Global warming controversy is a problem


Whether it even exists, and if it does, whether the cause is anthrogenic, solargenic, tectonic/volcanic/geological or a combination, global warming has long occupied center stage.

This effect is simply another error, perhaps orchestrated or accidental, created by our liberal democracy, with its oppositional polarizing process forcing important topics into a false dichotomy or other unrealistic position.

Thus, we rarely achieve lasting decisiveness, regardless of importance or urgency.

Whatever the case, the effect is the same. If we value maintaining our social image by living like all the other Americans around us, we too will adopt a degree of psychologically defensive indifference to the results of our lifestyle choices.

‘But then,’ you might ask, ‘what about all the other negative effects of pollution such as respiratory illnesses, heavy metals in our lakes and oceans, acid rain, etc.—we are still poisoning our atmosphere and environment, should we not be concerned about that?’


VenusVenus offers us a glimpse into an extreme case of global warming with a greenhouse effect run amok. Its surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead.

The crushing atmospheric pressure is over ninety times that of Earth. The clouds contain sulphuric acid droplets. Each day is eight months long.

Like feverish visions from a surreal grindcore soundscape, Venus is a hell.

Then young, Carl Sagan connected these two facts to correctly surmise that a runaway greenhouse effect dominates Venus. Carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, traps the heat trying to radiate away from Venus causing a huge global temperature increase.


From the perspective of planetary science, global warming happens to planets without human interaction.

This opens up the possibility that the effect on our own planet, like any cosmological challenge is for the forseeable future, beyond the means of our control.

A frozen peat bog covering the entire sub-Arctic area of Western Siberia, the size of France and Germany, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas that is melting for the first time since it was sequestered more than 11,000 years ago before the end of the last ice age.


pollutionThe early 21st Century is a globalizing world of billions of people, each seeking to attain American levels of material affluence.

The United States GDP accounts for nearly a fourth of the world’s total productive output in exchange for the largest share among nations from the accessible petroleum.

Everyone in the world cannot then move up into an American level of affluence. The desire is unrealistic and irresponsible of those who insist every human in the world may live a First World material existence.

What we may consider grinding poverty compared to our few decades of modern prosperity is approximately a typical lifestyle for almost everyone throughout civilization’s history.

However, innumerable small villages have been replaced with crowded urban sprawl. The displacement of wilderness, the sprawl and crowding are certain to continue well into the coming decades.

More people will live in cities than in the countryside next year, and a growing number will be living in slums. The UN report says the number of slum dwellers will pass the 1bn mark in 2007. Urban growth and slum expansion rates are nearly identical in some regions. For a long time we suspected that the optimistic picture of cities did not reflect reality.

The negative effects of crowded urban spaces in the midst of “grinding poverty”, a deliberately unsavory euphemism meaning “traditional living”, is synergistic.

Disease spreads more quickly and is less easily isolated. Psychological stressors, loss of social control and social isolation tend to rise in settings larger or denser than small communities.

Criminality has more opportunity to strike and then disappear into the sea of people. Traditional living, off a landscape now replaced with concrete, has vanished. The slums are a font of unchecked, ever flowing pollution of destroyed human lives and discarded waste.

So, we come to the real environmental debate of the Twenty First Century. Overpopulation, now buried by the global warming controversy, was first formally addressed 35 years ago:

Throughout the world, urban populations are growing in size at a considerably faster rate than rural populations. As a result, by the end of this century, and for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s population will be living in urban areas.

Urbanization is an element of the process of modernization.

Moreover, while in certain countries this process is efficiently managed and maximum use is made of the advantages this management presents, in others urbanization takes place in an uncontrolled manner and is accompanied by overcrowding in certain districts, an increase in slums, deterioration of the environment, urban unemployment and many other social and economic problems.


pollutionMankind’s historic milestone of more people inhabiting urban spaces than open countryside three years ago passed virtually unnoticed, minimized by a notoriously unreliable mainstream media.

We need a better approach to help ground our ecology concerns in reality and within the context of what mankind is able to control.

Anthrocentric morality, an effect of crowdism in action and a problematic distributive justice reaction, defeats us. Overpopulation is the obese elephant in the room and global warming has become our collective blindfold.


  1. Sobi says:

    I watched this Conspiracy theory video the other day and the only thing I really got out of it was realizing that environmentalism has become the new religion of control.

    If there was a group of people who controlled the entire world, they could do just about anything as long as it was under the guise of “environmentalism”

    Of course, they were mainly focused about the potential for euthanasia and sterilization (based off of the Georgia Guidestone’s first rule that the world population should not exceed 5 million)..

    How should we solve overpopulation as a global community? Is force the best way? Is stealth? Is war?

    Obviously, it would be impossible to educate everyone and raise awareness that our breeding should go on cautiously..

    but then isn’t there room for someone to say “Well.. then retards, fags, black people, and the poor shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce. Only US ‘healthy’, ‘intelligent’, ‘aryan’, etc. should be allowed to have children!”

    I can’t seem to form a plan in my head on how that should happen.. maybe some of you have some ideas?

    1. Crewick says:

      I doubt homosexuality is hereditary. They’re not that prone to, you know, impregnating women. Not that sexually keen on the women, those homosexuals.

  2. Doug Vance says:

    It’s a tolerability bell curve. Beyond the sentient apex, a slightly braver and smarter species gives itself options and makes them happen. Nature has its own shorter tolerance curve though because it knows no morality.

    Assuming nature will act before we do, because our rationalizing makes us unable, or perhaps that it is acting right now to a limited extent, we then have an impartial, non-human and amoral agent at work that takes life indisciminately. Nature then gets the blame, not poor people having fifteen offspring, or leadership that sees beyond its next election asking them to knock it off for everyone’s sake.

    My guess is people will feel better about an uncontrollable force of nature randomly owning our butts as we shrug and life cheapens. Nobody will need to feel guilty or take a stand.

    1. Sobi says:

      So wait till we die off and kill most of the planets resources as well..

      I guess that’s the most ‘humane’ thing to do..

      1. Doug Vance says:

        That’s the path we’re on. Not dealing with tough reality because the soft image only in our heads is more important. So, reality deals with us like other unadaptive species.

  3. highduke says:

    Overpopulation isn’t initially a European problem, it’s an Afro-Asian problem both ethnically & geographically & becomes a European problem only thanks to immigration & miscegenation. Who gives a shit about dumb, ugly starving Dalits & Negroes with average IQs of 65? Does think it’d be ethical to kill them off to solve the ‘problem’ or is the issue not a European concern? We should be worried about us under-breeding not them breeding excessively.

    1. Sobi says:

      Nobody in the world seems to want to tackle this issue. It’s always a “not me!” “not my (/my countries) problem” approach isn’t it?

      Or is that how all the issues are?

      Global warming isn’t America’s fault.. CHINA is using more fossil fuels!
      It’s not the billions of carbon emitting vehicle’s fault either! COWS are farting!

      Overpopulation isn’t Europe’s fault!.. people in AFRICA and ASIA are fucking too much.

      Ignorance and inaction isn’t MY fault! I sit in front of a computer while reading and debating over world issues all day!

  4. highduke says:

    Sobi, I said that overpopulation isn’t Europeans’ fault/concern & an emotional reply & attributing to me statements & examples I never suggested in the form of inaccurate assumptions & analogies, doesn’t prove otherwise. Asians & Negroes breeding out of control doesn’t affect the planet, unlike the other points you made, it affects given regions, so it isn’t analogous to those poins at all. Less emotion, more logic: worry about your own people’s extinction, not others’ fecundity.

  5. White Preservationist says:

    The overpopulation problem plaguing Asia, Africa, and so forth would not be a problem if those teeming billions weren’t all clamoring to immigrate to White nations for ‘better lives.’ It never occurs to the morons over there that the main reason their countries are miserable, resource-scarce hellholes is of course because they breed too damn much. And actually, they are using ‘White technology’ against us now – for decades Asia especially have been using White-Western medical and social advances to increase their population levels massively. They are using our own technology against us and to eventually overtake us! ALL Asian immigration to the USA and other White nations must be immediately cut off because many Asiatics seek to immigrate here for the less crowded conditions solely as a result of their own short-sighted stupidity for overbreeding.

    Northern European/Nordic Whites do not do very well in densely populated urban areas – Whites need more living-space than other races, and Northern Europeans have been fleeing many over-industrialized big cities and seeking more spacious and greener natural areas ever since the Industrial Revolution caused cities to begin growing haphazardly and out-of-control. Many Whites also wanted to flee the increasing ethnic/racial ‘diversity’ that was found in the growing big cities, as well as avoid being ripped off by the greedy rootless cosmopolitan Jews who ALWAYS sought to set-up shop in the big cities.

    City/town planning is extremely important and that we need a ‘revival’ of it. Since so many Whites now live in leafy suburbs or small/medium-sized town in a lot of White nations, why not turn those suburbs or small/medium-sized towns in to self/communally sufficient ‘ecovillages’ or ‘ecotowns’? Whites have already been transferring many of their businesses and economic activities to the suburbs ever since they started moving there in droves as many Western cities became overrun by Blacks and other non-Whites, and thus we should ‘institutionalize’ it so to speak.

    The new concept known as “agriburbia” seeks to build eco-friendly towns/villages/suburbs (or retrofit already existing suburbs/towns/villages) surrounded by enough farmland/gardenspace, orchards, ranchland, etc so that the people living there can grow 50+% of their food on-site. They are designed similar to pre-industrial (Medieval) villages/towns, thus increasing community cohesion (though all techno-industrial conveniences and modern appliances are still utilized, obviously). They are like hippy-communes without the moronic ‘anti-racist’ hippies. Also, why not build eco-friendly homes and use alternative energy sources if it’ll help to make our White nations cleaner and more self-sufficient for the long-term? Doing stuff like that doesn’t have to involve being an ‘anti-racist’ or pro-Jewish or whatever – I am a pro-White/activist/White nationalist who is also a fervent environmentalist/conservationist as well…there doesn’t have to be a contradiction between the two.

    Forget racial integration, ’strength in diversity,’ philo-Semitism, and multiracialism/multiculturalism – that idiocy will never work. These “agriburban” eco-villages or eco-suburbs should be built by and for WHITES ONLY, and they should specifically exclude ALL non-Whites (including Jews, Arabs, and other Caucasoids) from living in them.

    It is one of my personal goals to bring strongly pro-environmental views to the pro-White movement.


  6. Michael Flatley says:

    I’m so glad Corrupt dumped all of its idiots onto Amerika.

    Global warming? BALEM TEH BALKCS!

  7. highduke says:

    Michael, you’re an idiot without perspective because Whites are the only ones in America & increasingly in W. Europe who are ignoring their race, culture & ethnicity while all others in the world, minorities also, are promoting their’s. While you scoff & think you’re enlightened, the others are pushing their own agenda at your expense, you worthless arrogant hipster duchebag. Only right-wing multi-culti hipsters downplay genetic-based identity & caters to them now.

  8. [...] is yet another case where only two sides are considered, neither of which is the actual cause of the problem. [...]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.704 seconds