 |
| An eco-Paradise—inconsistent with endless racial conflict or racial replacement. |
Environmentalism is a failure because it is based on fabricated evidence and outright scientific falsehoods like human-caused global warming. It is also a failure for pragmatic reasons. Since taking care of the environment is seen as a collective—rather than an individual—affair, Greens typically advocate liberal and socialist economic policies. The Green shibboleth of environmental sustainability is premised on the idea of wealth redistribution: economic inequality in Third World countries adversely impacts environment, therefore rich Western nations must send billions of dollars in foreign aid to Third World backwaters to produce higher quality environments.
Of course, this approach is flawed. Socialism does not work and wherever it has been tried, it produces lower quality environments. One need only look at the catastrophic environmental record of the former Soviet Union (i.e. Chernobyl) and the Eastern Bloc countries to know that this is true. Too much equality ruins the environment because there is less of an incentive to maintain it in a relatively sanitary condition. Furthermore, wealth redistribution never achieves its desired end because there are innate biological and genetic differences between, not only individuals, but nations and races.
If environmentalism doesn’t work, what does?
President Teddy Roosevelt was among the early 20th century’s most prominent conservationists; through executive order, he established dozens of national parks, forest reserves and wildlife refuges across the US. His philosophy of conservation was simple:
In Blue Planet in Green Shackles (2008), former Czech President Václav Klaus wrote:
In the West, the air and water are less polluted; the towns and cities are cleaner; there is less congestion and overcrowding. Most importantly, large sections of the natural environment have been left untouched, reserved for the enjoyment of future generations.
If industrialization was as bad as environmentalists say it is, Western industrial societies would be just as filthy as those in the developing world, maybe even worse. Yet the exact opposite is true; having a better environment is simply a beneficial side effect of high economic growth. Once a certain level of average GDP per capita is reached, people suddenly have the leisure to develop an ecological awareness of their surroundings.
Whites have produced an extremely disproportionate number of the world’s creative geniuses; this has made Western civilization the wealthiest and most powerful that has ever existed. The fact that white Western societies were racially homogeneous—until globalist elites decided to embark on a program of mass immigration in the 1960s—also meant that people were more incentivized to hand over the environment “to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.”
Multiculturalism threatens these two positive ecological factors. As white societies become more racially heterogeneous through non-white immigration and falling birth rates, mutual trust is eroded. As white societies fracture along ethnic and racial lines, people become more isolated from each other and “hunker down” (Putnam, 2007). They withdraw from society and lose interest in taking care of the environment. If people are more likely to care for each other in homogeneous societies, they will also be more likely to leave the environment better than when they found it for future generations.
In such a society, people will also share the same average level of intelligence, so there will be less of a need to take money from the federal budget to squander on "underperforming" minorities. Since minorities produce far worse environments than whites, as we see in black-run cities like Detroit or even black-run countries like Haiti, living around them inevitably means less aesthetically pleasing and sanitary environments.
If White ethnonationalism, higher IQs, and higher GDP positively correlate with efficient natural resource management, then clearly the best environmental policy is to encourage more industrial economic activity, i.e. more factories, more smokestacks, more burning of fossil fuels and more R&D, while also encouraging greater homogeneity. Government policy will not preserve nature for us, but encouragement of ethno-nationalism and racial sovereignty will.
Environmentalists are too pessimistic; the large number of geniuses that have shaped the course of Western civilization since the time of Plato and Aristotle are the white man’s greatest resource. Average men see limited resources, but to a genius, the list of potential resources is infinite; for all we know, man’s next most vital resource may be all around us, like water or air. All that is lacking are the men with the IQ and creativity to discover novel industrial uses for them. The scientific method ensures that man is not the prisoner of his own biology or even the laws of thermodynamics. As Western man’s knowledge increases, his limitations quietly recede into the background.
Promotion of nationalism as part of an ideal environmental policy is incomplete without discussion of Neo-Malthusianism. Conserving and increasing the white man’s stock of natural resources for future generations will not be achieved under some neoliberal system of world governance, where national interests are subordinated to economic ones, but by cultivating our most important resource, our ability to create the world’s great geniuses. This can only be done by implementing a pro-natalist policy that encourages intelligent whites to have as many children as possible. This is the inescapable conclusion for anyone who loves our environment and wants to protect it.
Of course, this approach is flawed. Socialism does not work and wherever it has been tried, it produces lower quality environments. One need only look at the catastrophic environmental record of the former Soviet Union (i.e. Chernobyl) and the Eastern Bloc countries to know that this is true. Too much equality ruins the environment because there is less of an incentive to maintain it in a relatively sanitary condition. Furthermore, wealth redistribution never achieves its desired end because there are innate biological and genetic differences between, not only individuals, but nations and races.
If environmentalism doesn’t work, what does?
President Teddy Roosevelt was among the early 20th century’s most prominent conservationists; through executive order, he established dozens of national parks, forest reserves and wildlife refuges across the US. His philosophy of conservation was simple:
“The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.”According to conservationists, man is superior to nature, but also its steward. With stewardship come certain moral responsibilities. Man is obligated to leave the environment better than when he found it for the next generation. How would he best ensure that the environment was well taken care of?
 |
| The environment implies a subject and an identity. The stronger this is the better for the environment. |
In Blue Planet in Green Shackles (2008), former Czech President Václav Klaus wrote:
“In 1991, Gene M. Grossman and Alan B. Krueger noticed that an upside-down U-shaped relationship exists between the quality of the environment and the level of income, that is, wealth. After analyzing data from 42 countries, they calculated that the critical point occurs when the annual GDP reaches something between $6,700 and $8,400 per capita. […]The correlation between economic growth and quality of environment is not complete without a discussion of racial factors. Historically Whites have created better environments than non-whites (with the exception of the Japanese) because only we have created societies conducive to high rates of economic growth.
Applying this to the real economy, a remarkable conclusion follows: Economic growth—an increase in wealth—is ultimately beneficial to the environment.”
If industrialization was as bad as environmentalists say it is, Western industrial societies would be just as filthy as those in the developing world, maybe even worse. Yet the exact opposite is true; having a better environment is simply a beneficial side effect of high economic growth. Once a certain level of average GDP per capita is reached, people suddenly have the leisure to develop an ecological awareness of their surroundings.
Whites have produced an extremely disproportionate number of the world’s creative geniuses; this has made Western civilization the wealthiest and most powerful that has ever existed. The fact that white Western societies were racially homogeneous—until globalist elites decided to embark on a program of mass immigration in the 1960s—also meant that people were more incentivized to hand over the environment “to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.”
Multiculturalism threatens these two positive ecological factors. As white societies become more racially heterogeneous through non-white immigration and falling birth rates, mutual trust is eroded. As white societies fracture along ethnic and racial lines, people become more isolated from each other and “hunker down” (Putnam, 2007). They withdraw from society and lose interest in taking care of the environment. If people are more likely to care for each other in homogeneous societies, they will also be more likely to leave the environment better than when they found it for future generations.
In such a society, people will also share the same average level of intelligence, so there will be less of a need to take money from the federal budget to squander on "underperforming" minorities. Since minorities produce far worse environments than whites, as we see in black-run cities like Detroit or even black-run countries like Haiti, living around them inevitably means less aesthetically pleasing and sanitary environments.
If White ethnonationalism, higher IQs, and higher GDP positively correlate with efficient natural resource management, then clearly the best environmental policy is to encourage more industrial economic activity, i.e. more factories, more smokestacks, more burning of fossil fuels and more R&D, while also encouraging greater homogeneity. Government policy will not preserve nature for us, but encouragement of ethno-nationalism and racial sovereignty will.
Environmentalists are too pessimistic; the large number of geniuses that have shaped the course of Western civilization since the time of Plato and Aristotle are the white man’s greatest resource. Average men see limited resources, but to a genius, the list of potential resources is infinite; for all we know, man’s next most vital resource may be all around us, like water or air. All that is lacking are the men with the IQ and creativity to discover novel industrial uses for them. The scientific method ensures that man is not the prisoner of his own biology or even the laws of thermodynamics. As Western man’s knowledge increases, his limitations quietly recede into the background.
Promotion of nationalism as part of an ideal environmental policy is incomplete without discussion of Neo-Malthusianism. Conserving and increasing the white man’s stock of natural resources for future generations will not be achieved under some neoliberal system of world governance, where national interests are subordinated to economic ones, but by cultivating our most important resource, our ability to create the world’s great geniuses. This can only be done by implementing a pro-natalist policy that encourages intelligent whites to have as many children as possible. This is the inescapable conclusion for anyone who loves our environment and wants to protect it.
 |
| Childless feminist hack trying to justify her poor life decisions by getting high IQ women to stop having kids and ruin the planet. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.