years before I can get rid of "Western" influences. The velocity with I travel the path, however is outstanding.
The fact is that Catholicism is much stronger and inclusive than Protestantism. Three years ago I believed we could correct the Vatican by telling some secrets to the Pope. And with that magic words, Catholicism would became one of the strenghts of the West. This despite the fact that the only time I entered a church was when I was baptized, at six months old. That and "Romanity", a need to be morally superior to the barbarians, a need to justify Civilisation also strenghtened by 500 years of Colonialism and other 500 years of Romanity~Catholicism through the Reconquista.
I fear you are asking me to become "Germanic". I think you and Nietzsche are somehow look a like...
But, why do I have a feeling that you started your comment calling me bloody-shit-eating-bastard?
----------------------------
Concerning the war in Iraq, you are wrong. I think Americans must stay there in order to secure that Iraq does not became half Iranian, half Saudi, as it is already... I don't want to see more deaths and a Turkic-Iranian-Arabic alliance that transcends islam again.
Actually, I was sleeping in the couch with the T.V. on when a reporter on the T.V. started screaming hysterically: "Bombs are falling in Bagdad, bombs are falling in Baghdad!" It happened that RTP was the first channel worldwide to notice that the war started. My reaction:
F-! Those Americans are utterly stupid. I support the war in Afghanistan, not that of Iraq, go ask Natalie if you doubt me.
I remember also my reactions two years ago, when I was apreciating the ruins of the third largest Roman settlement in Western Hispania, the provinces of Lusitania and Gallaecia.
I was in front of a half destroyed giant garden with watter in the style of a Swastika when a German happens to walk in my direction, stop near me with his hot girlfriend/wife, making signals to people inside a very nice new Mercedes-Benz... I disliked him already. But then, he turns to his Lady and starts speaking German and both lough. Then I realised:
It wasn't in vane but those bloody barbarians won and burried Civilisation. I was so revolted...
Romanity, Catholicism, Colonialism.
That makes me see things from a less "libertarian" view of yours.
Afonso,
There quite a lot I would like to respond to in your latest comment, but there's only time to mention a few things:
First of all, I'm not asking you to become Germanic but Pagan. And more specifically Roman. Us Germanics wouldn't have been much without Roman influence. But mind you, I'm not speaking of Catholicism here! Catholicism is like AIDS. No, proper Roman Pagan influence! (Have you read the articles at my blog about Catholicism? Go to my blog and check the archive of June 2007. There are five articles in a row. First one here.)
Catholicism is to Roman culture what Christianity is to Jesus. That is, the former needed the latter to die in order to live and thrive.
While I can hardly understand the difference between your definitions of Western and European Civilisations, I try the most to say "European" instead of "Western" due to the lack of meaning of the latter.
The first incarnation of European civilization was the Greco-Roman civilization. 'Western' refer specifically to the second and Christian incarnation of European civilization by Charlemagne at 800 AD and until today in its last and terminal transformation under American regime.
The third incarnation of European civilization will have dropped Christian ethics, or there will be no third incarnation.
As you see I have defined European civilization to be a higher order concept for any civilization created by people of European ethnicity. And Fjordman has adapted the same terminology.
Concerning what I think you are tell me, I have to reply that I have many years before I can get rid of "Western" influences. The velocity with I travel the path, however is outstanding.
Indeed, your words are true here. I think the velocity in which you are travelling might be faster than anyone else has, is or will be travelling in. And you're not a coprophage, that was a joke. You are more like a rottweiler puppy. All over the place tearing down things, out of control, often annoying, but at the same time extremely likable and outstanding.
Us Germanics wouldn't have been much without Roman influence.
Oops, I almost sounded like Reinfeldt there, didn't I? :-)
Conservative Swede, I don't know if you'll read this but just to end:
I understand perfectly what you mean by third re-encarnation of Europe. I am also reading a book called "Magical Places of Portugal and Spain" that speaks of "Ancient and deep Europe"; "Teluric Europe"; "Celtic Obscurantism and Upper World", "Hispanicism" and stuff like that that may speed up the process.
I'll just leave with this poem by Fernando Pessoa from his late XIX / early XX century book:
(Mensagem) Message - MENS AGitat molEM
III part
THE ONE HIDDEN IN THE FOG
PAX IN EXCELSIS
I - THE SYMBOLS
II - THE FIFTH EMPIRE
Sad are those who live in their houses,
Happy with their homes,
Without a dream, that in the rise of the wing,
Can make even hotter the flame
Of the fireplace one must abandon!
Sad are those who are happy!
Who lives because life lasts.
Nothing in the soul tell them
More than the root of the lesson -
To have as life the grave.
Eras above eras we count
In the time that in eras comes.
To be unhappy is to be man.
Let the occult forces be dominated
By the vision the soul has!
And like this, had gone the four
Times that the being dreamt,
The Earth shall be a theatre
Of the brght day, that in the place
Of the dark night began.
Greece, Rome, Christianity,
Europe - the four go
To where all the ages go.
Who comes to live the truth
That D. Sebastião is dead?
Hegel was full of humbug, but he understood a simple concept: to find the momentum to head for the future one has to take off from the past. The third incarnation will be a synthesis of the current and the past.
CzC --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
----------------------
CzC said...
We could always go for pig power.
link
Afonso,
Concerning the war in Iraq, you are wrong. I think Americans must stay there in order to secure that Iraq does not became half Iranian, half Saudi, as it is already... I don't want to see more deaths...
A situation created by the Americans themselves by their immoral deranged altruism. Why did they go there in the first place? - tell me that!
Also, why is it such a great concern of yours if Iraq becomes half Iranian, half Saudi, when it's no problem if the oil fields are half Iranian, half Saudi? -- in fact you holler that it's of greatest moral concern that the oil fields stay half Iranian, half Saudi!
Why is Iraq so much more important, well precious, to you than the oil fields? What is the great value that you see in an Iraq untouched by Iran and Saudi Arabia? How is that in your interest? To me it is completely the other way around. The Sunnis and Shias in Iraq do arguably belong respectively with their fellow brethren in Iran and Saudi, in a way that the oil fields do not belong to them.
But of course, being serfs of inversion of values, it would be evil, evil, evil, to do anything useful and good, that would actually be in our own interest. The only priestly moral thing to do (which gives "prestige" and "rrrespeckkt") is to do something completely meaningless and useless, as the U.S. is doing currently in Iraq. And as they did before in Kosovo, and before in Bosnia, etc., etc. Hallelujah for lethal idiocy!
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.