High Finnish suicide rate explained.
High Finnish suicide rate explained.
Guys like this grasp the problem, but are wrong about nearly everything else. Civilisation can go on for thousands of years. No matter how badly we screw up the planet, so long as we have resources to deplete we'll continue on, unsustaniably. And there's no point trying to convince people to die out voluntarily, all that that causes to happen is the few decent humans will stop having kids and feel guilty, while the scum of the planet excrete crotch fruit with even greater abandon. Genetics really matter in all of this, and beyond genetics, organisation. Bearded loners writing controversial manifestos from their cabins in the woods, hoping to convince the middle-brows to change voluntarily, appealing to their better natures. Can't work, won't work.
Eventually, way down the road, some group is going to form together and form into a cult organisation. They'll organise, breed, practice eugenics, hone their doctrine, and bide their time. Sometime when the rest of the world is in disarray (dysgenics is very real, eugenics is very unpopular, you don't even want to think about what will pass for normal in 3 or 5 thousand years time) they'll strike and take over the planet, and run it as a huge hi-tech green utopia of only a few million people.
In the long term, people like this will probably be proven right. Its a nascent movement. They don't really have any worked out ideology yet, but they feel something.
Bumpers like to bump.
The ecological questions are ignored by the right because of baggage with hippies, Greens Parties and the general association with soy brained weirdos. There is also, I suspect, a hangover from libertarian and cuckservative days where anything that hampered maximum profit for corporations (who are absolutely our friends and wealth creators of course) was evil. The fact is a rightist victory in the western world will be hollow if the countries we fought for are drained of wealth by multinational corporations and left as polluted husks. Levelled forests and choked rivers, but hey at least there will be Monsanto wheat fields for """nationalist""" women to stand in. The neoliberal left despite the eco rhetoric isn't suited to environmentalism. Everything about it relies upon the false notion that there are no finite values. Unlimited growth in a finite world is literally what they believe.
Conservatism (and most of the right) recognises the finite nature of the world, along with limits and boundaries. It is a totally truthful argument that liberal social and economic polices are at loggerheads with their environmental goals. You can't promise to reduce pollution while increasing consumption. My belief is that a serious ecology would cure a lot of social ills. A modest reduction in living standards and expectations even. Quality over quantity. Decadence is only facilitated by excess, obviously, which would be impossible in a society orientated to preserving a natural equilibrium. And what is the right if not an attempt to be attuned to nature? Natural order rhetoric is recognised as being fascist by the left, which is funny because it implies we're right if there is truth in nature. I may expand on this later but the takeaway is that a global trash world is at the present time an inevitability irrespective of who is in the White House
Related thread:
https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/my-manifesto-for-rewilding-the-world.3030/#post-20168
Some sensible policy suggestions from Linkola:
Not well-versed in Linkola's writings, but I remember hearing once that "those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who did not."
So, has Linkola ever articulated anything coherent (let alone realistic) on how a country that adopts this plan could protect itself from countries that didn't? Or how this plan could be enacted worldwide?
I haven't had the chance to read his book yet, but this man is already my hero.