Ecocide

The right has withdrawn from climate issues for the most part because the left took them over. The left then used the environment as a justification for the usual leftist agenda, which is suppressing the strong in the name of equality.

If you read this blog at all frequently, you know what we hold leftism responsible for the decline of the West (and anywhere else it touches). Since the birth of modern leftism in France in 1789, our fortunes have declined while our governments have grown more controlling.

Leftism isn’t unique; it’s a natural human impulse that comes from self-pity and the depersonalizing nature of crowds. This is why the first thing leftism does is insist that it is freedom for the individual. But then the fine print: through equality, which depersonalizes and alienates.

Wherever leftism arises, the story is the same. We, the crowd, are afraid of those who are more competent than us. We will insist on equality and wealth redistribution and lots of rules to bring those people down to our level. When we’re all equal in that way, there will be no conflict and we will all live happily.

Uh, live happily in a dreary, uniform, conformist, fear-blighted place where there’s no room to move (equality) and not ability to gain power to rise above the herd and enact any kind of change (equality also) and it’s so dysfunctional we sit around in the dark chanting Party slogans.

Leftism, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Utopianism, anarchism, Marxist, Communism and liberal democracy are the same idea in different degrees. They want the individual to be more important than the order of the whole, which requires equality so the individual is not forced to prove its own competence. The result is depersonalization and isolation, but it’s for a good cause.

When we talk about groupthink, conformity, peer pressure, hivemind, and committee-brain, we’re talking about the exact same impulse that creates liberalism. Get along with others, don’t offend, make everyone happy by compromising everything. Avoid unpleasant or complex realities.

When this dogma took over environmentalism, at that moment environmentalism excused itself from being a serious philosophy or even its own philosophy. It became a degraded pawn of the leftists. It also ceased to be an option for those who have realized the threat of liberalism and who want to avoid it.

This is why for the past forty years or so the right has blown off environmentalism and written off environmentalists as useless hippies. Sadly for the environmental movement, for the most part they’ve played the role perfectly. Most extremists do this; it’s how they prove credibility.

That’s all well and good, but in the meantime, we are the captains of the ship that determines our future. We make what we will face. What we sow, we will reap. The decisions we make today determine what options will be available tomorrow. It sounds obvious but these truths have been forgotten.

During our years of political infighting and other incompetence, the environmental problem has increased. Why? Your television and politicians train you to say “carbon.” That’s a false correlation. Carbon rose, yes, but only because population rose and with it land use rose.

Land use determines how much land is left over for nature. This land performs many functions, most importantly (a) as a natural absorption system that soaks up our pollutants, like plants eat up our CO2 and make oxygen and (b) preservation of natural species by giving them unbroken terrain in which to hunt, eat, play, reproduce, roam, migrate, nest and tussle.

Animals and plants need more land than we think. The little jail cells they sit in at zoos are insufficient. How happy would you be in a jail cell, or even confined to the same 1-acre property for the rest of your life? If your life consistent of only an apartment and a cubicle, how happy would you be?

“Happy,” of course, is one of those vague terms no one with a brain will trust. Good for you if you raged at the screen when you saw it. I mean content, satisfied, and psychologically healthy; without those three things, animals experience a decline in physical health.

This leaves us with a crisis. The more we grow, the more we kill them. At some point, we probably will want to limit our own growth… but something opposes that. Leftism, with its incessant demands for welfare, helping the third world, mass immigration, saving the dumb from themselves, and a vast subsidy network of entitlements and government hiring, inherently supports population growth and thus, land overuse.

In other words, the people who are claiming to be pro-environment are those who are most likely to destroy it. Conservatives, by advocating none of those things, are supporting the idea of a stable population with lots of open space for plants and animals. Liberalism is ecocide.

Right now, conservatives are doing their best to resist the climate change dogma that’s very popular with Hollywood, government, industry and our do-nothing talkative neighbors. Conservatives point out that the “science” is unresolved and the motives of the climate-changers are suspiciously leftist.

To obliterate those few voices of dissent, big media and its paid employees (celebrities) are banging on that loud tin drum and howling the climate change mantra ever louder.

The problem with this is that climate change obscures the true problem, which is overpopulation/land overuse, and that by debating climate change, conservatives are letting liberals define the parameters of debate — which cuts out the real problem.

As rightists, we should stop worrying about climate change except to note that it is another hare-brained liberal plan which is sure to fail because it denies reality. Instead, we should promote our own environmental agenda:

  • Stop growth. Stop selling new land. Let’s rebuild the huge amount of space we already have, much of which is ghetto or semi-abandoned. We’re using land poorly in part because we won’t tackle our inner city crime problem.
  • Tax deductions. Want to pay less in taxes? Buy acreage of open land and donate it to an environmental trust to be kept in its natural state in perpetuity.
  • Close failed cities. Detroit died; time to move on. Bulldoze it and make it into a nature preserve. While it’s tempting to say we should do the same to Washington, D.C. not all of it is a ghetto.
  • Stop welfare. Nature thins our ranks by filtering out those who are incompetent, unmotivated or unable to control their impulses. Let nature do her work. Stop the entitlements, the make-work government and private sector “full employment,” the laws designed to protect idiots from themselves, and the welfare state. Jobs should be for competent/motivated people only. Let the rest fade away.

That’s not as easy as voting for carbon caps, secure in the knowledge that the consequences of your vote are distant and will be shared by all the voters together, lessening your share. But unlike that pretend policy, the solutions outlined above will actually prevent ecocide.

30 Comments

  1. Robert B says:

    “During our years of political infighting and other incompetence, the environmental problem has increased. Why? Your television and politicians train you to say “carbon.” That’s a false correlation. Carbon rose, yes, but only because population rose and with it land use rose.”

    Actually, it’s mostly from the ocean. This happens as a prelude to an Ice Age.

    http://iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

    Then again, it may all be moot:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398-failing-ocean-current-raises-fears-of-mini-ice-age.html

    Detroit is returning itself back to nature–it’s becoming a great place to hunt pheasant:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7NyqHC2FM

    http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit/

    The Sierra Club used to be anti immigration–that changed when they were paid millions to not be by a certain Jewish businessman who made it a prerequisite. There was a long running battle to force out those in charge who took the money and changed the message–it failed, thats when I quit the club.

    However, be that as it may, anyone who has traversed this country knows how empty it really is–which is not an excuse for more people, far from it. The same is true of much of Eastern Europe as well as South America.

    I never give money to charities to feed the poor in foreign countries. It only results in more poor to feed, as you note. It would be nicer if a person could find a way to send this message to the average person. But, given the pending economic crisis, that won’t be necessary soon as there won’t be any excess money for the people to send over seas.

    1. The Sierra Club used to be anti immigration–that changed when they were paid millions to not be by a certain Jewish businessman who made it a prerequisite.

      Is the salient fact that he is Jewish, or that he is liberal? Not all Jews are liberals. All liberals however are insane.

  2. Robert W says:

    Leftism, in and of itself, is not the problem, but only a symptom of a larger, far more insidious problem, de-evolution.

    A normal, disease free brain will instinctively be repelled by leftist politics, much in the same way a healthy individual would instinctively be repelled by let’s say the sight of a rancid piece of meat for instance.

    No, the problem is not some mere political ideology, but with the defective and criminal minds of the “people” who actually practice and promote this kind of cultural barbarism. Leftist politics are then, properly understood, a kind of atavistic stigmata, to borrow Lombroso’s terminology. As such, the leftist, when viewed in the proper light, appears unequivocally as what he really is, a criminally prone defective “human” specimen.

    As for the wholesale destruction of all urban ghettos and the subsequent restructuring of them into wildlife preserves, I think this is one of the single best ideas I’ve ever heard.

    1. As such, the leftist, when viewed in the proper light, appears unequivocally as what he really is, a criminally prone defective “human” specimen.

      While this describes the intentions of the leftist I don’t think it describes how they act which is to avoid criminal acts in favor of using society to do their dirty work for them. A leftist wet dream is to call his neighbor a racist and have the state come impound the guy’s property and then buy it back at auction for cents on the dollar.

      1. Robert W says:

        The leftist is the very embodiment of the criminal urge. Marxism is just the externalization of that internal criminality.

        The wet dream of all leftist is to create a society that promotes criminality in the name of equality.

        1. Leftism, in and of itself, is not the problem, but only a symptom of a larger, far more insidious problem, de-evolution.

          From every one of your messages this part is the part that I can connect with most because from my experience in life the problem that is leftism occurs in every form and does not require that people are familiar with leftism. Its just one of those human traps like blaming others for our mistakes or forgetting where we put the keys.

    1. crow says:

      You believe the evidence of your eyes, or you believe what someone else claims as truth. Personally, I am of the opinion that anyone who owns a retriever isn’t worth listening to anyway.

    2. That’s not what the source says. What it says is that most people on the internet do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      their studies categorically didn’t show that incompetent people are more confident or arrogant than competent people.

      However, that’s not quite true either. What their studies show is that incompetent people do not understand they are incompetent, and therefore are more confident than people who question their own competence.

      This source you posted reeks of bad science.

  3. josef H says:

    i’ve been to quite a few zoos, and noticed how animals like monkeys, furries and antelopes are always given much more space than “class A’s” like eagles, lions and other predators. i’m having the notion that predators are judged as ‘evil’ and are confined into relatively much smaller spaces, perhaps to ‘get even’ from such majestic -and fearsome- creatures and to break their spirit.

    1. Ted Swanson says:

      I’m thinking about my local zoo and I don’t think I would go quite that far, but that is a hell of an amusing and interesting observation. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are right. Any zoos in particular you’re thinking of?

        1. Ted Swanson says:

          Cuuuuuuuute!!! And to top it off his name’s “Toby!” “A cuteness overload of Toby” Yay!

          But actually, it’s funny, ’cause my local zoo just got two of these Red Pandas about a year ago as well. They are freaking adorable, but I was at the zoo about a month ago and a girl was inside the cage trying to take a picture. I asked her – you’re not worried about these guys hurting you? She said, actually their claws are extremely sharp and can definitely injure if you don’t know what you’re doing. I’m reminded of that picture of the raccoon on Forest Johnson’s article a few weeks ago. You better not mess with Toby, or he just might rip your freaking face off!

          1. crow says:

            It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to, to be afraid of things they have no reason to fear.
            But the answer is there, in front of me:
            “You better not mess with…”
            Humans are unable, it seems, to resist the urge to ‘mess-with’.

            One may co-exist, peacefully and wondrously, with all manner of toothed, clawed, venomed and muscular creatures, merely by using the almost forgotten ability: ‘respect’.
            Nothing is dangerous, given no reason to be.
            Everything is dangerous, if messed-with enough.
            And, of course, the psychotic.

          2. Ted Swanson says:

            Hey crow, you know what I learned a long time ago? That if you DON’T swat at bees, then they won’t sting you. But if you DO swat at bees, they are more apt to sting you! It’s very hard to resist the urge to swat at a bee buzzing around you, but if you leave it alone, or even let it crawl around on you, it won’t sting you because it has no reason to. They’re just checking you out to see if you’re a flower, then they’re on their way.

          3. crow says:

            I am famous for my wasp-on-lips and wasp-up-nose routine :)
            It’s a tremendous exercise in detachment and fearlessness.
            It may sting me, but hasn’t so far.
            I actually had a pet wasp recently, while it recovered from getting almost frozen.
            Mad. Quite mad!

          4. Ted Swanson says:

            crow, no exaggeration, I remember one time I was a kid, I must have had about 6 or 7 bees crawling on me all at once! my heart was pounding, but I didn’t swat, and they didn’t sting me, not one of them. I’m not a zen master yet, but it was a zen master moment. I learned a lot that day!

          5. crow says:

            Well: there you are.
            Even a kid can do it.
            Let a mosquito bite you.
            Don’t hurt it.
            Be the master :)

    2. i’m having the notion that predators are judged as ‘evil’ and are confined into relatively much smaller spaces,

      People like cuddly soft furry animals not scaly evil-looking ones or the things that eat cuddly animals. This isn’t altogether irrational, do you want to explain to your kids why the lizard is eating the bunny after bashing its brains out on a rock?

  4. Claudio says:

    The problem with axing welfare is that those incompetent, unmotivated ones won’t fade away silently. They are large in numbers and will go out rampaging and grabbing anything they think they deserve. Our great welfare states would – and will – become urban warzones, since such a parasitic system won’t survive in the long term.

    1. The problem with axing welfare is that those incompetent, unmotivated ones won’t fade away silently.

      That’s the problem with such people but axing welfare means that if they rampage, they are criminals and will be arrested and processed through the system.

      1. Ted Swanson says:

        And to piggy-back on to that, although Claudio makes a fair point, perhaps it’s overstated. Bullies back down when you stand up to them. It’s time to call the bluff.

        1. A. Realist says:

          You make a very solid point there. The only threat OWS had was the threat of riots and violence. When it turned out they were too disorganized to achieve mass violence, the authorities tossed them into dumpsters. If we stand up to these bullies who form angry mobs, and tell them that if they riot, we arrest them and they get sexually assaulted in prison, they will probably go back to Twitter and leave us alone.

      2. FalseGrandiosity says:

        And then the hypocrisy rears its head… government is horrible until government arrests people that disagree with for you. Oh how convenient.

        I’ve spent about 30 minutes reading some posts on this site, and as you all sit here stroking each other off, I can’t help but find it fairly disgusting.

        You all suffer from a severe illusion of grandiosity. Which from the extreme lack of intelligence in your writing, you surely don’t deserve.

  5. Ouroboros says:

    I’m happy to say that I own a decent amount of land, and I plan on doing NOTHING with it.

    1. crow says:

      That’s the spirit!

    2. A. Realist says:

      But clearly the world lacks yet another mini-mall, gas station, Wal-mart, Starbucks or Black History museum.

  6. A. Realist says:

    This is probably not the right place to ask, but I am unable to find that right place. Does Amerika have a suggestions box? Specifically, for topics for new articles.

  7. Jesse says:

    stop growth? seriously? in a universe of scarcity, if you’re not growing, you’re dying.

    the long-term interest of this species is to get off of this planet. if we don’t keep ourselves on the growth-track, we will go extinct. i can’t help but think that you are operating under the leftist value of security/comfort/stability.

    luckily, the market coordinates these things (ie., consumption) with growth (i.e., savings and investment) through interest rates. it’s one argument to say that the market is being interfered with and is giving false information; it’s an entirely different argument to say that growth as such needs to be curbed. the latter argument doesn’t belong on the right.

    1. crow says:

      We are operating under the values of sanity.
      Not left, not right, not extreme anything.
      Rightish-sort-of, you might say, if you prefer to speak in outmoded terms. Escaping the planet is not our aim. Having no reason to escape it, is.
      Perhaps you haven’t taken the time to read up on the background to this site. It’s advisable, since its view is complex and reasoned. Sane and viable.
      It is like nothing else, anywhere.

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.795 seconds