As Thomas Sowell would point out, almost all economic activity is marginal. In other words, if there were an easy way to make a lot of money, everyone would already be doing it. Instead, economic advances happen gradually as individuals and corporations find slightly better ways to produce and consume things. The more advanced the economy, the more marginal the gain has to be for it to worthwhile to do. A brief example: it takes less energy to watch a video online than through a video store. As data compression techniques advance, it will take even less energy. Thus, a company that can compress video into a smaller amount of data will be able to stream more for less and thus make some money.

This same marginal competition for scarce resources applies to all parts of the economy, including energy. Look at the following chart: http://pricedingold.com/crude-oil/ Crude oil in America has jumped in price over the last 50 years, but the average today is the same as it was in the 1950’s. Now, a time might come when oil is no longer economical. By that point, however, the economy will have already adapted itself as competition for energy forces economic reconfiguration. Of course, this presumes that the Cathedral allows the economy to function. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess.

Nuclear (or coal) power + electric cars are a heavy duty backup that is well-developed now but is not economically and/or politically viable. In a crisis, the economic and/or political hurdles are much reduced.

expose how abnormal (or at least highly specific) a number of common sense time assumptions actually are

Links? Or at least trail markers?

1. He’s awfully confident that we won’t be able to open up new non-fossil energy resources in the near (next 50 years) future. He may be right, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

2. Some of his math on certain energy sources looks like it might be wrong or outdated (esp. concerning nuclear power, which has greatly increased in efficiency over the last 50 years).

3. Ought does not mean will. Just because the US and China shouldn’t, in his mind, burn the mountains of coal that we’re sitting on doesn’t mean that we won’t. When it comes to economic competitiveness vs. saving the Earth, China will blatantly pick the first each time- and the US will find ways to weasel around it.

4. While he portrays himself as clear-headed and “facing reality”, it’s obvious that he’s deeply invested in his ideology of deep ecology and nature spirituality, and actively wants an industrial collapse. Part of the DE is realizing that wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so.

He’s a good writer and saying something different, and probably the most clear-headed occultist this side of Evola, but there are definitely some flaws in his narrative.

Hyper-inflation, the other side of the coin, is highly unlikely. The current rung of economists aren’t exactly brilliant, but they’re not dumb either. Hyper-inflation requires supreme economic mismanagement. Not even basket-case, serial devaluation, Italy succumbed to it in the 50 years it managed its own currency. We’re likely to get double digit inflation sometime soon, but the chance of society destabilizing 100%+ inflation in modern developed countries is pretty much zero.

As sectarian violence it’s a pretty remote possibility. The elites have divided into factions and hate each other more than ever. But elites don’t make up foot soldiers. And the masses have never been as disinterested in politics as they are today. The ideology of the median American is blandly cynical apathy, not deep ideological passion. No one’s going to the barricades when Facebook and XBox provide plenty of distractions. Plus throw in just how old the West is getting. Pretty much everyone over 24 loses their desire to get shot in some riot.

I’ve been reading Greer for a long time. He’s the clearest thinking occultist this side of Evola. But I’ve had friends mock and dismiss anything he says, even refuse to read him, because he’s a druid. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.