Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The promise of electric vehicles right around the corner has been with us for over a 100 years.  Go Google Image search for 1900s electric car and look at all the old ads.  All failed.  Tesla is a complete scam, a new Mississippi Company.  People who speculate in their stocks or purchase their exploding cars will be burned when Musk stops coming up with clever ways to keep the spotlight off his collapsing business.

Global total conventional oil reserves are at about 20 years' supply.  The remaining few decades of global oil reserve are from very energy intensive extraction methods, such as heating the entire ground to loosen the near-solid-state oil to flow, at which point it is refined with far more waste than in conventional oil.  Reserve replacement rates for the past decade have been about 3% - so for every 100 barrels we deplete reserves, our mega corp oil companies have only found 3 in replacement.  All in all, the boom go-go era of cheap energy is coming within our lifetimes.

My best guess is that following a mega war, oil fields will, in some form or another, become tightly under government control, with the majority of production being sent to armies, mega corps, and a few elites.  The common man will use small EVs that can travel at moderate speed for a couple hours, enough to get him to work and back home every day.  Long-haul trips will be a thing of the past, and moving heavy loads (trucking) will be far more costly.  Air travel and free next-day delivery will be a thing of the past.

There is nothing intelligent that can be done to conserve oil.  It is the world's largest Tragedy of the Commons predicament.  It will be drained until a large war gives governments the excuse to seize oil fields, like they seized factories in WWII.

Small EVs can prevent us from going back to horse and carriage, but do not expect to be cruising 80mph across the countryside on the Great American Roadtrip. Instead, expect to be puttering around in a glorified golfcart to and from your work.

EVs, however, will not save us from all the other things which are produced from petroleum.  Nearly all of our agriculture is grown from petrofertilizers - it will be quite the miracle if they can continue to harvest monocrops on the same fields year after year again without such petrochemicals.  Think of all the plastics, the chemicals we use in daily life, nearly all are some derivative of oil.  Man was out killing whales for their oil before he found petroleum - to what length will man go again when the petroleum goes away?

My larger concern is with the food supply.  Most people live no where near fertile land, and their existence is highly dependent upon the ability for monocrops to be grown in nutrient-dead soil fertilized with petrochemicals and then trucked at low cost across the country to megabox retailers, all just-in-time to be eaten.  The remainder, which is actually a gigantic part of the US food supply, is shipped in from all corners of the globe.  It seems hard to imagine this food distribution system surviving post-oil.  We saw just a couple months ago a taste of what its like when the trucking system breaks down - Brazil had a trucker strike for a week and the country fell apart - stores emptied, chickens culled by the tens of millions, fears of starvation.
General News and Discussion / Re: Helsinki Summit Outcome
« Last post by Larry on Today at 02:13:29 AM »
Contra Newt, I think the biggest mistake so far of Trump's presidency may have just been his "clarification" or whatever you want to call it.

First of all, he was right the first time. Second of all, not a single person buys it. Third, it really makes him appear weak.

He's the guy that isn't supposed to give a crap about what kind of backlash he gets. Evidently, he gave a crap.

I think he was told by the globalist hacks that he had to make this "clarification", or else his Presidency was over(or maybe a physical threat to him or his family). So he compromised on this. But Trump is still the biggest threat to the New World Order, and I'll bet the farm that he subtly takes back this "clarification" in a tweet, or in one of his stump speeches.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: New SSPX superior general!!
« Last post by Gerard on Today at 01:26:15 AM »
Just to clarify:

This is no where near what Gerard claims.

Just to clarify:  Who controls Angelus Press? Why wasn't Angelus Press giving us any updates on the "reflections."  (A constant John Paul II word to get his ideas out without claiming them doctrine.)

And, the question still lingers about why Bishop Fellay kept the fact of GREC's existence so quiet while at the same time saying to crowds of faithful gathered, "What you know, I know."

Notice also, that the characters involved are not named, nor is the fact that some of them were actual participants in the "doctrinal discussions" that we've never seen nor heard a peep about since they happened. 

You can see the whole article from 'another side" on the linked site.

The G.R.E.C.
(Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques or: Group for Reflection Among Catholics).
A once hidden story, now revealed.
By a Dominican Father of Avrillé, France.
In December 2011, Father Michel Lelong, member of the Society of the White Fathers (la Société des Pères Blancs), published a work entitled Pour la nécessaire réconciliation (For the necessary reconciliation), prefaced by Dom Éric de Lesquen O.S.B., Abbot Emeritus of Randol (a foundation of the Monastery of Fontgombault).

This book, 159 pages long, relates the work of the Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques (GREC), from 1998 to 2010, in other words, twelve years of “discreet, but not secret” meetings (p. 29). These meetings, which were sometimes monthly, gathered together representatives of the official hierarchy, superiors of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, and members of the Society of Saint Pius X. Their goal? “To speak without anger about things which make us angrry 1” to favour the “necessary reconciliation”.   It will, of course, be necessary to clarify just what those in charge of the GREC meant by this expression.
The Coffee Pot / Re: any suggestions on how to discern what GOD wants?
« Last post by Greg on Today at 01:10:17 AM »
Thats just Argentians.  They are all like that.
General Information / Re: Chat room is now live!
« Last post by Philomena on Today at 12:52:53 AM »
I'm in chat now with the Jacob guy;

Unchaperoned?   :o

Hahaha, you see the "Chat" label on the forum bar at the top? Just click on it & there will be a chatroom :)

(& please get in if you can, I need some serious emotional talk :( )

Sorry, I didn’t see this before. Feel free to shoot me a pm if you still want to talk.  :)
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Some guy got a piece of paper ...
« Last post by Greg on July 17, 2018, 11:56:03 PM »
Woo.....makes otherwise rather dull lives interesting.

Most of us like a bit of woo, a bit of superstition.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: New SSPX superior general!!
« Last post by St.Justin on July 17, 2018, 11:09:19 PM »
Just to clarify:

Posted on August 2, 2013 by Angelus Press

Blog Note: Over the past couple of years, a great deal of misinformation has been circulating about the group known as the GREC, including what some on the traditionalist spectrum seem to regard as a desire for compromise between tradition and novelty. Despite there being no justification for this claim, it has continued to circulate. In the interest of justice, we offer the following from reliable sources who are familiar with the group and its work, and offer the following clarifications.
As a result of misinformation, or one-sided application of information received and badly digested, it has become necessary to address the issue of the GREC, much mentioned in recent correspondence.
The acronym GREC is French in origin. Its meaning in English translation is a study group for Catholics.
A book published fairly recently in France by Nouvelles Editions Latines traces the origins and development and topics discussed in the study sessions between Traditional and Conciliar Catholics. The text was written by a French priest, Fr. Michel Lelong, and contains many contributions by other participants.
Regarding the GREC and its presentation to the public, it is clearly stated on page 71, “in this chapter dedicated to the Second Vatican Council as in the previous chapters the author [Fr. Lelong] presents his point of view. The viewpoints of the other participants will be given later on in relation to the way in which the last Council was received and lived. So it will be with all the other chapters of the book.”
The contribution of Fr. Alain Lorans, the editor of DICI, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, can be found on pages 136-141 of Fr. Lelong’s work.
On page 137, Fr. Lorans writes, “However, if a climate of Charity appears necessary to us, it is not enough for all that. A peaceful dialogue is not an end in itself, but an indispensable means of reaching the truth.”
“The GREC does not seek a compromise made up of half- truths or things not said; our mutual charity does not exclude frankness, on the contrary it demands it” (source: pp. 136-137).
“The Society of Saint Pius X considers that the solution to the crisis cannot skimp on a rigorous clarification of the doctrinal questions in dispute, for it does not believe in the efficacy of medications that treat only the symptoms and not the cause” (pg. 140).
As Cardinal Ottaviani said, Veritatem facientes in caritati. Speaking in Charity does not mean not speaking strongly (source: L’Eglise et La Cité).
On the matter of the authorization given him by Bishop Bernard Fellay to take part in the meetings of the GREC, Fr. Lorans writes – “I received permission from the Superior General to participate in the meetings of the GREC. He confided in me that he believed only in the possibility of a dialogue at this informal level, as the gates of the official structures appeared to him at the time, 1997 — the formal launch of the GREC — to be blocked and bolted. In fact, the GREC was an informal group, a few dozen people that met between 1997 and 2011 in Paris.”
When the official discussions began between the Roman theologians and those of the Society, the GREC meetings no longer served any useful function, and so ended towards the end of 2011.
“Just as with the GREC and Roman discussions, the constant aim of the Society was to make better known the traditional doctrinal positions and not to negotiate a practical agreement of whatever kind. No member of the GREC, whether traditionalist or conciliar, ever received a mandate from his superiors to proceed in that direction.”
That is why Fr. Loran’s wrote on page 136, “The GREC is not so pretentious as to settle the crisis. We know that the solution is not in our hands and that it will only come from those who have the grace of state to take such decisions”
With its infinitely more modest means, the GREC debates were in line with the Scholastic method of discussion, and general apologetic principles applied in controversy.
To see this one must not be merely content with a partial view of things but above all be honest in seeing and quoting both sides fairly."

This is no where near what Gerard claims.
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Some guy got a piece of paper ...
« Last post by Livenotonevil on July 17, 2018, 10:45:45 PM »
Every Christian religious group does it.

Why do you think Roman Catholics follow Fatima so much? Is it the supposed miracle of the apparition, or the Apocalyptic message attached to it?

Plus, there's nothing too remarkable or non-generic about that paper.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: New SSPX superior general!!
« Last post by Gerard on July 17, 2018, 09:58:10 PM »

The GREC book outlining the initiative by Fr. Michael Le long points directly to the lifting of the excommunications and the "freeing" of the TLM as part of the initiative going back to the year 2000. 
Quote from: Gerard suppositions
Fellay simply had to prime the faithful and follow the dance steps laid out. 

Fellay also stated the Rosary Crusades as being directly responsible when he knew in advance what the GREC initiative was.  This is akin to John XXIII claiming it was the Holy Spirit giving him the idea for a council like a bolt out of the blue when he had already discussed it with Cardinal Tardini and it was even discussed during the pontificate of Pius XII who rejected it because he was too frail physically at that point. 

Fellay knew in advance that the two "preconditions" had already been agreed to according to GREC.  The timing was the only thing they had to wait for.  The election of Benedict started the process rolling.

Gerard, you need to fact check.

Freedom for the TLM goes back to the 1980s and was one of the key points in the discussions with Rome. 

So much for that one ...

Oh and regarding the lifting of the exco's - didn't need GREC to figure that one out. 

Here's something to consider: Perhaps it was Fr. Lorans who suggested these two pre-conditions to GREC eh?

Anyway - back to work I go ... Cheers!

Freedom for the TLM goes back a lot further than the 80s, we're not talking about it that broadly.  (The Agatha Christie Indult, the apostolate of Gommar de Pauw, the SSJV, Dietrich von Hildebrand's famous essay, LeFebvre himself in the early 1970s. ) 

Lifting of the excommunications or a declaration that the excommunications were null?  It seems strange that year after year we heard that the excomms were null and void and were to be ignored.  That it was an injustice and a "black eye" given to the SSPX that needed to be rectified. 

So, it was rectified by lying about it?  That's like me accusing you of adultery when you've never committed it.  So we don't talk for a long time.  But in the meantime, I keep accusing you of adultery and eventually, I say, I forgive you for your adultery.  And you say, "thanks?"  The only way that makes sense is if you really were committing adultery or, I'm making it worth your while to go along with the lie. 

Re: GREC and Fr. Lorans.  I'll tell you this.  For years  I listened very intently to every one of Bishop Fellay's lectures in English both print and audio that I could and followed intently every opportunity and reference about Rome and by Rome concerning the SSPX.  And on multiple occasions I heard Bishop Fellay say, "What you know, I know."  But he never mentioned GREC.  No prayer intentions for the success of GREC, no "rosary crusades" for successful GREC talks.  Nothing.  It's later found out that GREC cleared the way for the two "pre-conditions" long before the "rosary crusades" were announced.  It was a done deal. 

2 rosary crusades praying "for" two predetermined outcomes that had already been decided and were simply deceitful when they were revealed. 

The null and void excommunications were conceded to and "lifted" and everyone had to be forced to sing "Te Deums" as if God would bless that lie. 

The TLM was 'freed" by claiming it and the Novus Ordo are the same "rite" with different "expressions" and in the same breath by stating that the TLM was never legally abrogated, it was suddenly put in a legal state that was far more confining than any "rite" of the Church had ever been.  Another sleight of hand by Rome in which they gain a legitimate chokehold on the TLM after having cheated the populace out of it for decades. 

3rd Rosary Crusade for Consecration of Russia?  Nope.  It was a dud for two reasons, it's not on the predetermined GREC agenda and God is certainly not going to allow it due to the threat against the papacy inherent in it. 

That's 2 rosary crusades credited for decisions that were full of lies and deceit and a third that will bear no fruit because it is theologically and ecclesiologically untenable. 

The Coffee Pot / Re: go to bed
« Last post by Kaesekopf on July 17, 2018, 09:40:25 PM »
Ok. Gonna abandon a thread that's had a good run, but dying. Gonna put it to bed. Gnite.
Awwww :(

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10