Pentti Linkola: The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism

10 posts


High Finnish suicide rate explained.

John Conquest

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.

Niccolo and Donkey

Bumpers like to bump.

This is my life goal.

edit: I am seriously devoted to understanding how to do this.
Content Creator

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

President Camacho

Related thread:

Yes... I've said on here before that Trump has half of the equation: executing the converse of the Neocons' platform of free trade, propositional nationhood, and social liberalism.

But the other half of a genuinely populist platform necessarily involves abandoning the "growth-oriented" economic mindset and adopting strict environmentalism, which is by definition conservative. A minority of White Liberals voters are effectively single-issue environmentalist voters, who may pay lip service to other DNC memes like tranny pride but don't have their heart in them. Given Obama's shameful cover-up of the Deepwater Horizon and HRC's pro-fracking energy lobby ties, a strong pro-environmental policy could win this liberal contingent over (I'd estimate them at 5-10% of the total Dem voter base), similar to how the union contingent of the Democratic Party has already jumped ship.

Meanwhile, very few of the rural and small-town whites which make up the current Trump base would be turned off from environmentalism unless its couched in the condescending language of 'climate change'-obsessed liberals. "Republican strategists" would deny this, but they've demonstrated amply they don't know their own base.
Absolutely true and probably where I'd be if I never developed past 13 or been exposed to the internet? IDK. Very common out here needless to say and these aren't all bad people.

Right. Even those Republicans who would be turned off would be a fair trade , because (1) they would be destructive idiots and we'd get conservationists, organic food in return (2) these people aren't likely to go to the Corey Booker trans-Neoliberals. For whatever reason, anti-environmentalism is a boomer conservative thing, so there's a generational shift coming soon.

Neoliberalism is anti-(traditional-ethnoracial-root)-identity. Neither Environmentalism (except the anti-human environmentalism or maybe not even it) nor Socialism (as a care at a distance) necessarily attack identity.

So we're looking at the construction of the real National Socialist Libertarian Environmentalist Party.

Edit: As a side note, the climate change dualism seems to have its basis in pure faith in existing informational institutions, and as a litmus test as to whether you're part of American political plantations. Other Western countries make less a fuss over it (if I understand correctly, Swedes burn trash, and they do it efficiently, English conservatives don't deny global warming, they just argue for more exploitation of whatever local resources out of principle) despite global warming being a sort of basis to technocracy of the Eurocrats, whereas in the United States global warming and now climate change/weather is or was until recently this huge divide over whether you trust imaginary oil company paid theologians or trust the "98% of scientists (paid exclusively to study climate change/reprove global warming every quarter) who agree that climate change exists."

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?

J-Mask {107}

I haven't had the chance to read his book yet, but this man is already my hero.