Print this post Print this post

The Spotted Owl & the Elephant in the Room

3,308 words

Audio version: To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to the CC podcast RSS feed, click here.

In 1814, the Russian writer Ivan Krylov wrote a fable entitled “The Inquisitive Man”: a man visits a museum and observes all sorts of exhibits while completely overlooking an elephant on show. This tale is said to have given rise to the expression “the elephant in the room,” an idiom signifying a major and obvious issue which everyone is ignoring. In contemporary debate about the environment and a series of related issues, there has been such an elephant in the room for a long time. There are indirect references to the elephant, and in the seventies for a brief moment it looked as though the elephant would be finally acknowledged, but then the elephant was disregarded again.

I am not referring to the decline of the white race, ignored by the mainline media though it is; that decline is a matter of lively discussion on white survivalist Websites. I am not referring to conspiracies of Jews; conspiracies of every kind are widely discussed subjects on alternative media. The elephant in the room to which I am referring is the fact that throughout the world (no land escapes this truly universal trend), natural land and wilderness are being replaced by concrete or agricultural monoculture, and the principal, but not the only, cause is human population growth. Statistics on the subject tend to be belittled, manipulated, intentionally misinterpreted, and played down. Those concerned with the accelerating decline of the white race will be familiar with the manipulation of statistics and how the promoters of a multi-racial agenda are swift to put a spin on evidence they can no longer hide, with the aim of relativizing the evidence of personal experience. For example, in response to the recent hike in recorded incidents of sexual crime in Sweden, the claim has been made that Swedish authorities are widening their definition of what constitutes a sexual crime and thus have become more efficient in tracking it.

Statistics in the case of the disappearance of the wilderness and the “development” of the land are especially problematic because there is no wide consensus as to what constitutes urban land, developed land, or built-on land. For example, are the grass lines in the middle of a dual carriageway, or a motorway’s grass banks, or verges, or the lawn of a house, to be counted as “green” land or not? What are the criteria for defining a natural forest or a wilderness? The highlands of Scotland are thinly populated and generally considered a “natural wilderness,” so they are included in statistics intended to prove that Britain is not overcrowded; yet the barren landscapes of highland Scotland are not a natural wilderness and are home to little in the way of life. In fact they bear witness to a process of deforestation and destruction in large part caused by human activity.

The reality of shrinking wilderness and declining wildlife applies not just to Borneo or West Africa but to every nation on Earth, the expansion of concrete and the stripping of the landscape likewise. Of all the continents, Asia probably leads the way in land destruction – sorry, “development.” Since independence, the deforestation of Indonesia has reached a pace which means that there is unlikely to be any natural woodland remaining on Sumatra in twenty years. When I was born, in 1954, it had something like seventy percent forest. Indeed, a piece by the environmentalist campaigner John Vidal appeared in The Guardian four years ago in which he stated:

The end is in sight for the great forests of Sumatra and Borneo and the animals and people who depend on them. Thirty years ago the world’s third- and sixth-largest islands were full of tigers, elephants, rhinos, orang-outang and exotic birds and plants but in a frenzy of development they have been trashed in a single generation by global agribusiness and pulp and paper industries.

The same writer recently noted in another piece that perhaps urban sprawl was as much to blame as climate change for the extent of the flooding caused in Texas by Hurricane Harvey. Those with environmental concerns are encouraged to look at climate change, but neither climate change nor even urban sprawl are the primary sources of environmental decline. The primary cause – the cause behind the cause, so to speak – of human-induced climate changes and urban sprawl is runaway human population increase.

Aware that a great debate is showing on the radar screen of public consciousness, the champions of the politics of growth have been busy for many years sowing doubt in the minds of potential critics of land “development.” The German business magazine Capital assured (reassured?) readers twenty years ago that only three percent (!) of German land had been built upon. I recall no authority being offered as the source of this highly questionable statistic, nor the criteria used in arriving at that result. Perhaps all the space taken up by road and rail is included in the percentage of land “not built on”? It was in any case obvious that a magazine promoting growth, profit, and development felt it necessary that its readers should be able to quote this statistic in an argument should the need arise.

In a similar vein in 2012, the broadsheet of London suburbanites and “business as usual” politics, The London Standard, published a piece by its home editor, Mark Easton, in which he argued against environmentalist pessimists who felt that too much of England was being developed, assuring his readers that England was overwhelmingly still a pristine, green land. You only had to look at England from the sky, he claimed, to realize that talk about overpopulation was negative and defeatist.

Easton’s argument was that there was nothing to worry about so far as urban expansion was concerned. This oft-repeated narrative is used today to counter the cry of “the boat is full” which had begun to be heard in Western countries from those disinclined to welcome new migrants or refugees. But “green” is not necessarily natural, still less primal. The green fields of England are for the most part not very natural at all. They are intensively farmed – many would say over-farmed – land.

As for the extent to which England is “developed” (the word alone speaks volumes about the mentality of the pro-growth lobbies), this is notoriously hard to measure given the kind of problem already referred to, but the fact that concrete, and that means dead, land is expanding in England as it is everywhere else in the world, nobody denies. Because that fact cannot be denied, it is resolutely ignored. It is the elephant in the room. Humans, any humans, always come first in the reckoning of the internationalists, and are always more important than the land or wildlife. In Britain, in the wake of massive immigration over the last ten years, all established political parties, including, appallingly, the Green Party, have been committed to massive housing construction programs to accommodate a demand caused by population growth – a growth, incidentally, which is overwhelmingly non-white. In the 2017 general election, the Labour Party committed itself to the building of a million homes over the next five years.

Massive housing programs with no long-term view of the consequences for the environment or the social lives of citizens are nothing new. What is new is that the fiction that “there is always more land” is wearing thin. Coastlines are prime targets of development: already in the 1930s, the great American poet Robinson Jeffers wrote of the despoiling of the Californian coast. Additionally, most of the Spanish coastline was “developed,” that is to say transformed, into concrete and glass, with the blessing of its dictator within a period of only twenty-five years, from the mid-1950s to the beginning of the 1980s.

In the space of twenty years, Ireland, empowered by the European Union, has been transformed from a traditionalist, slow-paced, and overwhelmingly rural society into a modern multicultural playground complete with motorways, skyscrapers, and a high-priced real estate market. Once-beautiful Bavaria has been pummeled in the last forty years by a building frenzy, resulting in motorways leading to small towns and ribbon development abounding.

Paris and Madrid have exploded in size, and their vast high-rise suburbs now encircle and dwarf the original cities. As Konrad Lorenz noted in Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins, the growth of modern cities in the twentieth century bore a remarkable resemblance to the growth of a cancerous cell.

As for Asia or Africa, the statistics beggar belief. The population of Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, was seven hundred sixty-two thousand in 1962, the year it gained independence. As of today (2017), its population is estimated to be somewhere over fourteen million. In ten years’ time, it is expected to grow by another ten million. In 1960, the population of Istanbul was 1.7 million; today, it is 14.5 million. In 1960, the population of Peking was about four million; now, it is around twenty-two million.

Even in the very few countries where there is population decline (all of them white countries except for Japan), development of the land continues. Even after the obvious impact of runaway population growth, rising expectations and so-called “living standards” (that perpetually unquestioned mantra beloved by champions of growth) continue to fuel the demand for more hotels, airports, leisure centers, and shopping malls, all of which play their part in the disappearance of the wilderness and the covering of the world with concrete and monoculture. Where concrete covers the land, or where the land is turned over to monoculture, there is little variety of life. Worldwide growth tends to look similar wherever it occurs. A new Burger King in Costa Rica looks much like a new Burger King in London or San Francisco. The aim is to have the customers all looking the same, too. This universal expansion is quite literally a universal expansion of death.

I have written, both at Counter-Currents and elsewhere, on the necessity in politics to forge alliances. I have drawn attention to the two unexpected setbacks for internationalism in 2016, namely the British EU referendum and the election of Donald Trump, both only made possible by dint of the cooperation of erstwhile opponents to reach a common goal.

The dire ecological situation in the world cries out for similar cooperation. All over the world there are small groups and organizations, often working on a shoestring, trying to stem the march of progress, facing those who profit from that cancer of the planet which business interests and the politicians in their pay euphemistically term “growth.” Such groups seem not to interest most white identitarians, who indeed like to share the irony and sarcasm of mainline conservatives. I am not sure if it was Charles Krauthammer or Ayn Rand who first made the oft-cited quip that “the spotted owl is more important to environmentalists than humans,” but this remark was picked up by white activists and tweaked into “environmental activists express concern about the decline of the spotted owl, but don’t care about the disappearance of the white race.”

In Capitalism Magazine, Robert Traninski, in the “spotted owl” tradition, wrote in 2002:

The common element is the belief that trees take precedence over people. In this view, redwoods, owls, and countless other species are sacred and have a right to their unspoiled habitats – but humans don’t have any right to their own property and livelihoods.

His article was entitled “The Return of the Spotted Owl: Earth First means Humans Last.” If confronted with the hypothetical (but less hypothetical than they may perhaps suppose) choice between the survival of, say, the cougar, or even the spotted owl, in the wildness and the accommodation of a million desperate refugees from Syria, which would the reader choose?

In his thriller, The Brigade, H. A. Covington describes a fictional white separatist uprising occurring in the Northwest of the United States. Although this is a tale of separation, written presumably out of love of the land, the writer nevertheless, in the steady and divisive tradition of mocking environmentalists, finds time to denigrate the very notion of planning permission for house building. He scorns organic food as “politically correct,” and he even finds space to mock, yet again, the hapless spotted owl! Environmentalists, notes the writer, fret about the future of a species of owl but not about the future of the white race.

Time and again, white identitarians accept the reasoning, mostly from highly dubious sources, that wanting to protect nature or being environmentally friendly is an indication of false priorities at best, and Left-wing daftness at worst. This is a deeply flawed attitude, a rational absurdity. Protecting one’s race is a commitment to a natural order and a rejection of unnatural impositions based on universalist doctrines of growth, progress, profit, and exploitation. No conservative is credible who is not concerned with conserving the land, the water, and the planet. Conservatives have allowed the Left to hijack the environmentalist movements, which should by definition be radically conservative.

Environmentalists have their own contradiction – their own elephant in the room. They ignore the root cause of environmental destruction, namely population growth. The leaders of prominent environmentalist organizations blame everyone and everything for the decline of wildlife and the shrinking of natural habitats (“human greed” is their favorite catch-all explanation) except the ultimate and prime cause of it all: too many human mouths to feed.

There are hundreds of small activist groups struggling to save what can be saved. Much of their work is unpaid, and their achievements (the cleaning of European rivers is a case in point) have been remarkable, despite receiving scant recognition. However, irrespective of courageous rearguard actions and some spectacular achievements, environmentalists worldwide are still on the retreat. And for that matter, so are white activists. How can it be otherwise, given the relentless rise in human populations and the dismissal of over-development as something even needing to be discussed, let alone recognized as a problem? Instead of seeking at the very least a modus vivendi, environmentalists and white conservatives, with few exceptions, only express their contempt for one another.

The election of Donald Trump highlighted this mutual disregard and dislike. Environmentalist groups are dismayed by Trump and hard-line Republicans for what they perceive – not entirely without reason – as a cavalier disregard for the needs of the natural environment. An example of such disregard was Republican Don Young’s resolution, which was passed by Congress, to make the shooting of hibernating bears and wolf puppies legal again. It also legalized the hunting of bears from the air. This deregulation, small in itself, speaks volumes about the attitude of many Republican politicians toward nature and the ultimate self-contradiction of much so-called conservatism.

Firstly, the question which should be asked here is, are hunters interested in hunting or exterminating? If they are interested primarily in hunting, that is to say if they consider hunting as part of a frontier style and manly way of life which should be cherished and continued, they cannot conceivably welcome a state of affairs whereby an animal species which they hunt is not given the chance to reproduce in sufficient numbers to maintain its population. The measures only make sense if wolves and bears are regarded as vermin to be completely eradicated from the US. And if this is indeed the case, then that aim includes depriving hunters of game. For hunters to support unsustainable over-hunting is patently illogical, but the truth here, as with over-consumption and over-building, is that human activity, especially in our times, is not looking to posterity but only seeking maximum advantage for itself.

My brother-in-law is a keen hunter. He is unhappy because his “bag” is diminishing year after year. This is not because he has become a less skilled hunter, but rather that there has been a steady and rapid decline in the amount of game to be found in the western German countryside where he hunts, especially over the last ten years. This decline is the result of ribbon development, the uprooting of hedgerows, and increasingly intensive farming, leading to what are now too many hunters chasing too few animals.

In my father-in-law’s cellar is a stuffed great bustard which he brought down around 1955. He can no longer hunt great bustards anywhere near his home. This entertaining, and incidentally inedible, bird has been exterminated in most of Germany. Concerted efforts by volunteer groups have brought its numbers up again so that there are about four hundred or so of the birds in the countryside around Berlin. Huge efforts were made to save this bird in Germany, with no thanks from people like my father-in-law, whose behavior reminds me of someone who discards rubbish and then expects other people to clear it up for him so that there will be space for him to discard more.

Is it not exactly this “not looking to posterity,” this “here and now” hedonism, which is the core sickness of modern decadence? Is it not the tunnel vision of caring neither for the past nor future, but only seeking advantage for the present, which constitutes degeneration?

There will not always be more land, and it is time that everyone aware of their ethnic or national identity embraced that salient fact. There is nowhere else to run. If you appeal to your white identity, you are also appealing to the natural world your people inhabit, and it is time whites made their peace with the land, and the flora and fauna of that land. Their identity is an inextricable part of it, and the future of the land and its people are interrelated.

The human population explosion is no more just a threat. It is now a merciless assault on the land. The evidence is all around: the plastering of ever-more land by concrete, more cars, more houses, more people. This pillaging of the planet so that as many human beings as possible may enjoy greater levels of comfort is humanist folly. The cries of “development,” “you can’t stop progress,” and “people before spotted owls” are the cries of those who care little for their environment and less for the white race. Their priorities are material ones and nature for them is an object, just as animals are: nothing more than a source of food and entertainment.

Hunters and treehuggers do not have to like each other, but if they truly care for their natural home, they should abandon internecine sarcasm and hatred and face a common foe: the champions of growth for growth’s sake, progress for progress’s sake, and development for profit, as well as that overriding and unnatural humanist belief that human beings, any human beings, must always take precedence over all other kinds of life.

We should cherish what we have and be ready to throw intruders out, because our resources are limited and our heritage is precious. Global poverty is more a matter of population growth and overexploitation of natural resources than fair resource distribution, however much the champions of international humanism and egalitarianism may insist to the contrary. Helping Africa to increase its population is to collaborate in the destruction of the planet. First spotted owls go, and tomorrow, you go. This point is crucial.

The leading Green movements were long ago hijacked by internationalists (an initiative itself made possible owing to the dearth of conservative-minded people in such movements in the first place) desperate to divert attention from challenge number one: the exploding human population as the single most serious challenge to the entire world and its survival. The question is not, “Which should we preserve, the spotted owl or the logger?” It is rather, “How can we ensure that neither threatens the other with extinction?” And this question can only be answered by finally seeing the elephant in the room. The elephant is over-population and the disappearance of the natural land. Mock the spotted owl at your peril – where minority species disappear, minority races will follow.

Related

18 Comments

  1. curri
    Posted September 22, 2017 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    All the wildlife of Africa faces extermination in the near term due to runaway Black African population growth, but this documentary focuses on elephants and rhinos:
    https://news.mongabay.com/2017/09/documenting-africas-poaching-epidemic-qa-with-the-director-of-the-last-animals/

    From 2006 to 2015, the population of African elephants is estimated to have declined by around 110,000, leaving just 415,000 still alive in the wild. The situation is no better for the continent’s rhinos: demand for their horns as decorative items and in traditional medicine has caused more than 7,100 to have been poached in the last decade, leaving a population of just 25,000.

  2. Rob Bottom
    Posted September 20, 2017 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Short of a major catastrophe wiping out large swaths of the human population, I don’t see any way to prevent the loss of biodiversity on Earth at this rate. Maybe the Chinese will enforce a one-child policy on the Africans they are colonizing, and save the world from its projected boom this century? Surely if China enforces it at home, they won’t have any compunctions when it comes to Africa. The population growth in Africa and India aren’t going to stem themselves.

  3. Bob
    Posted September 20, 2017 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    I’m old enough to remember the publication of Paul Erlich’s book, “The Population Bomb”. What I have learned in subsequent decades is this:
    1. Population growth of white people is devastating to the environment.
    2. Population growth of non-white people has no bad consequences for the environment, and it is racist to suggest that it does. If there are increasing pressures placed on the environment that is because of consumption by white people, not population growth of non-white people.
    That is why I left the official environmentalist movement.

    • Leon
      Posted September 22, 2017 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      Don’t forget 3. Even though White population growth is bad for the environment, decreasing birth rates are bad for the economy, therefore we need to import large numbers of fertile non-White people into the West so they can make babies and become the new White people.

  4. nineofclubs
    Posted September 20, 2017 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Another brilliant article, Mr Walker. It’s great to see you back writing for CC.

    Human population growth is indeed a threat to the planet as we know it. In an ideal world, ethno-nations would encourage sustainable populations within their territory. Sustainable populations would give room for the natural world to evolve organically.

    Capitalism – as currently practiced – provides an ‘escape valve’ for overpopulated nations through mass immigration to Western nations with below replacement birth rates.

    Ending mass immigration would force changes that could speed technological development (see Mark Krikkorian), improve living standards and pave the way to a sustainable future. It could also underpin white fertility rates which tend towards replacement levels.

    .

  5. Stronza
    Posted September 20, 2017 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Your best article yet.

    Just to have some fun, try telling a die-hard Christian that the world is overpopulated with humans. There’s a good chance you will see foaming at the mouth beyond your wildest nightmares.

  6. Vagrant Rightist
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    This is a very important article, and echoes my own thinking for some time. Whatever else happens politically, the current environmental path just isn’t sustainable. Something is going to break. Some scientists already believe that the Earth is past human carrying capacity. Accurate or not right now, at some point the limit will be reached, and after irreversible non-human environmental damage has occurred. While anything done to find greener energy is simply going to be undone by the exploding human population.

    There is no nice or easy way to present this problem to the public, and I agree with the author, that there isn’t any serious intention to present this to the public.

  7. rhondda
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    With all do respect, exactly what is nature and what is our relationship or proper attitude towards it? Many books have been written about this. Three of my favourites are The Veil of Isis: An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature, by Pierre Hadot, The Social Creation of Nature and The Natural Alien: Humankind and the Environment by Neil Evernden.
    I am not implying that I know the answer. I am looking for one though.

  8. threestars
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    “The German business magazine Capital assured (reassured?) readers twenty years ago that only three percent (!) of German land had been built upon. I recall no authority being offered as the source of this highly questionable statistic, nor the criteria used in arriving at that result. Perhaps all the space taken up by road and rail is included in the percentage of land “not built on”?>

    Three percent actually seems surprisingly high. In any civilized nation, the vast majority of land is used for agriculture, not for covering with concrete for the sake of it. Hell, most small land owners in Europe own enough hectars to cover the area of a town.

  9. Dave
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    The genetic distance between spotted owls and barred owls (which are not endangered) is about the same as between whites and East Asians. Where their ranges overlap and they interbreed, environmentalists see this as another threat to the survival of the spotted owl, and call for all hybrid owls to be exterminated.

    If they applied such logic to Homo sapiens, they’d be White Nationalists or outright Nazis. By the criteria used to classify other life forms, humans are at least five distinct species.

  10. Walter
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Proponents of growth, and this includes the people who discuss away any evidence critical to their wish, are either incapable of thinking or concealed suicides. They want to end it all. A third possibility is that they are so hateful of their kind that they wish for their eradication in another great deluge or a Final Judgment day. I have long wondered about the people who in other times made up the religious fanatics and it seems that they have morphed into the left, the Antifa, anti-racists shouting groups and are the proponents of driving the developments consequent of unbridled industrialization and worship of the markets to their logical ends. Perhaps they half-consciously want to die in a communal catastrophe so that a meaningless existence ends in a communal grand finale with a lessened pain and fear of eternal death.
    In this vein, I remember the statement of a German (female) professor (i.e., a woman who obtained a teaching position at a university, not a scholar, as one might be inclined in the first instant to think):
    In her opinion, talking of overpopulation was racist and the earth could easily sustain 50 billion people. The next logical step in her thinking, that the 50 billion people would in ten years be 60, and soon 100, 200 and ever faster more, she did not take. Growth begets growth with all the consequences pertaining to it. She did not catch on to that idea and as such is typical for the ruling elites of the day with their emphasis on cleverness and devaluation of intelligence.

  11. MOB
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I find the premise of this article quite astonishing. In what world is the link between environmentalism and population control the “elephant in the room” nobody talks about? Environmentalists can’t shut up about population control, they talk about it all the time. The only thing they often ommit is that nonwhites are the main offenders in terms of runaway population growth, and they have been so for decades. But that’s only beacuse of the general “anti-racist” PC environment of Western society at large. Only a few decades ago, environmentalists (for instance, at Sierra Club) did talk openly about the harmful effects of mass immigration on the local environment.

    Just do a Google search for “environmentalism population control”. Some results:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-strange-ties-between-environmentalists-and-population_us_590b5e13e4b046ea176ae8c0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club#Population_and_immigration

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/earth/bringing-up-the-issue-of-population-growth.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

    http://www.lifenews.com/2017/08/24/environmentalists-and-abortion-activists-have-an-extensive-partnership-to-promote-population-control/

    Also, the meme that “humans are a cancer on Earth” is a classic staple of boomer green activism. Again, a Google search shields a ton of results.

    Regarding the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for the environment, that’s widely acknowledged as a concession to the cuckservative establishment, the same people who favor endless wars for Israel, mass immigration and tax cuts for the rich.

    Nobody is arguing for boundless population growth. In fact, no other than Emmanuel Macron recently dared point out that Africans (!) should curb their birth rates. You can’t get more mainstream than that:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-africa-development-civilisation-problems-women-seven-eight-children-colonialism-a7835586.html

    I just don’t see the point of preaching to the white choir on population control, when white birth rates are below replacement levels, and we are being invaded and disposessed by nonwhites who breed like rabbits. Am I missing something?

    • Michael Walker
      Posted September 19, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      With respect, I think you are indeed missing something in my article. I have proposed a course of action, namely the desirability of a a modus vivendi between racial and environmental conservatives, if I can put it like that.
      The elephant in the room is very definitely this: that concrete and monoculture is covering the earth. Perhaps I could have made it clearer that this is for me the elephant in the room and that the human population explosion is the elephant in the room for environmentalist activists. It is not so much that “nobody is arguing for population growth”, although some are, it is rather that people are not linking population growth to environmental deterioration in popular discourse, a few internet sites or even newspaper articles notwithstanding.
      I did not say that “humans were a cancer on the earth”, I said that growth was, quite a difference.
      I think that everybody acknowledges that concrete and monoculture are swallowing up the wilderness in every nation one earth. Is this in your eyes, good, bad or indifferent? Maybe I have missed something, because I cannot see what you think about it, nor what you think of the desirability of the modus vivendi I refer to.

      • MOB
        Posted September 19, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for your reply and clarification, Mr Walker. Perhaps my wording wasn’t the best. My astonishment was only at the claim that the environment-population connection is currently being ignored, while in my experience it’s very often mentioned by green activists (but in a race-neutral way, if not with a decidedly anti-white message about our wastefulness and greed). I also think environmental concerns are a frequent topic of the French New Right and subsequently the Alt-Right, in stark contrast with the callous, Randian, Developmentalist, pro-coal, pro-concrete attitude often found in mainstream American conservatives. In other words, my observation is just a quibble to an otherwise good article.

        I generally agree that most environmental problems can be traced back to the huge size and rapid increase of overall human population, that it would be desirable to adress that problem, and that conservatives and ethno-nationalists should claim the mantle of environmentalism back from the left. Those are all very sensible ideas that bear repeating from time to time. Indeed, if you ask how I feel (leaving all practical and realistic concerns aside) about urban sprawl, I must say I was born and raised in the middle of a big city and I hate those grey beasts with a passion. I sometimes fantasize about building underground cities that leave nature undisturbed on top. On the other hand, I also enjoy the fruits of our modern civilization (cheap food, medicine, cars, planes, computers, mobile phones and other gadgets, the internet, etc) and I wouldn’t rush to give them up. In general, I’m cautiously optimistic about the prospect of using technology to tread more lightly on this Earth in the coming decades, and to reverse the damage already inflicted.

        From a political standpoint, preserving or restoring the wilderness is indeeed a very worthy goal, but I’m not sure to what extent we can sell it to the average citizen once the costs and tradeoffs become clear. That will depend on the specifics of the plan.

        Again, our main concerns right now, as whites, are our dwindling numbers and the huge birth rates of some nonwhite groups, both as immigrants in our nations and as indigenous populations in their nations, because it can lead to future migration crises and a myriad other problems. With that in mind, advocating for a reduction of white population sounds like worrying about the effects of lead on the environment while we are in the trenches with bullets flying over our heads.

        On the other hand, if the proposal is simply to curb mass immigration for the sake of our local environment (the old Sierra Club position), then yes, I see how that can appeal to mainstream citizens, but hardcore environmentalists tend to focus more on global issues, and they tend to blame whites for all evils here and abroad, because of our bigger ecological footprint, derived from our higher living standards. In that, they might have a point, but it doesn’t serve our purposes as a pro-white movement.

        All in all, it seems that our best bet is to bypass green activists and, whatever environmentalist message we decide to adopt, sell it directly to the average citizen. The link between mass immigration are urban sprawl may be a good start. I’m looking forward to more detailed proposals, in order to assess their practical and political viability.

        • Posted September 19, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          I feel compelled to mention that the Green House Think Tank in the UK, while it is certainly problematic in other respects from our point of view, has long opposed mass immigration on a global resources and ecological basis. Their primary representative, the Professor of Philosophy Rupert Read, has frequently written on this topic, objecting to mass immigration on such grounds. So it’s not necessarily the case that all Green organizations are opposed to the sorts of changes we want to see.

    • E.
      Posted September 19, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      In my opinion, Michael’s concerns could not be iterated enough.

      As commentator MOB mentions, dissident, former, Sierra Club staffer(s) had composed at least one article that explored implications of immigration, U.S. population growth, ecological sustainability, & U.S. societal desirably/wellbeing. As I recall the article was quite logical and its implementation seemed obvious…

      The author(s) were labeled racists, and thus became deplorable, shameful, ignorable, and likely threatened; economic or otherwise. Truly natural, & not.

      Can passivity-as-morality, and the ability to be ones’ own identity (cultural & genetic selves) be reconciled, or must something consistently give? How is this, then, determined?

      Unfortunately I cannot locate the Sierra Club related article at this time. However you may consider another:

      http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/12/opinion/america-needs-fewer-immigrants.html

    • curri
      Posted September 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      “Only a few decades ago, environmentalists (for instance, at Sierra Club) did talk openly about the harmful effects of mass immigration on the local environment.”

      Sierra Club stopped discussing immigration after it received a 100 million dollar donation from pro-immigration Wall Street investor David Gelbaum:
      http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

      https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/sierra-club.pdf

  12. Rhino
    Posted September 19, 2017 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Part of the issue is that many (including me) daydream of being in space rather than bound to the earth. This tends to reduce the relative importance of the earth.

    I understand that both are important; it’s hard to see how to get people interested in a movement that is dominated by lunatics and virtue-signallers, though.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance