Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘environmentalism’

Conservative Progressivism: Environmentalism

Monday, September 18th, 2017

Fake news enwraps our modern world because, in a time when only mass culture matters, the art and science of motivating people toward the intellectual equivalent of a stampede requires some deception. The fake is normal; authenticity is rare.

Seeing through the fakery requires small steps, but large cognitive leaps. Like other problem solving tasks, this involves not just identifying the problem, but getting ahead of it, which means understanding its archetype and counteracting it before the crisis hits. Science does this through isolating hypotheses under controlled conditions.

That isolation allows the problem — a cause/effect relationship — to be seen.  However, since not all problems can be solved immediately, a standard approach evolved where problems are prioritized into three categories such as:

  1. To be solved immediately
  2. To be mitigated (sidestepped) over the medium term
  3. To be addressed in the long term (with new technology)

Our current societal system is dysfunctional and this has become visible to the majority during the last few years as Leftist globalist agenda has ground to a halt in a polyphony of problems. We relied on solutions of the third category, hoping to get ahead of our problems through future advances in technology, but apparently, our problems are systemic and have not succumbed to methods alone.

We cannot solve our problems based on hopes alone. As the old saying goes, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Relying on the hope of future technology was a major mistake because it enabled the system to get ahead of us, installing itself in a permanent position of power (“the Cathedral”). At this point, our goal is to reverse positions with it.

To do that, we must steal legitimacy from the Cathedral: we must be more “progressive” than they are.

As Sun Tsu said, “You must become like fish in the water.”

But before we just copy their six decade old stance, we must decide which “progressive” ideas can be to our benefit, versus the rest which are toxic and whose adoption would constitute a defeat.

At the first, or “operational” level which is society in general, we are managing risks of health, security and internal systems/tools. This works well as long as things outside our society remain the same.

The second, or tactical level which concerns multiple societies, requires us to manage the risk of cooperation. Actions at this level effect individual societies and some minor effects are visible such as the United Nations and World Bank affecting trade and currencies.

The third level is the strategic level which is nature. No one has really mapped this one, so it has been taken over by the “climate change” charlatans and ignored by everyone else.

Our biggest problem today is that the strategic level is unknown. We simply do not when we will push nature too far, and cause a crash in environment, ecosystems, or resources. This allows us opportunity to seize upon the unspoken fear of this uncertainty, and by addressing it, to be more progressive than the progressives.

Nature has a singular parameter: negative genetic mutation. Without enough natural selection, or too much inbreeding or outbreeding, populations accumulate deleterious mutations and lose abilities through a process known as “degeneration.”

Mutation occurs faster when biological cells are stressed. That does not mean it should not be stressed because stress is in most cases good. Extraordinary negative stress results in faster mutation rates. It is this “faster mutation rate” that is proposed as the point of scientific endeavour to manage “nature.”

Change in human DNA does not necessarily indicate a positive direction. Species die out all the time by failing to adapt. A sensible view is to allow natural selection to identify the successful mutations after the fact, instead of trying to anticipate what will succeed in advance.

We can contrast the South African Boers who migrated from a comfortable Europe to an inhospitable country in Africa, to determine how long it took for them to live “comfortably” again and to what extent their DNA was changed. The alternative or “reverse” condition is to study the Swedes to determine how long it took their DNA to deteriorate after overcoming an icy climate until they became pathologically altruistic.

Now that geneticists have a fair understanding on human genetics, it is inevitable that geneticists can do the same for plants, animals and fish. In other words, while nature affects human DNA, it should also be the case that we affect plants, animals and fish DNA in a negative way too.

Since living tissues affect one other, DNA maps geology since geological changes also have an influence like other species. Similarly human civilization influences our mutation. This proves that our fate is bound up with nature, so even if people do not see a reason to defend its natural beauty and grace, they will do so to save our species from toxic levels of deleterious mutations.

At this point, we have a basis for being more “progressive” than progressives: we can address the environmental crisis in parallel, both as self-interest and as a spiritual need to create excellence in our world. This requires that we end the ecocide caused by seven billion human individuals all striving for whatever fascinates them at the moment, churning nature into waste.

Progressives love those who have a vision that involves humanity escaping its inherent downsides. Conservatives have refused to address many of these, creating a market opportunity for those that do, and by being more progressive than the Left, those who adopt this “new environmentalism” can bypass both parties and establish a basis for power in commonsense biological and natural sciences engineering.

Why We Need Aristocracy Always

Monday, August 7th, 2017

Most people are afraid to admit that we need aristocracy. They realize that if hierarchy is needed, they as individuals are no longer little autonomous kings who can do whatever they want and have the rest of the monkey troop defend them… that in turn means that they will have to pay attention to external order like social standards, nature, logic, history and the question of whether or not what they are doing is actually good, or merely self-serving.

Those of us who have been around for some time see a simple pattern: whatever is created will quickly be brought to destruction by the Herd, which invades and demands that the matter in question fit its own convenience, instead of whatever form is most effective for reaching the goal. The individual replaces the goal. That is why we call it individualism.

Unless there is a hierarchy, where the wiser are bumped to the top so that they can intervene before the infinite stupid ideas of humanity are acted out, stupidity wins. This is affirmed by an unusual source:

We all know from reams of experience that if consumers are offered a cheaper, yet environmentally irresponsible option vs. a more expensive, yet environmentally conscious option: The vast majority of consumers will sadly choose the cheaper option. Better-for-me unfortunately trumps better-for-everyone just about every time.

Meditating on this phrase reveals its simple and profound truth: people choose what is more convenient for them, at the expense of civilization and nature, every time. This means that we need a force to intervene and force civilization at large to do what is right, because its impulse is to do otherwise unless such an intervention occurs.

Liberal Democracy Ends In Collapse Conditions

Friday, July 14th, 2017

Those on the right who are not fascinated by having an emotional reaction to perceived injustices, but instead are asking about the future of civilization, realize that we do not have to fight liberal democracy. It has ended itself, and everyone in power knows this, which is why they are stealing whatever they can carry and headed for rich people enclaves buried in peaceful parts of the third world.

For most people, this future seems remote. Our technology works — sort of — and seems to banish nature away, so we humans can do whatever we want. But the truth is that nature is more like mathematics, an inherent order to how events turn out in reality, and so it is within us and rules whatever we do, and if we deny this order, our actions simply end in comical disaster.

Amerika might be seen as a conditional doomsayer: our articles point out that ideas have consequences in that actions based on those ideas lead to predictable conclusions. When we as a species make bad choices, we can expect doom. That doom has demographic, racial, cultural, economic, military, environmental and survival implications:

A recent article in New Scientist…argues that decreasing fertility rates are indicative of the world’s population slowly imploding rather than exponentially rising — a trend that will continue until we reach some form of crisis point. As it stands, half of the world’s countries have fallen below the replacement rate for developed nations (which is, on average, 2 children per woman). If this trend continues on, countries like Germany and Italy will see their populations decrease by half over the next 60 years.

This is not the first time Elon Musk has discussed overpopulation: in March he warned that we face a “demographic implosion,” because in many countries “you have a very high dependency ratio, where the number of people who are retired is very high relative to the number of people who are net producers.”

Musk raises the point that we are facing dual crises: the producers are declining, while the dependents are increasing.

This follows the path of every egalitarian society every attempted. Technically, equality cannot be implemented because those who are less successful are limited by biology; they cannot be made smarter, healthier, wiser or more noble. Therefore, the only method of implementing equality is to penalize the successful by removing some of their wealth and power, and giving it to the masses.

In turn, that creates a perverse incentive structure and dark organization. Those who are naturally adept are penalized, but those who are incompetent are subsidize, so the adept stop engaging in the system. Eventually, they drop out and have difficulty finding mates. As the incompetents take over, daily life becomes insane, and so the adept stop reproducing entirely because, being competent, they recognize that in an insane world, their offspring have no future. Equality means that the incompetents take over and the competent are killed off.

Where do we see this pattern all the time? In the third world, those who attempt to do more than the average are often seen as witch doctors or cheaters and beaten down. As a result, natural selection kicks in that selects against competence, and soon you have a society of self-focused, incompetent people who not surprisingly, make horrible decisions regarding government and culture, leading to a non-civilization in civilization form.

The incompetence of liberal democracy has become visible because of the sheer stupidity of human decision-making over the past 228 years. This leads to a series of simultaneous crises working together to doom us, meaning that we will experience — much as with the rise in incompetents and loss of competent people — a simultaneous intensified need at the same time our options are limited. A good partial list:

1. Habitats are being destroyed at record rates.

2. Wild foods, especially fish stocks, are being destroyed; trawling is damaging the sea-bed.

3. Biodiversity is being lost at record rates.

4. The area of land available for food production, and the remaining land’s productivity, is decreasing due to:

  • Soil lost to erosion;
  • Fertility lost following declining levels of plant nutrients and soil carbon;
  • Soil productivity is being destroyed by salinisation due to the build-up of natural salts from irrigation water and reclaimed sewage water;
  • Land is being taken out of production for the construction of housing and roads, etc.
  • Productivity in a number of areas is declining because of declining rainfall (with climate change), in some areas previously productive land is turning to desert;
  • Coastal land is being lost due to rising sea levels, this is particularly important in the world’s great river deltas (which have some of the world’s most fertile land);
  • Land-use is being changed from food production to fuel production.

…6. Fresh water resources are greatly over-committed, and in many areas are declining due to climate change. Water is being drawn from many of the world’s major aquifers at rates much greater than they are being recharged by natural processes; many are failing or will begin failing in the near future. Much of the world’s food production depends on irrigation, but the water available for irrigation is decreasing.

7. Humanity is approaching the ‘photosynthetic ceiling’. Soon there will be little photosynthetic capacity on earth that is not dedicated to man’s direct use.

…8. A huge range of chemicals are being released into natural environments with unknown long-term effects.

…9. Plastic wastes are being released into natural environments with unknown long-term effects. It has been forecast that by 2050, 95% of seabirds will have plastic in their gut.

…15. The oceans are becoming polluted, apart from floating plastic waste, there are high levels of pollution even in the deepest parts of the oceans.

…18. Phosphate supplies for the production of fertiliser are running out. Phosphorus is one of the three most important plant nutrients; without phosphorus fertilisers the “Green Revolution” in agriculture would not have been possible.

…21. Pollinating insects are in decline. Honeybees, in particular, are suffering badly in many countries from colony collapse disorder.

…22. Man is now artificially producing more nitrates (as fertilisers) than are produced naturally, with the result that the natural nitrogen cycle has become unbalanced. Nitrates and phosphate being washed off farmland and from sewage are causing algal blooms and consequent ‘dead zones’ in the coastal waters of many parts of the world.

This list, taken from an excellent list which unfortunately contains Leftist non-issues alongside real issues, shows the tip of the iceberg. We are living out of balance not just with nature, but with logic; we are seeing that nature, shaped by aeons of evolution, is more logical than we are.

If you had asked an aristocrat back in 1788 what would happen if the masses took over leadership, he or she would probably have said that the proles would not recognize the difference between want and need, and would therefore consume everything recklessly, forgetting that there is a cause behind every effect, and that the cause of our success is our environment and our living in balance within natural order.

The prole holiday has wrecked the planet and set into motion forces it cannot control. These will not end catastrophically, but through a steady increase in the cost of everything good — real food, clean air, safe water — with those who have no money ending up with cancers and other degenerative diseases which will limit their lifespans.

In other words, the world will resemble Brazil: a few nice areas surrounded by unruly favelas who have to be fought with armed police and bought off with social welfare otherwise they will revolt, with the classic attribute of prole revolutions being that the revolutionaries seem unconcerned with the losses they take or the damage they do. These are gangster raids, not political evolutions.

However, the sources of wealth for the powerful will decrease. Consumer markets are less relevant when the proles can no longer afford gasoline or much in the way of consumer goods, and productivity itself will decline when the cheap resources that propel agriculture and industry are no longer easily available. Wealth will decline as well.

This means that in the future, business models like Facebook, Amazon, Google, Walmart and Costco will decline. With the end of the age of cheap consumer goods, the vast consumerist group that makes these businesses wealthy will decline, and margins will narrow in industry and agriculture as natural resources thin.

At the same time, we will have produced “exponential revolutions,” or those in which vast numbers of impoverished and purposeless people band together into giant gangs to take whatever wealth remains, including genetic wealth from smarter populations. This leads to a situation like the one described by Jean Raspail in Camp of the Saints, where the third world invades the first world:

In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus “of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don’t confront the problem now”.

…”When people lose hope, they risk crossing the Sahara and the Mediterranean because it is worse to stay at home, where they run enormous risks. If we don’t confront this soon, we will find ourselves with millions of people on our doorstep within five years.

“Today we are trying to solve a problem of a few thousand people, but we need to have a strategy for millions of people.”

His solution of investment in Africa is actually the wrong approach. At this point, the die is cast. There are too many people, and most of them would rather go to a nice new place than try to fix their homes, which means that the nice places will be destroyed just like the goose that laid golden eggs in the fables of yore.

This follows a pattern that is as old as liberalism: lower castes reproduce recklessly, then blame those above them for having failed to stop them, and this triggers a revolution which replaces the higher castes with lower ones, resulting in even worse decisions that amplify the original problems.

Now that this has happened in the West, we have people at the top who are so brain-locked on Leftism that they think immigration is healthy and viable. This is the same process that destroyed many classic civilizations across the world, including Angkor Wat, Greece, Aztecs, Maya and most likely many more. Societies die by caste revolt.

In other words, our colonization of the third world merely exported our own revolutions, and now those revolutions have come back to visit us, which is a consequence of the incompetence of our leaders and most people in our society, which was also brought on by our revolutions. As long as we remain in thrall to chasing the mythical god of Equality, we will self-destruct no matter what methods we try.

The proof of this can be found in the collapse conditions which we are now facing. Sure, climate change is nonsense, but what about pollution, overfishing, land overuse, erosion, and other signs of how we have thoroughly abused our world to the point that we are threatening our own future? Equality creates a tragedy of the commons by rewarding people simply for being human, which creates an incentive to arrive, absorb social benefits, and then take over the political apparatus so those benefits never end.

As Western democracies collapse from within in a fog of bad decisions, very few voices will point to the obvious culprit. They will blame the Rich,™ the Anglos, the Jews,™ the Christians, the atheists, the Leftists. They will not realize that it is our notion of equality that has killed us, and until we discard it, everything we do will fail while destroying us.

Conservationism Summary

Monday, June 12th, 2017

For many of us, the primary issue is the environment. Not environmentalism, that neutered hybrid of the Left that destroyed every naturalist movement it got its greasy hands upon, nor any of the other Left-infused variants on that topic. But conservationism, or the idea of setting aside natural land so it can do what it must, for no reason other than appreciation for its beauty, that is conservationism.

The Left attacks naturalist movements because it realizes that these inherently drift rightward. The Left has one idea, which is mandatory universal inclusion or “equality,” and that means that each individual does whatever he wants… and no one says NO. Conservatism, which is based in order that is larger than the individual, can say NO and the Left fears it.

Conservationism sets limits on humanity. Instead of trying to police our every day acts, like whether we used more than 1.8 gallons for that last flush, it simply sets aside huge chunks of land, ideally over 50%, for use by nature only. In the past, this was done by making this land “hunting preserves” of nobles who hunted in it a few times a year and left it wild for the rest.

You might say that conservationism is anti-human, or at least post-human. Instead of looking at the world through the desires and fears of human beings, it simply looks at the world as a whole. It sees how interconnected the parts of ecosystems are, and how unequal they are, and desires to preserve them because they are a finer design than humanity will ever manage.

For those of us who have gone to the conservation side, the wisdom of ancient religion becomes visible: the battle is within us. We must decide to be good, and then do it, which means giving up the temporary in favor of the eternal. And we must be morally vigilant and attentive at all times, because an evil whether for a penny or billions is still evil, and opens the door to more.

Those of us who stay with the deep ecology viewpoint tend toward wanting a simpler life, where people live in small towns and own businesses instead of having jobs. We want families to be the center of our society, and to have eternal values that are more sacred than life itself, including defense and nurturing of our environment.

We are informed by the deep ecology mission statement:

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

  • The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
  • The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of Nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological sustainability on a finite Earth.
  • Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology has wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
  • Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

This is the only way to avoid the core problem of humanity: Crowdism, or the tendency of individual needs to accumulate and overwhelm goals. These manifest in the tragedy of the commons:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

  1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
  2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

The only solution to this problem is purpose, which is the opposite of what democratic society offers. In a democracy, the purpose is the people, instead of the purpose being some goal on which those people unite and toward which they cooperate. As a result, they become selfish, and start to act for themselves alone at the expense of society and nature, leading to the runaway consumption we see.

Amerika has a long history of conservationist writing, most of which is politically incorrect but still accurate. Many of the best writings were lost with the demise of various BBSes, USENET servers and early websites, but many live on in their twenty-first century format:

Leftism Destroys The Environment

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Voicing a sentiment often felt but rarely expressed among the Right, French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen blamed globalization for the environmental crisis in which humanity now finds itself:

The plant, with a workforce of some 400 as well as around 300 sub-contractors, is controversial for dumping toxic waste known as “red mud” into a Mediterranean nature reserve for decades.

…The plant “is a symbol because they want us to believe that the choice is between jobs and health and the environment,” Le Pen told a handful of reporters outside the plant during her previously unannounced stop.

“I’m here to say that… there would not be such a choice to make” under a Le Pen presidency, said the candidate, who blames environmental degradation — and many other woes — on “unbridled globalisation”.

She touches a toe into the wider issue, which is that Leftism is an environmental disaster. Egalitarianism — or “everyone do whatever they want” — is perpetually popular, but it creates the conditions for runaway growth.

With egalitarianism, unity of purpose such as having a healthy civilization is erased and replaced with individual self-interest. In addition, because egalitarianism removes responsibility, it encourages transfer of socialized cost to the group through a process known as “externalization.”

This produces a runaway economy where each person, in a desire to acquire individual wealth, creates a unique business or concern that they own and then extracts wealth from it. This produces incentive to cut corners in order to widen margins, encouraging the habits of bad businesses like dumping “red mud” into the sea.

At the same time, because this creates massive social instability, it puts workers on the defensive because they can no longer rely on jobs to endure through the decades. Terrified of going bankrupt, they become dependent on society for jobs, which ensures that politicians can always win votes by claiming to “create jobs.”

This system can only keep going through constant growth, which branches eventually into immigration and social welfare programs as a means of producing more and more buyers. It will never stop until it consumes all resources because the need of individuals, taken as a group, demands more wealth without limits.

During the past two centuries and change during which Leftism has been steadily gaining dominance as the political system of the industrialized world, old businesses have been “disrupted” so that new people can seek wealth, resulting in a turbulent economy which produces mountains of landfills as it opens and closes temporary businesses.

Since any product which sells is considered a positive thing, the economy simultaneously barfs out any number of worthless junk objects for consumption and discarding by the herd, generating more waste. Governments encourage this through entitlement payments, which give citizens more money to spend on personal items.

Globalization accelerates this process by exporting the runaway Leftist economy to the world, necessitating constant new markets and new sources of cheap labor to keep feeding the growth spiral.

A society with a healthy view of environmentalism would have less individual freedom because that way, people would have roles they could count on for a lifetime, be economically secure and not be caught in this constant whirlwind of growth as a means of sustaining individuals. As always, the enemy is us.

Deep Ecology And The Alt Right

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

It will take centuries for historians to recognize this, as they either sift through thirdworld ruins or chronicle the rise of the greatest power to ever grace the earth, but the Alt Right movement is a philosophical descendant of Deep Ecology.

During the 1960s, more people became aware that human impact on the environment was becoming a very negative thing. This caught the rising population and a cultural shift toward hippie ideals at a crossroad, but that in turn weakened the rising environmental movement. The hippies imported their Marxist-derived goals into those of the environmental movement, effectively weakening it.

This meant that every act to help the environment was also designed to foster “equality,” and since the latter was easier to understand, it became the focus and absorbed everything else into it. This meant that environmentalism could fight for the whales or against drilling in national parks, but not tackle the big issue: we have too many humans to avoid committing ecocide.

As a result, the saner thinkers in the environmental movement formed Deep Ecology, which states that in order to avoid ecocide we need a cultural shift that desires a different type of civilization entirely, one where we are not so out of control. Deep Ecology recognizes that the environmental problems we suffer now come from bad leadership in the past, and a society geared toward endless growth and consumption.

Such a society can only exist in the absence of cultural standards, values and purpose. It is in fact an artifact of the democratic era, in which there is no longer a dominant culture, with customs and lifestyle, by which people live that limits the damage they do and the growth of that civilization. Instead, democracy and consumerism have taken over because we have destroyed the ways of life they replace.

This is where the Deep Ecology movement and the Alt Right converge: we know that we need not different policies or laws, but an entirely different structure to civilization itself. The Deep Ecology mission statement shows the need for a redesign of human habitation entirely:

Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, of the entire ecosphere in all its beauty and complexity including the natural processes that create and shape life’s diversity. It is the grave and growing threats to the health of the ecosphere that motivates our activities.

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

  • The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
  • The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of Nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological sustainability on a finite Earth.
  • Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology has wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
  • Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

The portion most relevant to the Alt Right has been marked in bold: “the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation.”

Like Deep Ecology, the Alt Right exists to create cultural change which changes our society to a different type of society. Where the last century favored liberal democracy with consumerism and social benefits, the future favors hierarchy, aristocracy, culture-driven standards and transcendental goals. Civilization itself has evolved.

That change was always the goal of Deep Ecology. From the environmental movement, Deep Ecologists realized that anything less that a re-orientation of society to include inbuilt environmental goals would fail and become another equality movement. They saw that government could not make the changes needed. Only a mass awakening, or at least an awakening among the 5% of people who are natural leaders, could reform the situation.

We stand on the edge of an abyss of ecocide. Overpopulation, pollution, land overuse and other problems are the result of the policies of liberal democracy, which refuses to say NO to any person who wants to buy, sell, consume, breed or otherwise impact the environment. Humanity is like yeast in a bowl of sugar, eating all of the food heedless of the fact that with no resources, it will die out unlamented.

The End Of Purity

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016

approaching_toxicity

Although this particular source is a bit hysterical, even common sense reveals that with 7.4bn people on earth, toxicity of our environment will increase. While the idiot Leftists want to redefine pollution to mean carbon only, the fact is that byproducts which do not break down are increasing across the board, including some highly nasty customers:

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation, the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

Our political and economic system is predicated on the idea that our water, air and land will be relatively “pure,” or free of the kind of game-ending substances that industrial production creates. In theory, we can live in homes and work in offices where the air just blows through, and the water taken from rain or reservoir is mostly harmless. Industry has not caught up to the fact that those days are over.

Purity is dead. The natural environment no longer exists; instead, we have water and air which are impregnated with any number of toxic substances, and lacking in many things that life needs to survive. For this reason, future homes will be air-tight and produce their own oxygen, much as they will run water and power through extensive filters to reduce the levels of harm and failure.

As America and Europe have transitioned to the Affirmative Action Economy (AAE), the overall quality of services, institutions and products has declined to third-world levels. Bribes are taken, but even more, people simply fail to notice things. For them, the job is in attendance, not results.

From that grim realization comes a vision of our future. There will be a few who are savvy enough to hide their income from the taxman, and they will put it into filters and purifiers. Everyone else will suffer the declining purity of our environment, and will die of grotesque cancers, at least until the failure of globalism causes a reduction in population and thus a restoration of the environment. Nature exists in inverse proportion to humanity.

The news right now is designed to provoke good, obedient suburbanites and urbanites into installing new filters and personal oxygen tanks. This will not save them, as those methods are too limited to have any real effect. The people who will thrive are those who get away from the cities and live as close to the forests as possible.

A Modest Proposal To Reverse Ecocide

Friday, September 16th, 2016

rewilding_the_city

So our last edition of Outliers included a depressing factoid. According to an article published in Current Biology we have lost 10% of our planet’s remaining wilderness area in the last 20 years. Here’s the takeaway.

We discovered that a total of 30.1 million km2 (or 23.2% of terrestrial areas) of the world’s land area now remains as wilderness, with the majority located in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and the Australian continent. An estimated 3.3 million km2 has been lost since the early 1990s (approximately a 9.6% loss in two decades; Figure 2), with the most loss occurring in South America (experiencing 29.6% loss) and Africa (experiencing 14% loss).

This would suggest that a lot more human activity is intruding into areas that were once free of primate subjugation. Yet, simultaneously, humans are increasingly abandoning many of our failed cities to the maximum extent they can afford to. So that brings up a question: if humans remove wilderness areas when we spread, why not let wilderness take back over place we decide are undesireable? It’s a good question. Would tree squirrels manage Flint, Michigan much worse than the current state and local governments? I jest, but only to a degree.

When human society decides an area is no longer economically viable for use, why not put it to a God-worthy purpose? Are we not the stewards of all creation? If so, shouldn’t we replace what we no longer find viable? Replenishing that which we exhaust could come in rather handy fifty years hence. I see no reason to believe we won’t burn over the next few patches of turf we inhabit as well. The track record doesn’t guaruntee future performance, but it does give you the best set of probabilites to guide your next wager.

Re-Wilding has recently achieved some success as smarter, more enlightened defenders of nature have made common cause with a variety of philanthropists, outdoorsmen, and corporations looking for public goodwill merged with state and Federal tax breaks. The Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust is one example that gives me an opportunity to brag about people close to home. Ultimately, all the strategizing comes down to one issue. Wilderness that is privately held; by beneficent patrons, that strongly prefer that it remain wild, can best remain perserved.

To make up for De-Wilding, there needs to be a concerted movement in favor of Re-Wilding. Outdooralabama.com^15 maybe. It would have to work something like this.

  1. Potential sites of failed human habitation are evaluated for their ecological potential as recoverable wilderness. The most potentially valuable for species, biome and contribution to global ecological cycles (carbon, The General Circulation, Hydrological Cycle, et al.) are prioritized.

  2. Remaining hold-out humans are incentivized to vacate.

  3. The land is acquired and decontaminated.

  4. Human structures and artificial elements are removed.

  5. The land is then left patiently alone for 25 years until it reverts to its dominant biome.

  6. Ongoing maintenance is supported through low impact, ecologically inexpensive use at a fee.

The Tragedy of The Commons doesn’t occur on private property with robust and enforcable rights. People who care about saving the planet should put their money where their mouth is. Anyone who has read Ecocide In The USSR knows that the CCCP had much stronger governmental environmental laws in force than the US would ever willingly pass. Almost by definition, wilderness will never economically benefit the state unless someone is charged taxes on the land. The more powerful and expensive the state, the worse it will be penalized when land remains uninhabited wilderness.

If we want land to be wild, we will increasingly have to take that land and recreate it into such a state. That is the increasing cost of heading off the ecological form of soft apocalypse.

Fatwa: Pope Francis

Friday, July 10th, 2015

pope_francis_communism

This fatwa applies to all people who have not yet vanished into the illusion of human individualism and mass culture. If you encounter Pope Francis, and are to kill him and string his intestines around the room spelling out the word WHORE, you will be accepted joyfully into Heaven.

Pope Francis, who purports to be a religious leader, is in fact an agent for the third world which wishes to overrun the first world and take its wealth, destroying it in the process. The proof is here:

To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

In addition to being apologism for the reckless growth of the third world, this places the blame in the scientifically and technically wrong place. What will create ecocide is our overuse of land, crowding out natural species and interrupting ecosystems. The driver for that is population. Pope Francis is lying to us in order to promote his egalitarian agenda, which benefits those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top.

His death will be a holy act and all who participate in it will be holy.

Green heart

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015

abandonment

My quest began with environmental concerns, and led to conservatism. The key point at which my thought pivoted was the realization that human destruction of the environment occurred because humans could not anticipate the consequence of their actions, or did not care, simply because no one is enforcing the principle of reality on them. Instead they exist in desires, judgments and feelings which focus on the nexus between the individual and the social group, leaving no concern for reality, God or nature (which are conflatable terms).

Consider this burst of juvenilia — in vino veritas and in childhood the same — from the German black metal band Absurd:

Thuringian plain, deep dark forest
Evil dwells on there in the woods
Snowcovered hills, cold winds blowing
Romantic place, is it understood ?!

Evil in the forest in Germany’s Green Heart !

Hateful savages, strong black minds
Out of the forest, kill the human kind
Burn the settlements and grow the woods
Until this romantic place is understood !

Animals, beasts, horrid landscape
Cause there are no signs of human living
When you look around no human living
Now this romantic place is understood !

It conveys a sentiment most of us find appealing: remove the humans, and leave the forest, which is beautiful in its pristine state. They did not intend it as a policy statement, more as a symbolic explanation of their turning away from what society regards as “good” to what it sees as “bad”: the removal of human life.

And yet they capture the essence of nature: a romantic, stormy and wild place which is not rational like humans, meaning that it does not make decisions by justifying them with higher principles. It responds only to cause effect reasoning, and it sets its goals by need and passion alone. In that is a higher reasoning than our human “higher” reasoning.

The environmental problem of humankind originates in bad governance. We allowed ourselves to grow with no greater principle than “we have more people, so we cut down more trees.” We then granted each person desire limited only by money, which means of course that they will all want houses and four kids and lots of products to brag about and cars to drive. We called this equality but really it was murder. Murder of our own future, and murder of our environment, which we may call ecocide or multiple genocide of non-human species.

I do not subscribe to the romanticization of nature, only to the knowledge of the romanticism of nature. Nature wants to kill you. Without the houses, medicines, soaps and barriers the force of nature would infest you with parasites, kill you with diseases, or outright tear your limbs apart. And yet that is its romance. Nature has no subterfuge, no sabotage and no deception. It is merely a struggle for survival by consumption of other things. (Somehow, trees have escaped the worst of it. Perhaps they are the wisest beings on the planet. I know that in their presence, I feel a great ancient wisdom that my puny human mind can barely begin to grasp.)

All of our environmental problems could be reduced by good leadership. Good leadership treats its people as a whole, not as individuals or a collective in which all must receive equal treatment. Like nature, it picks the best — the strongest, the healthiest, the most beautiful — and it elevates them above the rest because it wants more of them. It excludes those who contribute nothing or are evil. It rewards those who are excellent so they may enforce excellence on the others.

Our reasoning since the fall of the kings consists entirely of intermediates. Instead of leading, we choose paths by what is popular. Instead of finding the good, we treat everyone as an average (“equal”). Instead of having goals, we make each person an island in himself where his goals are the whims he has, which means those goals change constantly and amount to nothing but a steady accumulation in the landfill of the vestiges of his passing fascinations.

What does nature need? To be left alone, in enough land for itself. That means no fences, roads or weekenders in certain areas. Just forest, or prairie, or even desert in its pristine state. To do that however we must do what is eternally unpopular and tell people no. No, they cannot have houses in the outer suburbs. No, they cannot immigrate here. No, they cannot buy large cars. No, they cannot open another McDonald’s or dry cleaners and make profit from it. Leadership says no to those whose goals are not good; in our current society, we pretend that merely stopping some who are bad is the same thing, but it is not. Good leaders filter all that is incompatible with goals, instead of defending themselves lamely against known evils while the unknown slip past in droves.

Those who think you can be an “environmentalist” are nonsensical. The problem of the environment is the problem of human leadership. The problem of human leadership is egalitarianism, which means we cannot say no. Until the notion of equality falls, we will continue to grow out of control and consume more resources, no matter how many useless “green” products we produce or above-average IQ people we convince not to breed. Ecocide is our act, and it reflects our poor choices, thus we must reconsider how we make choices. Anything else is a surrogate act that will not achieve its goals.

Recommended Reading