Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘environmentalism’

Dune and Iran

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

Great Science Fiction authors manage the difficult feat of thinking both scientifically and poetically at the same time. Frank Herbert’s classic novel Dune is an ecological and religious thought experiment. “Does that which does not kill us truly make us stronger?”

He asks at perhaps the behest of Nietzsche. To quote an awesome remark a friend of mine made, that which doesn’t kill us gives us one motherfvcker of a hangover. That which didn’t kill the Fremen of Dune involved a potentially toxic gallimaufry of ecological disaster mixed with insane religious fanaticism.

It couldn’t kill Paul Maud’dib who faced and surpassed the gom jabber. It only made him stronger. They rose up. They killed the Evil Baron Vladimir Harkonnen and ran the cowardly House Corino out of power and took over a massive chunk of the galaxy. It also helped that they had a resource monopoly over the spice melange that fueled interstellar travel and made whoever controlled the supply kingmaker, if not king.

Herbert wrote this with the late 20th Century in mind. By 1970, Garrett Hardin and M. King Hubbert had both dropped their bombshells. Ecology, prior to its corruption by the Enviro-Academic Industrial Complex, told us some stark and scary truth. When men like Hubbert and David Brin put forth believable and mathematically rigorous models predicting our ineffible fvcktitude, it was hard not to take groups like The Club of Rome, at least somewhat seriously.

It was similar ecological fear that inspired Frank Herbert to model The Planet Arrakis (aka Dune) after the modern region of SW Asia. Dune was hot and dry to the point where water was precious. It was so arid that wasting moisture was considered an absolute mortal sin. Killing someone wasn’t nice. Losing the liquid water content of the cadaver was unthinkable. Arrakis would be a backwater except for one thing: they had a natural resource monopoly over the most valuable substance in the galaxy. This made people who didn’t care about the native Fremen have to care about the stuff that they could mine from the desert.

Survival in the awful climate and ecology of Dune required a very disciplined and unusually brutal lifestyle. This was best handled via religious indoctrination combined with an iron-fisted tribal system of society. This led to a powerful code of conduct that maximized the likelihood of each Fremen tribe surviving and passing on its genes and traditions to another generation.

Once, when studying the Bible, I was told to think of The Deuteronomy as a Boy Scout Fieldbook for adults stranded in a desert waste for forty years along with Moses. Moderns hate the subjugation of the individual to the commonweal and rigidity of gender and class roles that get spelled out. These Moderns have rarely spent more than two weeks without a functional HVAC and have rarely gone anywhere with fewer than two bars on their phone or GPS. The Deuteronomy teaches people how to survive on the wrong side of Hadrian’s Wall.

So Dune can be summed up as tough people under hard religious discipline can whip coach potatoes and rule the galaxy if they find the right religious ruler to lead them. Does this work in real life? If so, the closest parallel I can think of on contemporary Terra would a country that really isn’t fond of Amerika. That would be Iran and they are at least caricatured as praying “Death to America” every morning. If they would wipe out any House of Corino here on Earth, it would either be Israel or The Great Satan as they affectionately refer to us in their religious writings.

Iran has a brutal climate. It is arid and as its agricultural and hydrological policies fail; it is becoming more and more arid. They have that old time religion. The Mullahs interpret The Koran, impose Sharia Law and frequently rule by Fatwa. There is no court more Supreme than Allah. The Old Men of Quuds issue a Fatwa and all issues are settled. And, of course, Iran has a massive stockpile of oil. Thus, when Hamas gives the IDF all it wants and then an encore during Operation Protective Edge, fans of Herbert, Nietzsche or anyone who shoots at Israelis in general will nod, smile and make fatuous snark over Amerikans needing to ditch the idiot phones and knock out a few push-ups.

But what of the actual Iranians, as opposed to those that the Iranians sell weapons to? The story takes a turn that Herbert would never have seen coming for The Great Maud’dib. Iran has a population pyramid that would lead to a population ceiling of 100 million by about 2050. This would imply a gain of 15% over the next 80 or so years, assuming a low rate of venereal disease and consistent rate of fertility across generations. Which is in no way the case for contemporary Iran.

Before we wax too eloquent about the democratic aspirations of the great Iranian people, we should keep in the mind that the most probable scenario for Iran under any likely regime is a sickening spiral into poverty and depopulation. Iran has the fastest-aging population of any country in the world, indeed, the fast-aging population of any country in history. It has the highest rate of venereal disease infection and the highest rate of infertility of any country in the world. It has a youth unemployment rate of 35% (adjusted for warehousing young people in state-run diploma mills).

People are not getting tougher from the tough times in Iran. The places riots took place recently are places where food and water have run out.

Ghahdarijan’s protests have been long in the making. Two years ago, an adviser to Iran’s environment ministry, Issa Kalandari, warned 50 million Iranians would be left without water, due to the exhaustion of 70% of Iran’s groundwater and the ill-considered diversion of rivers to compensate. Agriculture consumes 92% of Iran’s water. Capital-intensive farming methods could conserve water, but they also would drive peasants off the land into cities already suffering from about 30% youth unemployment.

So where is the great and glorious Jihad that Maud’dib leads to conquer the entire galactic empire? It’s been on for forty years and it is intrinsically linked to the drying rivers. All the money that Iran could have spent on upgrading its water system and practicing ecology and conservation has been spent on arms and military adventure. Iran does field an impressive array of threats that could possibly even include nuclear arms, but they are bleeding themselves dry to keep these soldiers in the field. The Iranians have every institutional problem that we Amerikans suffer from over here in Great Satan Land.

For nearly four decades, Iran has cannibalized its physical and human capital, leaving the Islamic state with multiple crises and a deep sense of malaise. Water management is only one of several hidden deficits that the Islamic state has accumulated since the 1979 revolution. Large parts of Iran’s pension system face bankruptcy in the short term, and the government’s annual arrears to its underfunded social security system are many times the size of its official budget deficit. With the world’s fastest-aging population, Iran’s demographics will make an already-critical problem much worse during the next several years. Iran is the first country to get old before it got rich, setting in motion a pension crisis more acute than any other in the world.

So what do we learn? Terrible ecological practices combined with traditional religious fundamentalism are not sufficient to produce an unbeatable warrior caste. Wasting a nation’s resources on military adventurism such as George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq does nothing but waste resources.

Iran, North Korea and The Soviet Union towards its end have far more in common than they do with The Fremen of Paul Maud’dib on Arrakis. The romantic dream of a punisher arising from the wastes to flay the decadent rot of The Evil Empire is exactly that. It is a dream. It is a wish fulfillment. Our path out of our current decadent rot cannot be correct as simply as being conquered and put under proper Sharia by some heroic barbarian from days of yore.

Living with Wolves (2005)

Monday, January 15th, 2018

Living with Wolves follows how Jim and Jamie Dutcher actually lived with wolves; the wolves were in charge of the relationship. This attempts to present the real nature of wolves instead of a stereotype based either on the Disney-esque pacifism of nature or the human fear of animals that can still be our predators.

The main focus of the documentary, relevant to us deep ecologists, centers on how wolves form an indissoluble relationship with the biodiversity and ecology of their territory. The cameramen-naturalists Jamie and Jim Dutcher lived six years in a tent camp in the wilderness of Idaho with a covey of wolves, listening to them and earning their trust.

During centuries past, wolves were characterized as blood-thirsty beasts, enemies of owners of ranch and killer of helpless live-stock. This arises from the individualist tendency to categorize personal fears as universal truths, and then to use the power of the herd to remove the threat. When humans are united against wolves, wolves disappear from the environment.

However we find that much as life requires both good and evil to constantly balance itself, nature — and by extension, ourselves — require wolves as part of a balanced ecosystem. Without predators, the prey take over; once they do, they become weak; when they become weak, they die out. If you love bunnies and mice, you must also love wolves.

Today when we are striving to save what’s left of western civilization and redesign it, to create a better version of it we will include deep ecology because we realize that the fundamental idea of deep ecology — redesigning our civilization to include the reality outside human minds — also applies to preserving civilization. Protecting the wilderness is on par with protecting our races, ethnic groups, cultures, religious faiths, and values. And the symbol of the wilderness is the wolf.

This documentary is completely different from others. It is not based on entertainment where some idiot is wrestling with crocodiles or another idiot is exploiting animals. Those documentaries seem not far removed, in some cases, from harassment of these animals by using their elemental urges against them. As such, Living with Wolves is not usual Discovery Channel fare.

Instead, expect to find an informative documentary not so much about wolves, but about the environment itself, and how ecosystems work. From that, we can see how the universe around us which is based on conflict is in fact a superior design to our human orders based on safety. We instinctively fear the wolves, but what we really should fear is our tendency to self-destruct without them.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Fourteen: Permaculture

Friday, December 22nd, 2017

Nationalist Public Radio tackles deep ecology through an interview with Harvey Wieverstein, an entrepreneur who is interested in the greater social benefits — and higher profits — from permaculture as opposed to monoculture. James Price and Brett Stevens investigate the nature of modern agriculture and how it reflects our dying time, and how it can be rebooted with a different outlook.


Download (92mb, 39 minutes)

 

 

The Alternative Of Real Ecology by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson (2016)

Monday, December 11th, 2017


The Alternative of Real Ecology
by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson
Solitude Books, 274 pages, 2016. $16

When contemplating the environmental crisis dawning over our world, the thinking individual faces a grim choice: to admit the truth is to call for the taboo, such as fewer people, but to fail to admit the truth is to dedicate oneself to endless compensatory behaviors that will never fix the problem. This is why nothing has been done despite most in the West wanting a solution for decades.

The Alternative of Real Ecology offers a solution in the form of descending into the fullness of admitting the truth about the collision between humanity and our environment. Human needs are in conflict with the needs of natural ecosystems, and this is a zero-sum game, which means that anything we give to humans, we take from nature. At this point the debate takes on a mature outlook: we must talk about the appropriate number of humans on the planet in order for enough of nature to thrive that our planetary ecosystem can function without losing species.

That recognition admits two types of response. Either we as a species change what we are doing, which is impossible under liberal democratic political systems, or individuals are left with the question of how to address the environmental crisis through individual choices, knowing that the vast majority of humans will not do the same. This book uses a discussion of the latter to explore the changes that would have to be made in the former scenario.

Uncontrolled human breeding demands more space for growing food, housing, and recreation; unless the population growth is controlled the loss of habitat will increase. “Humans have the right to breed and grow food.” Yes they do, and therefore the biodiversity will be exterminated. They can breed as much as they want and eat/throw away a much food as they want. In other words: “Humans can take away as much natural habitat as they see fit.” (231)

In noting this, this book follows up on the ideas of Pentti Linkola and Theodore Kacyznski, who noted that only non-democratic solutions are serious. If we want to preserve nature, we have to limit the amount of land used by humanity, probably to a quarter or third of the available land, and to do that, we need a political system that is not based on individual rights which cause a tragedy of the commons as each person exploits the maximum amount of resources (which increased land use) possible.

The style of The Alternative of Real Ecology might put people off at first, but win them over as the pages turn. Somewhere between a Socratic dialogue and a notebook of ideas, the text flows like a conversation between quotations representing either common arguments against environmentalism or statements by public figures, and the rebuttals of the author. A mood of negation of pervades the text as it points out hollow platitudes and nonsensical objections to the obvious.

At its core, this book suggests that normal (modern) human life and environmental survival are opposites, and so humans must become “inhuman” or conditioned to assign no additional weight to human preferences. In this mindset, we are able to separate what we need from what we want; at that point, the solutions to overpopulation, overconsumption and other human ills become obvious. The author sets a mindset of “no contribution” more as a thought experiment and baseline than recommendation, but comparison to it reveals how impoverished our “green” actions have been.

One cannot deny his humanity and stay human (that’s logical) and therefore one must become inhuman to deny his humanity. This is where Real Ecology comes into the picture.

…The priority of Real Ecology is Nature and the duty to point out that it will be destroyed. Not how much the existence of humans will be miserable. It is not the duty of Real Ecology to stop the ecocide. That’s impossible. It’s there to stop destroying Nature by one person at a time: the inner change and non-contribution. (92)

By forcing the issue and pointing out that, without radical species-wide change, ecocide is inevitable, The Alternative of Real Ecology enacts a certain kind of inner change in the human being, which is the framing of the environmental issue in appropriately binary terms. Either the human species gets its act together in a large way and reduces its land use, or we watch the inevitable tragedy.

In this way, the book acts like any form of radical realism. It identifies causes, and looks to their effects, and illustrates for us the choices we have regarding the inevitability of those effects. Its “inhuman” outlook separates us from illusion, and opens the dialogue to a results-oriented conception of environmentalism. In turn, this pushes the human dialogue on the environment past the socially-acceptable to the realistic.

Of the two solutions it identifies — inner change and non-contribution — the former proves the most interesting in that it is a fulfillment of the deep ecology notion of re-designing human life to fit within our natural environment, instead of making the environment subject to human whims, to be shaped in order to serve what our herd think believes is what we need. Larsson makes the whole book an exercise in understanding the depth of this reorganization of our minds and desires, both in nuance of the big points and associated details, forming a list of often-forgotten important environmental concerns.

However, he remains suitably bleak, pointing out that the bottom line cannot be adulterated: we have too many humans and each of them, if they can, will live a high-resource industrialized lifestyle; implicated in this also is the notion that our social mobility causes us to compete through money and possessions, which further drives the consumerist mania that is consuming our environment.

Real Ecology doesn’t deal with solutions. No matter how unpopular or controversial, they are ‘solutions’ and their presentation is all it takes 1) non-realistic: the sudden disappearance/vanishing of the human species. That’s not possible to achieve, so only a theory, 2) partly realistic: suicide. To sacrifice yourself for Nature, and 3) realistic: not having children. The non-contribution. Rather than promoting (Real Ecology doesn’t promote them) these ‘solutions,’ it’s better to present the realistic ones: non-contribution and inner change. Real Ecology will not promote a fantasy, theoretical solution, non-realistic ideas. That’s what realism (real) is about. (111)

It remains unclear how literal this is, since the Darwinian effect of the environmentally-conscious not having children is that environmental consciousness as a trait disappears from the human species. The inner change, however, is wrought in this book through many clever mental puzzles of the variety above, in which a distinction is made between arbitrary but true propositions that are thus unproven or irrelevant, and ultimate solutions which are too extreme. By shifting the Overton window of ecology in this way, Larsson channels our own instinct to look for a moderate center point, which is a change in attitudes toward things previously considered to be universal goods, like the economy or human rights.

This book challenges the reader with surly, often malevolently defeatist thought-problems of this nature. Its largest point is that ecocide is not a forgivable sin, and that for as much as it rages about how no solution can be found, clearly the basis of a solution — fewer people, less consumption, more social order — informs our thinking not about environmental issues per se but general issues, with us naturally wanting to ask, “Will this improve or worsen the condition of our world?”

Printed on recycled paper, The Alternative of Real Ecology taunts and mocks us for our impotence on this issue and seeks to re-frame the environmental question as the question of what type of civilization we will choose for our future, knowing that ecocide not just terminates us, but rebukes the gift of life and will make us guilt-ridden and self-hating. A quick read, it is emotionally provocative and thought-provoking as a result of that, pleasantly separating it from the self-help nature of most “green” books.

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.

Recommended Reading