Traditional Values

Conservatives Against Consumption

Are fossil fuels responsible for moral and social decay?

|

All of the Republican presidential hopefuls who are so strenuously trying to out-do each other in defending family values may be overlooking one of the chief causes of moral and social decay: increased fossil fuel use. This is the surprising suggestion recently made by a couple of conservative intellectuals, Georgetown University political philosopher Patrick Deneen and American Conservative editor Rod Dreher.

Their speculation about the pernicious social effects of increased fossil fuel use was provoked by a recent article by conservative columnist George Will. In that column, Will argued, "A specter is haunting progressivism, the specter of abundance." Will asserts that progressives "crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing—by them—that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans' behavior." Unfortunately, progressive schemes for using energy rationing to gain further control over American lives are being undermined by the abundance of natural gas that has been unleashed by fracking. In addition, Will celebrates the fact that by shunning G.M.'s all-electric Volt automobile Americans are ignoring progressive hectoring to consume less.

Will's analysis—whether one accepts it or not—called forth dark musings on the malignant effects of fossil fuels and associated economic growth from Deneen and Dreher. Writing at the Front Porch Republic blog, Deneen asks, "Might some of the consequences of the mobility and power that expansive consumption of fossil fuels have engendered include the exacerbation of a number of baleful social trends, many of which result from the gas-addled belief in human mastery, control, and autonomy, as well as attendant instability and societal transformation? 

Dreher praised Deneen's insights and chimed in, asserting that "conservatism doesn't equal consumptionism." Dreher added, "It has apparently never occurred to Will to consider whether or not the centering of American economic life around oil consumption might have brought with it problems that ought to concern conservatives and the things they value, or ought to value."

What are some of the baleful social trends that track the rise of fossil fuels? Deneen observes that "the decline of 'family values,' communal norms, educational attainment, religious standards, civility, along with the rise of a culture of consumption, rootlessness, anomie, relativism, a 24-hour culture of distraction, titillation, highly-sexualized and violent imagery, sexualized childhood and adolescent adulthood" have all followed in the wake of ever more abundant energy from coal, oil, and natural gas. 

Oddly, Deneen and Dreher refrain from following the logic of their argument to its obvious conclusion: Reverse the social ills and immorality they decry by forcing Americans to consume less electricity and gasoline. After all, if we had less electric lighting, we'd go to bed early thus reducing the amount of time available for committing mischief. If our televisions went dark, communities could be strengthened by nightly gatherings around campfires where we could join together to sing folk songs. If our gasoline tanks ran dry, we'd all enjoy the communal experience of riding commuter trains to work and walking to the general store to buy groceries and sundries. In short, the moral paradise of pre-20th century America would be restored.

It is certainly true that fossil fuel use and wealth have increased together. For example, the Energy Information Administration reports that in 1949 Americans used 29 quadrillion Btus (a quadrillion British thermal units is equal to about 45 million tons of coal, or 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 170 million barrels of crude oil) of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. In 2010, fossil fuel use had nearly tripled to 81 quadrillion Btus. Since then the U.S. economy has grown more than 7-fold in real dollars from $1.8 trillion to $13.2 trillion and annual per capita GDP had more than tripled from $12,000 to $44,000. However, energy use and wealth creation do not march in a Btu-to-dollar lockstep since improvements in energy efficiency means that people today use less energy to produce a given unit of gross domestic product.

Deneen's chief problem with wealth is that it provides people with greater physical and economic mobility, thus enabling what he identifies as "rootlessness." The converse, rootedness—physical and economic immobility—is the natural consequence of poverty. Poor people lacking access to modern energy supplies have little time or bodily energy to devote to activities other than making a hardscrabble living. They have to get along with their families and neighbors since they cannot get away from them. Questioning traditions, especially those that undergird the authority and privileges of patriarchs and priests, will only cause the would-be freethinker grief.

To the evident dismay of Deneen and Dreher, it is certainly the case that physical mobility has increased. In 1949, the U.S. already had 300 vehicles per thousand residents and there are nearly 850 per 1,000 now. Only 17 million Americans traveled on commercial airlines in 1949. This rose to 630 million in 2010. Such mobility enlarges the freedom of Americans to live, work, and recreate where and with whom they like.

Deneen decries the erosion of "family values" and communal norms. The police didn't keep good national statistics on family violence back in the middle of the 20th century, but more recent trends are positive. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that rate of intimate partner violence fell by more than 50 percent [PDF] between 1993 and 2008. Recent evidence also finds that physical abuse and sexual abuse of children declined by more than 50 percent [PDF] between the early 1990s and 2007.

Speaking of communal norms, attempting to harm another person must surely be considered one of the more significant violations of those norms. Again, accurate national data only goes back so far, but the news is good. In 1973, there were an estimated 48 violent victimizations per 1,000 U.S. residents 12 years old and older. This rose to 50 per 1,000 in 1993 and has since steeply fallen to 14 per 1,000 (a decline of 70 percent).

And some communal norms are just evil. For example, one particularly noxious communal norm was the state-mandated and enforced racial segregation that prevailed in much of the United States. In 1949, nearly 30 states made it a crime for blacks and whites to marry. I am no great fan of public education, but with regard to educational attainment in 1949 barely 35 percent of Americans had graduated from high school by the age of 25. Today almost 90 percent have. In addition, only 5 percent had graduated from college, today nearly 30 percent have. With regard to civility, I suspect that it is true that one hears more Anglo-Saxon expletives in public than one did 50 years ago, but again the falling violent crime rate indicates a substantial increase in the type of civility that really counts. 

What about increasing anomie? Given our plummeting crime statistics, presumably Deneen doesn't mean literal lawlessness, but is referring to a sense of "personal unrest, alienation, and anxiety that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals." If wealth fosters anomie, wealthier people should be unhappy, right? However, recent research by University of Pennsylvania researchers finds that money does indeed tend to buy happiness, or at least greater life-satisfaction. Parsing data from 140 countries, the researchers report that "richer individuals in a given country are more satisfied with their lives than are poorer individuals" and that "those countries experiencing more rapid economic growth also tend to experience more rapid growth in life satisfaction."

Given the tenor of his screed, Deneen's worries about anomie likely extend to the oft-expressed concerns about the decline in civic engagement among Americans. Instead of volunteering at the local food bank, Americans are succumbing to the "distractions" and "titillations" of their big-screen televisions. And indeed there is evidence that volunteering has fallen off a bit and greater wealth and opportunity is to blame. Research by two UCLA economists finds that most of the decline in volunteering can be traced to the entrance of women fully into the paid work force since the 1950s and the increased segregation of communities by income. More recent data shows that for the last decade about 26 percent of Americans participate in volunteer work each year. With regard to pursuing one's ideals, surely putting your money where your mouth is would indicate some kind of civic engagement. As it happens, charitable giving in the United States has hovered around two percent of GDP for decades. 

All right, what about relativism and sex? Relativism is simply the flip side of Deneen's erosion of communal norms coin. The kind of "relativism" that especially annoys gloomy conservatives like Deneen is the increasing tolerance of gays by Americans. Deneen must surely believe that his bleak view that wealth produces decadence is fully vindicated in recent Gallup Poll data that shows that for the first time a majority of Americans favor gay marriage. And what about all those sexualized images? As it turns out, the more prevalent pornography has become the longer teens wait to have sex and the lower the teen pregnancy rate. In fact, teen pregnancy is down more than 40 percent from its peak in 1990. In addition, as access to pornography has increased, the forcible rape rate in the United States has fallen by 85 percent since 1980. Surely the decline in violent crime must indicate that "violent imagery" in movies, television, and video games is not having the effect that Deneen suggests. In fact, some recent research finds that violent video games are likely diverting some crime prone individuals from killing people to killing pixels [PDF].

Deneen's lament about the decline of family values no doubt incorporates concerns over contemporary out-of-wedlock birth and divorce rates. And no doubt increased wealth has intensified those trends. The trajectory of out-of-wedlock births has traced the increase in wealth in the United States. In 1940, 3.8 percent of American children were born to unmarried women; in 2009, 41 percent [PDF] were. Interestingly, 44 percent of nonmarital births were to women who had already given birth to one or more children. The entry of women into the paid labor force made nonmarital childbearing more economically feasible, although children living in single parent households are more likely to live below the poverty line. After women gained much greater control over their fertility with the advent of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion men became less willing to marry the women they impregnated. The result was far fewer shot gun weddings than in the past. 

Growing up in a single parent family as a result of a divorce or a nonmarital birth poses challenges for child rearing and the relative lack of resources often restricts the educational and career opportunities that such children have. But the social consequences are less dire than many ominous predictions [PDF] made in the 1990s claimed they would be. For example, Princeton University sociologist John DiIulio famously asserted that a massive cohort of "fatherless, Godless, and jobless" criminal super predators would result from the rise in out-of-wedlock births. Instead, as we've seen, violent crime rates fell sharply rather than rose over the past two decades.

So why has traditional marriage "until death do us part" become less common? In the 1970s, University of Chicago economist Gary Becker theorized that marriage encompassed production complementaries in which husbands pursue market opportunities and wives specialize chiefly in domestic activities including child rearing. With this division of labor, couples are more productive together than apart.

However, as the economy grew and women had more opportunities to participate in the paid labor force, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers argue that that shifted the incentives that underpin marriage. According to the two researchers observe, "The spread of indoor plumbing and electricity in the first half of the twentieth century, along with the myriad of household appliances that diffused throughout the last century (particularly in the 1950s and 1960s), led to vast increases in the productivity of housework." Such modern advances meant, among other dreadful things, that doing laundry at home now only takes 40 minutes per week rather than the once traditional four hours.

So freed from domestic chores, more women chose to work outside the home. Instead of marriage being based on production complementaries, Stevenson and Wolfers suggest "increasing leisure time and wealth along with the changing landscape defining sexual relations potentially raises the gains from consumption complementarities." In other words, couples increasingly marry to combine resources in order to enjoy greater consumption opportunities like living in more comfortable houses, more travel, collecting art, seeing theater, and dining out. To put that yet another way, couples now partake of more of those modern "distractions" and "titillations" that so exasperate Deneen and Dreher. And yet, despite the distractions, Stevenson and Wolfers point out: "While divorce rates have risen over the past 150 years, they have been falling for the past quarter century."

Certainly economic abundance produces its discontents, most especially among the self-anointed guardians of traditional morality. But what Deneen can't stand is that what he deplores as "instability and societal transformation" is regarded by most Americans as greater freedom and new opportunities to flourish. While conservatives like Deneen and Dreher and progressives may have different goals, they do, in the end, share the same ambition to engage in ever-more-minute supervision of Americans' behavior.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

NEXT: Four Years After Busting a Guy for Recording an Arrest, Boston Police Admit They Should Not Have Done That

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Conservative Elite has always been upset by the notion that the hoi polloi might gain access to the same luxuries that they enjoy.

  2. I only half kid MNG when I call him a Santorum Liberal. When you strip away the team cheer leading, there isn’t that much difference between the SOCONs and the nanny state liberals. The only issues I can see between them are gays and abortion.

    1. I’ve been saying that for years.

      1. A lot of their issues are just mutual cultural snobbery. The SOCONs see the nanny state liberals as decadent. And the urban liberals see the SOCONS as hay seeds. When you get down to it, they both want a nice comfy suburb with a strong police department that keeps the undesirables out and every one in line. There are a lot more similarities between liberal bastions like Cambridge and bible belt suburbs than you would think.

        1. The liberals substitute environmentalism and other causes for religion.

          1. Environmentalism actually has a societal benefit – religion doesn’t.

            1. Yes it does. It keeps the commies out.

              1. I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

                1. With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

                2. The eye of the needle was actually the name of a well-known, treacherous Biblical-era mountain route that was difficult to traverse on camelback.

              2. I always suspected you were a Leo Strauss conservative. That comment proves it.

                1. Shrike you are silly and ignorant. But you make up for it by being humorless.

                  1. You know, John, I never intended to found an organized religion, much less an hierarchical Church.

                    1. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

                    2. Of course the phrase “upon this rock I will build my church” is not considered to be an actual statement of me by 99.9999999% of modern scholars, but words put in my mouth.

                    3. I offer the collapse of Rome as proof of my existence.

                    4. No dipshit, the proof of your existence is the Roman destruction of Israel, which is exactly what you said would happen. All of that apocalyptic talk was not about the world, it was about Israel and the old covenant with God. See e.g. the parable of the land owner.

                      And of course we have about a gazillion references to your followers and existence in the years following your death. If we found letters in Turkey referencing Helen written 50 years after her death, we wouldn’t be talking about her as the mythical face that launched a thousand ships.

                    5. That is totally untrue. There is nothing apocryphal about that nor is there any evidence that it is. That is certainly not what Augustine, or Gregory or any of the credible modern scholars think.

                    6. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? John Dominic Crossan? Robert Funk? Robert M. Price? Marcus Borg? Bishop Spong?

                    7. Yes I have. And they are hardly 99% of the scholars in the world. And they are mostly pissing in the wind. They remind me of the people who spend their lives trying to figure out what is Plato and what is Socrates.

                      Most of what they find not to be historical is stuff that doesn’t jive with their ideology. Odd that isn’t it. Look we have a 2000 year tradition of what the Gospels are. I take that for what it is. Given the obviously weird things in the bible and the numerous things that someone making it up or tailoring it to a certain view to justify the church would have never left in there, I would say the pretty much got it right. Sorry I am not buying the grassy knoll theory of scripture. The document is just too messy to be the product of some conspiracy. It is what it is, a collection of eye witness testimony of some very strange events.

                    8. Bishop Spong? Is that catchy?

                    9. Damn, you’re fucked up.

                      You truly are some hideous mash-up of Leo Strauss and Jerry Falwell.

                    10. No Shrike. You are just too ignorant to understand what I am saying. And further, if you knew your ass from the hole in the ground about anything, you would know the last thing a good Protestant evangelical like Falwell would believe is that Jesus was talking about Israel rather than the world itself in his eschatology.

                    11. Just want to point out the unintended hilarity of a theological discussion on a libertarian website that’s generally associated with atheism.

                    12. you should stop by more often.

        2. They just want to control everything. They only differ in who they want in control.

          That’s why I’m a libertarian.

          I don’t believe that a free person should take orders or ask permission as long as they aren’t harming another person’s life, liberty or property.

          The problem is that people who think the way that I do tend not to seek positions of power. As a general rule people seek power to use it, not dismantle it.

          1. “I don’t believe that a free person should take orders or ask permission as long as they aren’t harming another person’s life, liberty or property.”

            _________________

            They want to give the orders, not take them.

            1. They like taking them too just as long as it is from Top Men.

            2. They also want to be the one people must go to for permission because it gives them the power to say “no”.

          2. An ethic so simple it must be true!

            1. Someone so simple they believe not taking is giving, that not giving is taking, and that laissez faire is imposed by force!

              Derp dee derpity derp!

              1. Laissez-faire wouldn’t have to be imposed by force if majorities tended to favor it. Other than democratic policymaking and imposition, how do you get to laissez-faire? On the wings of unicorns?

                And you know, I know, everyone knows that your ridiculous semantic nitpicking on tax rates is thoroughly bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, tax cuts that aren’t offset by spending cuts are a “tax cut” rather than “returning your money to you” but in the end who really gives a god damn?

                1. Laissez-faire is a lack of policy that is imposed by force.

                  Cold is an absence of heat. You don’t make cold out of heat.
                  Dark is an absence of light. You don’t make dark out of light.

                  Well, I don’t. You would.

                  1. That’s nonsense of course but… how do you get there? You’d have to do a lot of legislating would you not?

                    Just because you slap a sticker on your beliefs that says “freedom” doesn’t mean it requires no choices or effort to get there, sometimes against people’s will. You are proposing a system, one most people don’t actually want. It’s not a bucket of raw freedom dumped on people, it’s a specific economic system that comes with certain consequences.

                    1. You are proposing a system, one most people don’t actually want.

                      Only because they don’t understand that emergent order in the economy yields better results than top-down control.

                      it’s a specific economic system that comes with certain consequences.

                      Yeah. Everyone is richer. But some are richer than others. Better that everyone be poorer but more equal.

                    2. Laissez-faire is voluntary exchange. That’s not imposed on anyone by force. The only reason you persist in this line in babble is that’s is a way to seek bullshit moral equivalence between voluntary exchange on the one hand, and your system of massive coercion and and corruption on the other.

                    3. KC – that is why he says not giving is taking and not taking is giving.
                      To draw a moral equivalency between theft and a gift, between something done by force and something done by choice.

                    4. Laissez-faire is a specific economic system (one that tends to be rejected every time it’s tried). I don’t believe “voluntary exchange” is harmed in the slightest by intelligent government intervention. Often it results simply in more choices people can voluntarily make.

                    5. Ok Steve Chu. Throwing me in jail for buying a non-approved lightbulb doesn’t hinder my choices because it’s not a choice enlightended Top Men think I should make.

                    6. Throwing you in jail, really?

                      Old-fashioned lightbulbs are very energy inefficient, despite which manufacturers seemed content relying on the 100-year-old technology as a source of constant profits, since you had to replace them so often. Now they’re content making better bulbs anticipating policy changes. Nobody’s freedom is harmed by any significant degree. And I think it’s questionable that you should have the freedom to be needlessly energy inefficient, since that winds up costing me too.

                    7. Nobody’s freedom is harmed by any significant degree

                      Except the guy who wants to light his new apartment and buy 40 packs of ramen noodles with his 5 bucks. Those two are mutually exclusive when he is forced to shell out 4.99 for a twin pack of GE’s newest mandated profit machine at the local cornerstore. These policies restrict choice and reduce freedom.

                    8. Bullshit. If I can’t choose to buy an old bulb–one that companies will happily produce for me–then yes I have less freedom.

                      Ah, I see, anything that could possibly harm you or the collective could and should be regulated. If I don’t sleep enough, I may hit someone on the road. If I eat too much salt, I might cost the State more in health care (since they’re gonna cover my health care whether I want it or not). Time to regulate my sleep and eating habits, because it might affect Tony.

                    9. That presumes the most important consideration for everyone in purchasing a light bulb is energy efficiency to the exclusion of everything else. If everone agreed with that then no one’s freddom would be harmed by a significant degree, but that is simply not true, so you are wrong.

                    10. Rejected by whom?
                      It is most certainly rejected by businesses who seek to use regulation to stifle competition.
                      It is rejected by people who want to control things for the sake of controlling them.
                      It is rejected by idiots who seek to tell the experts how to do their job.
                      It is rejected by protectionists who would punish consumers to protect producers.
                      As far as I’m concerned those people can go fuck themselves.

    2. Well, MNG and lots of liberal voters are good on drug policy too. The people they vote for are a different story, of course. And a lot of them do seem to actually care about some civil liberties things a lot more than socons tend to.

      1. It is interesting about drug policy. The same people who are sane on drug policy, rail against McDonalds and transfat and GM foods and big pharma. I would imagine liberals would be easier on weed. But I doubt they would end the drug war. They would just have the FDA run it rather than the DEA.

        1. I don’t disagree. But I think it is important to remember that some liberals are pretty good on some issues that libertarian sorts care about.

          1. But I think it is important to remember that some liberals are pretty good on some issues that libertarian sorts care about.

            They thing to remember about people who are authoritarian on some issues, libertarian on others, is that when the chips are down, the authoritarian always wins out.

            “Gosh, Obama’s been a big disappointment on the WOD, Gitmo, civil liberties in general. But he wants to stick it to the 1%! Woot!”

        2. I mean, as much of a twerp as MNG can be, things would be a whole lot better if he were typical of liberals.

          1. True. MNG’s sin is his refusal to police and call out other liberals. It is not that he is so bad. It is that he excuses so much that is bad in other liberals.

        3. Whereas conservatives would continue locking people up for years for possessing a joint… and libertarians will continue making the perfect the enemy of the good and bashing both incarceration and treatment, while accomplishing nothing.

          1. You got us there, Tony. There’s all the difference in the world between conservatives voting for people who say, straight up, they will fight the WOD, and liberals voting for people who lie about it.

            1. Liberals vote for people who say, straight up, they will run massive budget deficits, and conservatives voting for people who lie about it.

            2. If you can put aside your obsessive need to score cheap political points, despite claiming not to have skin in the game, who do you suppose, in the long run, will make better drug policy? Liberals or the Jesus people?

              1. I donn’t know if theres a ton fo difference. Theres slightly less war on pot in states like MA and CA, whciha re dominated by liberals, but i dont see either of them legalizing pot or liberalizing drug policy beyond that. And as mentioned before, these are also the same people who are the hardest ass on tabacco, trans fats and any other substance thats “bad for you.”

                1. New York gave us minimum mandatory drug laws. California gave us three strikes. Good thing liberals care so much about civil liberties.

                  1. I’m sure a coalition of Bernie Sanders types and Rand Paul types would be the most fruitful way to go.

          2. libertarians will continue making the perfect the enemy of the good and bashing both incarceration and treatment, while accomplishing nothing.

            ________________

            We’d achieve spending a shitload less on the war on drugs, no longer locking up a shitload of non-violent offenders who don’t belong in jail, and permitting responsible people the freedom to smoke a damn joint. All that is nothing in your world. And who the hell is against treatment?

            1. And when libertarians accomplish that, I’ll stand corrected.

              1. Who could libertarians accomplish this when fucks like you vote for retards like Obama and company? You are beyond retarded when it comes to any idea that does not come out of the mouth of a politician with a (D) next to his/her name.

                1. replace how with who

    3. John, I think that’s what we’ve all seen for a long time. The two teams have the same goal, just different objectives for reaching it.

    4. nope – teh lub-rahls actually understand the establishment clause. HUGE diff

      1. No they don’t. Not if the God is Ghaia or the state anyway.

      2. No, they don’t. The Establishment Clause is intended to prevent an official state church, not to drive all religion from the public square.

        1. and prevent public monies used for religion per teh constitution & SCOTUS.

  3. I know it’s a stretch, but is it possible that Social Con douchebag and his buddy are just idiots who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Just how do you go about proving that oil consumption causes anomie, anyways?

    The premise on which the original spcon sneering is based, and upon which this response is also based, is complete unproven horseshit.

  4. Dreher has been peddling this stuff for years. He used to call it “crunchy” conservatism, meaning that he could wear sandals and eat granola and drive a shitty car and still be catholic and conservative. Even got run off from National Review for it, which is hard to do when you are advocating for *more* paternalism.

    1. Dreher and Frum were the Dave Weigel of National Review, wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      1. Wanna massage my thigh for a half-hour?

      2. Funny that you should mention both Weigel and sheep in the same sentence, because I seem to recall someone making the claim that he fucked them.

    1. Great column, thanks for the link.

  5. Dreher and Frum were the Dave Weigel of National Review, wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Weeeeeiggeeeelllll….. Weeeeiiiiiggggeeeelllllll…. Government is My Precioussssss.

  6. I blame the obesity problem on the decrease in rape.

    Just kidding. The real reason is the increase in the use of DNA evidence. It’s easy to stop crime if you can find the person who actually committed the crime and cause criminals to think they’ll get caught.

  7. Huntsman stumbles on the truth and Mother Jones is shocked.

    Huntsman: Well, an example would be that when given the first two years to lead out on the economy, he failed to do so. When given a chance to address Afghanistan–drawing down troops when we’ve done everything we can do?he has failed to do so. When he had an opportunity to embrace a bipartisan deficit spending proposal called Simpson-Bowles, it hit the garbage can. You get enough of these, and a kind of a pathology emerges here. People say, there’s no more trust in the executive branch. There was an opportunity to lead, and it wasn’t taken.

    Corn: But are these trust issues, or are these policy differences? There was the stimulus. Afghanistan was a long [policy] review–whether you agree or not?

    Huntsman: They’re all corrosive on the overall trust issue. When you run against crony capitalism and you have the Solyndras of the world pop up. There’s enough there to raise the issue of trust.

    Was the former Utah governor calling Obama pathological?as in pathological liar (the common usage)?

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/20…..-hampshire

    1. Give it up, disphit. Romney is your nominee.

      Have fun with that.

      1. What do I care?

        1. Because he’s the worst nominee in the history of the modern GOP.

          1. Not like I can do anything about it. And we have the worst President in the history of the DNC. So I guess it is kind of fitting.

            1. I can’t wait until Romney is utterly crushed by the Obama organization. Your tears will be delicious.

              1. Obama will probably win.

                But I think BHO will get less votes than McCain got in 2008. The turnout is going to hit a record low.

                1. I think the turn out will be pretty high. People are angry about Obama. The only way Obama wins is if there is a third party candidate. One on one, any Republican beats him.

              2. I seriously doubt the village idiot will be crushing anyone. Presidents don’t win re-election with effective 16% unemployment.

                And what will be funny is watching people like suddenly discover that GUITMO and assassinating American citizens are fierce moral imperatives again.

                And even if Obama were to win, good luck with a second term of a President who has done more to discredit liberalism than anyone in the last 100 years.

                1. “Presidents don’t win re-election with effective 16% unemployment.”

                  FDR did, because the Republicans nominated such a weak-ass candidate.

                  1. No FDR did because people hadn’t ever tried big government. FDR actually had new ideas. The current idiot hasn’t had a new idea in his life.

                    1. Why does he need new ideas? The old ones that worked before should do just fine.

                      What are the Republicans’ new ideas, again?

                    2. I would say the old ones are not working so well anymore given the fact that we are broke and having the worst recovery in living memory.

                    3. Yeah it was the worst recession in most people’s living memory, so that implies the hardest recovery, though it’s been much less painful than it could have been given our application of certain economic tools that we have thanks to the Great Depression…

                      Talking points again. You do realize I stay aware of what’s coming out of the GOP Ministry of Truth, don’t you? At least regurgitate them in your own words.

                    4. Yeah it was the worst recession in most people’s living memory, so that implies the hardest recovery

                      No Tony that normally implies the fastest recovery. Every other time in history the deeper the recession the bigger the recovery. That is up until now when Obama declared war on the productive.

                      And for someone who cut and pastes bad Kos talking points for a living to accuse anyone of giving out talking points is perhaps peak irony.

                    5. Explain the market mechanism by which a housing bubble crash recovers quickly.

                      How are the lowest tax rates in decades a “war on the productive”?

                      I may indulge the occasional talking point, but I don’t strive so hard to believe things that make absolutely no sense just because they help a political party.

                    6. Yeah it was the worst recession in most people’s living memory, so that implies the hardest recovery, though it’s been much less painful than it could have been given our application of certain economic tools that we have thanks to the Great Depression…

                      Talking points again. You do realize I stay aware of what’s coming out of the GOP Ministry of Truth, don’t you? At least regurgitate them in your own words.

                    7. Explain the market mechanism by which a housing bubble crash recovers quickly.
                      ___________________

                      Prices fall to a market-clearing level at which time they start going back up. You have to remember that the crash IS the recovery; the bubble was the sickness.

                    8. So John’s wrong to suggest that current high unemployment levels as a result of the “recovery” is the fault of Obama’s meddling? You seem to be saying it’s the necessary and proper penalty for an economy that had been very, very bad.

                    9. Yes. In my view the recession was unavoidable and had to happen to correct the massive distortions baked into the market, largely by government policy. That doesn’t mean Obama should not be taken to task for pissing away 800 billion after telling the country that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8%, or for proposing the laughable Porkulus Jr.

                    10. You were doing so well, then you joined John in regurgitating Romney/RNC talking points That 8% figure comes from a campaign document by Christina Romer produced before Obama even took office, and which they’ve repeatedly said was too rosy given that the downturn was worse than predicted.

                      And all reliable data suggests that the stimulus bill kept unemployment down from where it would have been otherwise. And all economists who support stimulus spending say it wasn’t enough to return to full employment. It was simply the best Obama could do given the realities of passing something through Congress.

                      We could try your strict daddy approach to economics, but libertarians have this bizarre tendency to blame unemployed people for their situation regardless of the circumstances, so I suppose you’d let up on that and propose increasing unemployment insurance benefits?

                    11. You have reliable data on what unemployment “would have been otherwise?” We have another name for that, it’s called “made up shit.”

          2. After Dubya, there is no room at the bottom.

            1. You betcha !

              1. Well, Nixon did give us most of our civil rights laws, the EEOC and the EPA.

                1. I agree!

                2. And don’t forget, he put the “war” in war on drugs.

                  He also signed my, “from a grateful nation… ” letter when I was discharged from the army, so he has that going for him.

          3. “Because he’s the worst nominee in the history of the modern GOP.”

            As bad as mittens is, he’s got to be better than bush the lesser

            1. Until he gets us into his idiotic war against an idea.

          4. Worse than Bush? Nixon? He’ll almost certainly not be any better than the typical establishment Republican, but he’s not Santorum or Gingrich.

    2. Pathological: Involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease.

      Fucking words, how do they work?

      Nice straw man setup though. Even so, I believe the pathological liar accusation independently of Huntsman’s interview.

      1. Comment is more directed at article content rather than comment.

      2. I agree. Huntsman makes a valid point about Obama’s hypocrisy and Corn has a fainting fit pretending that he is calling Obama insane.

        1. Worse, he thinks that it was code for “pathological liar”, when the word “pathology” doesn’t even carry those connotations, and certainly not in that context. It’s bad enough that he was to be a whiny little shit, but his complaint isn’t even plausible.

      3. Wouldn’t narcissism and megalomania count as the requisite “mental disease”?

        1. Narcissism and megalomania are necessary attributes for anyone seeking government office nowadays.

        2. I was thinking more along the lines of statism as the mental disease.

  8. I find the concern about “rootlessness” ironic given who it was who famously raised concerns about “rootless cosmopolitans.” You wouldn’t think that they would want to use a term so close to the Soviet euphemism.

    1. It is also a bit ironic that the same people who claim to love a country made up almost entirely of the decedents of immigrants to be concerned about people becoming “rootless” whatever that is.

      My roots are just fine thank you.

      1. Isn’t having roots a cause of a lot of the problems of the world? If people were less concerned with where they come from and who their people are, a lot of conflicts would become pretty pointless.

        1. That is a good point Zeb. Another word for “roots” is “tribe”. And yeah, I think places like Rwanda and Bosnia would do well to have a few more “rootless” people.

  9. This is a really great article, Bailey.

  10. Im pretty sure one of those guys is WI.

  11. Shorter version of this bullshit, same crap we get from the greens, is:

    “We’d all be better off if YOU were poorer.”

    1. These guys are at least smart enough not to mention out loud that they think the world would be a better place if the 5B people least like them would die without breeding.

  12. ::puts on pendant’s hat::

    Only 17 million Americans traveled on commercial airlines in 1949. This rose to 630 million in 2010.

    Better to say that Americans took a total of 17 million trips on commercial aviation in 1949 and 630 million trip in 2010 as there aren’t that many of us.

    Indeed that represents a mean of slightly more than 2 trips per American.

    1. AN excellent example of what we were discussing last week: why, when the denominator changes by a lot, you should use rates, not numbers.

      1. You need both. If you just use rates, it lets them say things like “the rate of X has doubled”. That sounds really bad until you realize the numbers were minuscule to begin with.

      2. So, the internet tell me that the population of the US was about 149 million in 1949, which makes er… slightly more that 1/10 trip per American then.

        Factor of twentyish. That’s pretty big.

        1. But most of that is a product of efficiency. Planes were much less efficient in 1949 than they are now. So it makes sense people would use them more now.

  13. I want a guarantee from John and other members of the Republican establishment that gas prices are hands-off for criticizing Democrats. The Party of Oil ought to own gas prices.

    1. Open up the pipeline from Canada, off shore drilling and ANWAR and sure. But as long as the Democrats are intentionally restricting supply, they own the higher prices that result.

      1. How would increasing production in Canada reduce oil prices in the US? How does increasing production in the US even? You do know how the oil market works, don’t you? Because it sounds like you’re regurgitating Republican talking points as if they were factual again.

        Doing the bidding of the international oil cartel is not the same thing as making energy cheaper or the economy stronger. I know this is news to you.

        1. How would increasing production in Canada reduce oil prices in the US? How does increasing production in the US even?

          Not even the real Tony is this stupid.

          1. but, be sure, there are people that are truly that stupid.

            1. See MNG below. No one thinks he is a sock puppet. And he seems to be on this issue at least just as stupid as Tony.

              1. Can you answer the question? Do prices come only from supply, or is demand a factor? I mean, this so obvious right that anyone who thinks differently than you is “Stupid.”

                1. They are both a factor. If you artificially manipulate one or the other, you will change the price. If I artificially depress the supply of something, I will raise the price higher than it otherwise would be and am thus responsible for said price increase. Sure, maybe demand goes up and increases prices even more. But that doesn’t relieve me of the responsibility of the portion of the rise created by my artificial suppression of supply.

                  1. So both supply and demand drive price. So saying the Dems own prices because they restrict supply is at least half wrong, right?

                    1. Yes dipshit. If you suppress supply, you own the resulting price increase. It is that simple.

                    2. But you just said price is a function of supply AND demand. Which is it?

                    3. He just said both are influences. The Dems (and some Reps) are activly working to restrict supply. That puts them in the blame seat. If the Reps were activly trying to restrict the supply of oil into the market or supress demand in some way, then they would be in the seat as well. How is that half wrong?

                2. The price of anything is the point at which its demand curve crosses its supply curve. If you increase supply, while demand remains constant, price will decrease.

        2. “How would increasing production in Canada reduce oil prices in the US?”

          Fungible commodities, how do they work? Supply and demand how does it work?

          Let me put it in simple terms so you can understand. The more you have of something, the less it generally costs.

          1. You think increased supply in the US (a relatively small amount compared to global supplies–and which still goes on the global market) will more than make up for increased demand in developing countries?

            Drill baby drill won’t lower gas prices

            1. “More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices,” said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. “But the amount that we’re talking about domestically, it wouldn’t move gas prices from $4 a gallon to $3.”

              From the very article you cited, you ignorant cunt.

              1. Oh so when I asked how would increasing production in Canada and the US lower domestic gas prices, you supposed I was asking a question that could be answered with “technically” followed by a trivial truth about supply and demand.

                The question is whether it would make such a difference as to be worth it. Not even a dollar/gal difference? We have shifts bigger than that over a Saudi royal’s farts.

                1. The question is whether it would make such a difference as to be worth it.

                  Worth it for who? And whom gets to decide what’s “worth it?”

                  1. I dunno, maybe the citizens of the areas affected? Or do oil companies have domain across state and national borders to drill whatever land they choose?

                2. The question is whether it would make such a difference as to be worth it. Not even a dollar/gal difference? We have shifts bigger than that over a Saudi royal’s farts.

                  ________________________

                  Holy crap, a dollar per gallon is a more than 25% move from current prices. You really think that’s no big deal? If so, about 99% of Americans would strongly disagree and would very much want their fill-ups to cost 25% less.

                  1. Yeah but as the article I cited noted, $1/gal is well beyond what proposed increases in domestic production would affect gas prices.

              2. “you ignorant cunt”

                What is wrong with you that you would call a person a “cunt” when the person said “You think increased supply in the US… will more than make up for increased demand in developing countries?” Then you site something that says that it will reduce price, yes, but that is not what Tony claimed. And you call him a “ignorant cunt” over this? What’s wrong with you?

            2. shorter Tony: don’t do it if it isn’t perfect

              1. I love how lefties use this new oil supply will onyl make a trivial reduction in oil prices as an argument to not allow any of it.

                But then they support throwing subsisides to all their green energy cronies, another hting that will only make a trivial increase in total energy, and in that case its more expensive than oil.

                1. I love how lefties use this new oil supply will onyl make a trivial reduction in oil prices as an argument to not allow any of it.

                  But then they support throwing subsisides to all their green energy cronies, another hting that will only make a trivial increase in total energy, and in that case its more expensive than oil.

                  Your first mistake is to expect lefties to hold themselves to the same standards that they hold others.

      2. “But as long as the Democrats are intentionally restricting supply, they own the higher prices that result.”

        They own it? That’s funny, I used to think there was second part to that Law I learned in Econ 101, you know it was “Supply and ____”

        1. So if I banned or controlled the production of computers or drugs, I wouldn’t be responsible for the resulting price increases?

          We get it MNG. Nothing bad that ever happens is the result of Democratic policies. It is always the fault of the market or evil wreckers err Republicans.

          1. Let’s end this “great game” as you call it right here John.

            I’ll start posting comments I’ve made in the past where I state without equivocation that the Democrats are worse than the GOP on an issue. And then you match it with a statement you’ve made in the past where you’ve stated the Dems are better than the GOP.

            Ready?

            1. Again, if I limit the production of something, I am not responsible for resulting price increase?

              And of course, you never actually name anything specific. You just claim to believe such things exist generally.

              Yeah, we get it.

              1. You know you will lose that game.

                Because I can site many areas where I have unequivocally said that liberals and Dems are worse than conservatives and GOPers. Only you have said you think one side is always better.

                You’re a hack John, and your calling others a hack is hilarious.

                1. “Because I can site many areas where I have unequivocally said that liberals and Dems are worse than conservatives and GOPers”

                  Those would be?

                  1. Let’s start where we are at. Keystone.

                    MNG|11.16.11 @ 9:27AM|#
                    I think the opposition to the pipeline is stupid. People use gas and oil, we need to transport it, it seems this is as safe as anything else.

                    Now, your turn.

                    1. MNG|11.16.11 @ 9:36AM|#
                      The number one stupid thing among liberals today imo is: TRAINS!!!!

                      Opposition to this pipeline is my number two.

                      Now John, your turn.

                    2. What do you mean by “trains”? Individual projects or the obsession with subsidizing them in general? And do you object to liberal energy policy in general or just this particular position on the pipeline?

                      And I have said on numerous occasions liberals are much better watchdogs for civil rights than conservatives are provided a Republican is President. If you have a Republican President, liberals actually do a good job of providing a voice for civil rights and restraint of the executive branch.

                      The problem is they forget all of that once their guy gets in charge. But they are good provided it is the other team, which is more than I can say for Republicans.

                    3. “And I have said on numerous occasions liberals are much better watchdogs for civil rights than conservatives are provided a Republican is President.”

                      Have you said this any time prior to a week ago after I backed you into saying the GOP is better on every issue? Please supply proof.

                      “What do you mean by “trains”? ”

                      Go to the thread, we’re talking Obama and California’s specific train projects. I’ve always called the liberals wrong and the conservatives right on that.

                      So we’re waiting for you to substantiate your one. Do you want another from me?

                    4. MNG|11.22.11 @ 10:17AM|#
                      There are many areas where liberals/Dems tend to be worse than conservatives/GOPers: gun rights, balanced budget, affirmative action, health nannyism, sin taxes.

                    5. So if liberals are wrong on trains I guess they are wrong on gas taxes and public transit in general right?

                      And the Republicans suck on most things. Our entire political class has gone mad and is out to bankrupt the country. It is hard to say that one side is that much better than the other at this point, especially since Obama has been more aggressive about the War on Terror and killing Al Quada operatives that Bush ever was. You can’t say the Dems are going to surrender to the Islamists.

                      That is why I really don’t care who the Republicans nominate. Obama is so bad any of them will be an improvement. But it is not like they will do that much good either.

                      Just because there is almost nothing good to say about the Democratic Party and liberals in general is not an endorsement of Republicans.

                    6. Oh, you’d like to weasel out wouldn’t you? Nope. You spend all this time calling me a shill for the Dems, but when pressed I can name, now and in the past, where I think GOP > Dems. And you can’t point to one time past a week ago where you’ve done the same.

                      Face it John, you are the partisan hack. You. And everytime you try to call me or NM or any of the moderates around here “partisan hacks” just because we disagree with you about whatever anti-Dem/Obama/liberal rant you are on that day I’m going to keep throwing it up in your face.

                    7. So I’m going to create this convenient little comparison so I can bookmark it and throw it in John’s face whenever he goes into his tiresome little schtick about how the other person he is arguing with is a partisan.

                      John|11.22.11 @ 10:28AM|#
                      I am open for suggestions MNG. I cannot think of a single thing where the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are not equally horrid.

                      MNG|11.22.11 @ 10:17AM|#
                      There are many areas where liberals/Dems tend to be worse than conservatives/GOPers: gun rights, balanced budget, affirmative action, health nannyism, sin taxes.

                      Which statement is indicative of blind partisanship?

                    8. Republicans are horrid. Yeah that is some blind partisanship there MNG. Do you even listen to yourself?

    2. “How would increasing production in Canada reduce oil prices in the US?”

      Fungible commodities, how do they work? Supply and demand how does it work?

      Let me put it in simple terms so you can understand. The more you have of something, the less it generally costs.

  14. None of this is something new or surprising, as long as you don’t get your “conservatism” solely from Fox and Limbaugh. Think about the “New Agrarians,” or half the people in Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. They were all shocked and often disgusted by what they thought capitalism was and did in this country.

    1. And the rejection of capitalism and modernism is hardly something that is unique to conservatives. That most liberal of all revolutions, the French, was very much an anti-capitalist and anti-modern revolution. The Ancen Regime was quite capitalist and in many ways more open to mobility than England. Liberty, equality and fraternity was not forward looking ideology. It was a return to something older, more patriotic classical inspired France not a modern state as we know it. And certainly not a capitalist one.

      Whether it be the environmentalists, the 1%ers or the SoCons, there are a lot of forces arrayed against change and progress. They may disagree on what the past they want to return to is, but they all agree on the need to get there. Postrel has made an entire career off of this idea. There is no liberal or conservative. There are dynamists and stasis as Postrel calls them.

  15. “When you strip away the team cheer leading, there isn’t that much difference between the SOCONs and the nanny state liberals.”

    This is only if you think the defining political issue is “how much government there is”, not “what does goverment do.” For most people the latter is at least as important of a quesiton, and so people that give different answers to that question are, you know, seen as being pretty far apart.

    1. Actually, the question of “What does Government do?” is irrelevant.

      Every government program develops “mission creep”: “We’ve done this, but we need these extra powers to accomplish it better.” [This is also true in the corporate world, but in corporations the ability to do so is limited by the availability of funds to pay for it.]

      The result is that governments are always expanding their scope and power. Eventually, no matter how “noble” their purpose, all governments tend to look and act alike.

  16. I wonder if any of these people are fundies, and what fundies think of fossil fuels in general.

    I mean, if god just stuck fossils in the ground at random, he must have put oil there too. Why put it there if we aren’t to use it?

    1. I know more than a few evangelicals. And I have never met one who objected to oil or was any kind of a big environmentalist. Yeah, they like to live simply. But I have never heard the topic even raised.

  17. Anyway all “conservatives” ought to be against continued unchecked consumption of fossil fuels. The more conservatives do unpaid shill work for Big Oil the less they should be allowed to call themselves conservatives, because it’s just too ridiculous.

    What’s conservative would be transitioning to sustainable clean energy, i.e., conserving as much of the climate status quo as possible.

    What’s radical–one of the most radical actions ever undertaken by human beings–is to disrupt the chemical makeup of the atmosphere in the name of profit.

    1. You should support unchecked consumption of fossil fuels. The sooner they’re used up, the sooner their price will rise to a point where alternatives become economically viable.

      1. I support making producers and consumers of fossil fuel energy pay for the damage that production and consumption causes. You know, a free market.

        1. I don’t share your faith in the AGW cult.

        2. Tony please for me, quanitify excatly how much damage is being caused by oil and then prove to me the heavy taxes already placed on fossil fuels doesnt already address that externality.

          No one has values on that – so it can’t be done.

          1. It probably can’t be exactly quantified, but that certainly doesn’t equal $0.

            And given that global warming hasn’t been fixed yet, it’s apparent that the damage has not been accounted for by taxes.

            1. but it doesnt have to be zero to be cancelled. Taxes on oil are huge. And finding the equilibrium that satisfies the externality is not the case where there is zero warming. There is some level of warming that is optimal because reducing it further would cost more than the benifit.

              So in the non Al Gore hysteria case, where warming might only be minor, that externality may already be covered.

              So I once again ask. How are you so sure that the harms of oil are so big and how are you sure that the current taxes dont already cover them?

              1. According to current science, mitigating just the worst potential consequences of global warming will require significant shifts in energy use entailing large-scale policy changes. Any honest accounting of the harm fossil fuels cause leads one to conclude that the industry is receiving massive subsidy rather than being overtaxed.

                Which makes sense considering how politically powerful the oil industry is. Do you suppose their overwhelming political clout has somehow resulted in a fair balance of taxes and subsidies?

                1. They have clout, but so do lots of groups against them. Considering the heavy taxe don gasolien and royalties, i wouldnt say thay are that powerful in the end. Green energy gets a much higher subsidy that oil does.

                  1. Not when you count the lack of penalty for imposing external costs. Green energy should, of course, get more subsidies, since we’re not talking about playing a game in which fossil fuel and green energy are merely competitors and we have to play fair, we’re talking about a strategy to end the use of fossil fuel energy since it’s killing the planet.

                2. According to current science, mitigating just the worst potential consequences of global warming will require significant shifts in energy use entailing large-scale policy changes.

                  ______________________

                  This is called politics. Science is entirely different and involves hypotheses subjected to tests that produce (or don’t) repeatable results. I understand that you want to blend the two if it provides the cover for imposing your top-down worldview on everyone.

                3. The government takes in far more money from fossil fuels through taxes than the industry ever sees in profit.
                  Big Oil might see two cents profit per gallon while state and federal taxes add up to almost a dollar.
                  And then Big Oil pays taxes on that two cent per gallon profit.

                  Talk about being disingenuous.

    2. The term “Conservative” requires some kind of definition when being used. It meens many different things.

      Does it mean conservtive in the Taft or Goldwater sence? which is really just an evolution of classical liberalism and took that name because of its opposition to the new dealers who took liberal? Or is it conservative in the philisophical sence, the edmund burke or hobbes sence of the word?

      The word itself means nothing and its the reaosn why both Goldwater and Falwell can both be described as conservative.

      1. That is why I think Postrel is on to something.

    3. As soon as someone invents a clean energy that can power modern life at a competitive price, we will transition to it in no time without any government meddling. But the government meddling is really the point for you, isn’t it?

  18. A similar point has been made by Steve Horwitz in his work on the history of the family. It used to be you got married, stayed married for life, and had lots of kids who followed you in your profession, because it was an economic necessity. Marriage wasn’t about love, it was about business. Prosperity changed this.

    This does not mean we all became immoral once we got rich. Nonsense. It used to be you married who your parents told you to, and then had an affair on the side. Adultery used to be a habit, but marrying for love reduced it to a mere infrequent lapse.

    1. Also people didn’t live as long. A lot of women died in child birth. It was pretty rare for someone to be married to the same person for decades, usually one of you died long before then.

      I really hate the way the SOCONs pretend there was ever some golden age of morality. I don’t see how people are any less moral today than they were a hundred years ago. The only real difference I can see is that people are more open about it now than they used to be.

      1. Google “Rule 34”.

  19. This anti-technology vision was better as presented in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. Which just proves how underwhelming and overplayed the anti-technology vision is.

  20. “Deneen and Dreher refrain from following the logic of their argument to its obvious conclusion: Reverse the social ills and immorality they decry by forcing Americans to consume less electricity and gasoline. ”

    This is not a reasonable statement. The only way forcing lower energy consumption is a logical conclusion of their arguments is if you accept, a priori, that government intervention is the only way to reverse social ills. It assumes the validity of the progressive position. You might as well say,

    “Deneen and Dreher refrain from following the logic of their argument to its obvious conclusion: Reverse the social ills and immorality they decry by putting a vial of mud next to every electric socket and have all gas stations attended by ballet dancers and stevedores.”

    But if you don’t think that course of action would achieve anything why would you say it?

    I thought Reason was a libertarian mag. Why would any of its authors decry the fact that someone does not call for government intervention? Could it be the author is actually a progressive who, coincidentally, doesn’t actually want any “social ills and immorality” reversed?

  21. It’s hard to take conservatives seriously on energy issues when they come up with conspiracy theories like “fossil fuel scarcity being a scheme to impose rationing on the population”. If oil becomes scarce then prices will rise and people consume less. If one bothers to look at the fundamental economic data regarding the oil market then it’s quite clear that the prices have gone up 300% in the past 6 years and that this trend will continue.

  22. If one bothers to look at the fundamental economic data regarding the oil market then it’s quite clear that the prices have gone up 300% in the past 6 years and that this trend will continue.

    Is this because supply had gone down or more people on the earth willing to buy it? There is a reason we are exporting gasoline.

  23. Didn’t They Live tell us to consume?

  24. So according to Deneen and Dreher increased wealth and freedom are resulting in the destruction of our society.

    Insidious horseshit.

  25. “Don’t you ever wonder why,
    as all kinds of technology
    is on the go —the internal
    combustion engine hasn’t
    fundamentally changed since
    Ford’s day? –It’s EUGENICS
    folks. Capstone Globalism
    wants you dead.”

    USURY, unacountable Globalist
    USURY begets EUGENICS.

    The connection between the I.D.–ALL
    actuarial pschopathy (ie USURY)
    is a Law of Moses condemned ABOMINATION.

    It mocks creation by conjuring
    value and reality out of nothing
    —and so mocks God Almighty.

    EUGENICS, and, in its purest form,
    GENOCIDE,is its sole long term
    aim and ‘cultural contribution’.

    THE WORLD IS WAKING UP

  26. I wish you would stop playing into the hands of those who oppose progress and prosperity by calling them “progressive.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.