Offsite Post: ‘We Probably Shouldn’t Call Them Fossil Fuels’

 

Erik Root, in an article for the Chronicles web site detailing the pitfalls of electric vehicles, does something else within it that is even more valuable:  He includes several links discussing the renewable nature of hydrocarbon energy.  Yes, you read that right – hydrocarbons are renewable.  Let’s have a look at some of what he shared (the information below deals mostly with oil and natural gas; yet even coal can be produced quickly, discussed here; a related article is here).

Appearing at American Thinker in 2012, this will serve as a good introduction:

 

President Barack Obama and his green energy confederates are determined to scare the public about a declining supply of "fossil fuels."  If we accept the idea that oil is produced by the conversion of organic matter -- from plants to dinosaurs -- under extreme pressure, we must also accept the idea that there is a limited supply of oil and that we've got to do everything we can to find a replacement for fossil fuels before we run out.

 

The evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than a century's worth of recoverable oil in the United States alone (even if there is a limit to the earth's oil supply), but that we also actually have a limitless supply of Texas tea because oil is in fact a renewable resource that is being constantly created deep under the earth's surface and which rises upward, where microscopic organisms that thrive in the intense pressure and heat miles below us interact with and alter it.

 

In other words, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface.  This oil can be recovered using existing technology.

 

Scientist Thomas Gold presents the decades-old theory of "abiotic" oil-creation, which supports these facts, in his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere.  In it he explains that the idea of the "biotic" creation of "fossil fuels" -- that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil -- is incorrect.  In fact, the earth is constantly producing new oil very deep below its surface, and in some cases the oil flows up to replenish existing oil fields thought to be exhausted.  In simple terms, the microscopic organisms mentioned above interact with the hydrocarbons, altering them and leaving their footprint, thus disproving the notion that oil is a "fossil fuel."

 

Here's an example of how the process plays out:

 

‘Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989. Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.’

 

The theory of what Gold calls the deep hot biosphere was explored more fully in Stalinist Russia in the 1940s when the Russian dictator demanded that his scientists find a way to increase Soviet oil production.  As they explored the idea that oil and other hydrocarbons are constantly being generated deep beneath the earth's surface, Russian technology was developed in the 1970s to test the theory by drilling as deep as 40,000 feet into the earth.  As a result, Russia was the first nation to begin to understand and exploit these renewable oil reserves, and today their oil industry is thriving. . . .

Since this is the case, how did the term ‘fossil fuel’ come into use?  Unsurprisingly, the corporate, super wealthy Elite, coined it to manipulate populations.  A chemical engineer in Syracuse, NY, writes:

 

Oil was first found in the early 19th century as a lubricant for motors and transportation. It eventually became a valuable fuel and John D. Rockefeller, a leader in the business at the time, made a fortune from both transporting and selling petroleum. To increase the price of oil, oil companies made it appear to be scarce. In 1892, at a convention in Geneva of scientists, Rockefeller took advantage of the opportunity to have scientists declare that petroleum is composed of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon and is the residue from formerly living matter, making it a “fossil fuel”. However, no fossils have been found below 16,000 feet and oil is drilled for at 30,000 feet, making it unlikely to be a fossil fuel. The term “fossil fuel” is used to make the public believe that oil is a limited resource, but in reality, it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth and will not run out for a long time.

From Rockefeller to Obama, not much has changed with the energy psy-ops.  Even if oil were not renewable, the US had enough known oil reserves in 2006 to last for 200 years.  The fossil fuel moniker is hung on hydrocarbons to scare us into marching in whatever direction the globalist Elite want us to go – electric cars, tiny apartments for all, cricket burgers, etc.

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2024/01/garlington-we-probably-shouldnt-call-them-fossil-fuels/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘Putting Trump’s Conviction in Historical Perspective’

 

For many conservatives in the United States and some abroad, the reaction to Donald Trump’s conviction in NYC has been some variant of the phrase, ‘This is unprecedented in US history.’  To which we must reply that this simply is not the case.

But citizens of the States are notoriously illiterate of history.  There is a reason for this, which we will touch on later.  But for the moment it is necessary to recite some of the precedents in US history for the weaponized court conviction of Donald Trump.

First up is the Whiskey Rebellion, which occurred in western Pennsylvania.  It was more or less a replay of the colonists’ rebellion against the British tax on tea, except this time it was small farmers and producers rebelling against a federal tax on whiskey, implemented in 1791.

Pres. Jefferson helped repeal the hated taxes in 1802, but the hypocrisy of the whole affair is palpable:  The very people who used a tea tax to agitate a war for independence from Great Britain were quick to squelch a similar maneuver from being used by the poor working-class folk of western Pennsylvania via the new federal government’s overwhelming military force.  That was an ominous beginning for the plain folk of the States (i.e., the same type of people who are now ardent Trump supporters, who are facing the same type of punitive measures by their elite) under their new federal constitution, written and ratified just a few years earlier in 1787-8.  But more disturbing actions were to come. 

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the Adams administration in 1798, and bear an incredibly strong resemblance to what Mr. Trump is undergoing in NYC.  Under these Acts, criticism of the federal government became a treasonous crime that could be punished by fines or a jail sentence.  Benjamin Franklin’s grandson was charged under the act, dying before his trial, but the case of Rep. Matthew Lyon is so similar to Mr. Trump’s that it deserves special notice:

A sitting member of Congress even found himself caught up in the web spun by the Sedition Act. Matthew Lyon represented Vermont in Congress and also served as the editor of the Republican paper The Scourge of Aristocracy. During his re-election campaign, Lyon wrote a reply to his Federalist opponents, accusing President Adams of engaging in a “continual grasp for power” and of having “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice.” He also blasted the president for using religion to drum up war against France, writing he could not support the executive, “when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine to make mankind hate.”

 

Lyon was indicted on sedition charges on Oct. 5, 1798, and arrested the next day. A federal judge fined Lyon $1,000 and sentenced him to four months in prison. (4) He served time in a 16′ x 12′ cell used for felons, counterfeiters, thieves, and runaway slaves. Judge William Paterson – an avid nationalist and supporter of the Federalist Party – lamented the fact he couldn’t impose a harsher sentence.

 

Lyon won reelection while in jail by a landslide.

Will Trump also win re-election ‘by a landslide?’  Leftists ought to pause to reflect on what their actions may bring about.

Nevertheless, the Alien and Sedition Acts also expired under Jefferson’s administration.  One might think by these acts that Jefferson’s years as president would be bright with the light of liberty, but he also abused federal power.  His embargo measures during the Napoleonic wars in Europe were a cause of much hardship in New England, bringing the commerce of her great shipping fleet to a standstill.  State governments rebelled, refusing to cooperate with federal officials tasked with enforcing them, and smuggling became widespread (full details are provided in J. J. Kilpatrick’s The Sovereign States).

These embargo acts would eventually be repealed, but other federal embargo laws would continue to stir up strife in New England through the War of 1812, culminating in the pro-secession Hartford Convention of 1814.

It is telling that callous, repressive measures by the political elite were committed even by Pres. Jefferson, one of the presidents most friendly towards the ideals of the Enlightenment/classical liberalism.  This makes the actions of Pres. Lincoln, who was the opposite of Mr. Jefferson – a Cromwellian figure, in fact, per Prof. Mel Bradford – all the more predictable.  Pres. Lincoln launched a war to prevent peaceful Southern secession (the falsely named ‘Civil War’ of 1861-5), and his actions during that war are amongst some of the worst by a government of the US against its citizens.  Some of the most egregious include the jailing of upwards of 30,000 citizens of the Northern States, deporting Ohio’s Rep. Vallandigham for opposing an income tax, silencing hundreds of newspapers, and intimidating voters.

Other notable parts of this pattern of precedents include the violent, corrupt federal Reconstruction of the South, which followed the War; the assassination of Pres. Kennedy (1963), likely at the behest of his Vice President Lyndon Johnson, among other characters; and the Ruby Ridge killings by the FBI (1992).

What conservatives saw in a NYC courtroom on May 30^th, 2024, shouldn’t have startled them so badly.  Things equally bad, and things much worse, have been done by their governmental elite in the past.  But, as we noted above, the historical amnesia of the peoples of the States precludes this.  And the cause of this forgetfulness transcends in importance the foolish and immoral acts of this or that administration or official.

That cause is the very thing upon which they pride themselves so highly:  American exceptionalism.  The freedom of the individual to chart his own destiny (the main aspect of American exceptionalism) necessarily means the severing of ties to the past and ties to community – for one to truly become ‘anything he wants to be,’ all restraints must be removed, however benevolent they may seem, including the most basic duties to one’s religion, family and neighborhood, history, class, culture, and even one’s own sex.

This hyper-individualism of theirs also leaves them vulnerable to the thing they dread the most:  a tyrannical, lawless government.  . . .

The rest is at https://identitydixie.com/2024/06/15/putting-trumps-conviction-in-historical-perspective/.

Thanks to Michael Hoffman for pointing out the importance of the Whiskey Rebellion in his writings.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘States Shouldn’t Kowtow to Racially-Gerrymandering Courts’

 

The Louisiana Legislature’s first session of 2024 will begin on Monday, 15 January, to deal in large part with a federal court’s order to create a second majority-minority federal congressional district.  It should be a quick session; the Legislature should simply refuse to comply.

They have solid justification for doing so.  First, the federal constitution gives plenary power over congressional elections to the State legislatures and to the federal legislature:

‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (Article I, Sec. 4).’

The federal courts are good at twisting words and phrases, but not even they can insinuate themselves into those lines.

Second, federal civil rights legislation doesn’t require it.  Justice Clarence Thomas is downright blunt in his dissenting opinion in Allen v Milligan (2023):

 

In enacting the original Voting Rights Act in 1965, Congress copied this definition almost verbatim from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1960—a law designed to protect access to the ballot in jurisdictions with patterns or practices of denying such access based on race, and which can-not be construed to authorize so-called vote-dilution claims. See 74 Stat. 91–92 (codified in relevant part at 52 U. S. C. §10101(e)). Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which cross-referenced the 1960 Act’s definition of “vote,” likewise protects ballot access alone and cannot be read to address vote dilution. See 78 Stat. 241 (codified in relevant part at 52 U. S. C. §10101(a)). Tellingly, the 1964 Act also used the words “standard, practice, or procedure” to refer specifically to voting qualifications for individuals and the actions of state and local officials in administering such require-ments.1 Our entire enterprise of applying §2 to districting rests on systematic neglect of these statutory antecedents and, more broadly, of the ballot-access focus of the 1960s’ voting-rights struggles. . . .

 

In any event, stare decisis should be no barrier to reconsidering a line of cases that “was based on a flawed method of statutory construction from its inception,” has proved in-capable of principled application after nearly four decades of experience, and puts federal courts in the business of “methodically carving the country into racially designated electoral districts.” Holder, 512 U. S., at 945 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). This Court has “never applied stare decisis mechanically to prohibit overruling our earlier decisions determining the meaning of statutes,” and it should not do so here. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 695 (1978). Stare decisis did not save “separate but equal,” despite its repeated reaffirmation in this Court and the pervasive reliance States had placed upon it for decades. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees in Brown v. Board of Education, O. T. 1953, No. 1, pp. 18–30. It should not rescue modern-day forms of de jure racial balkanization—which, as these cases show, is exactly where our §2 vote-dilution jurisprudence has led.

Third, any action of the federal government that violates the US constitution (such as the court order being discussed) is void, of no effect, and the proper response of States is to nullify such acts.  The Louisiana Legislature ringingly endorsed that view in SCR 21 last year.  They should follow through and veto these unconstitutional federal orders to racially gerrymander, rather than sheepishly comply.  If they don’t, they will reveal themselves to be hypocrites, saying one thing and then doing another.

Fourth, even the pro-centralizing Federalist Papers (the same documents that promised the federal courts would be the ‘weakest’ federal branch, having ‘judgment’ but not ‘force’ or ‘will’ – a promise we should insist be fulfilled), even they suggest that States ought not comply with unlawful federal measures, and then go on to recommend ways they can neutralize them.  Via the Tenth Amendment Center:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2024/01/garlington-states-shouldnt-kowtow-to-racially-gerrymandering-courts/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!