PDA

View Full Version : The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism




John F Kennedy III
05-18-2012, 01:56 PM
The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism

John Aziz
azizonomics
May 18, 2012

http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/pentti_linkola_1.jpg?w=600

I am not exaggerating.

This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words.

He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:


What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

He sees America as the root of the problem:


The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:


Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth.



We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.



A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society as a whole:


Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic coutries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

In that sense, Linkola’s agenda is really nothing new; it is as old as humans. And I am barely scratching the surface; Linkola has called for “some trans-national body like the UN” to reduce the population “via nuclear weapons” or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks”.

But really he is just another freedom-hating authoritarian — like the Nazis and Stalinists he so admires — who desires control over his fellow humans. Ecology, I think, is window-dressing. Certainly, he seems to have no real admiration or even concept of nature as a self-sustaining, self-organising mechanism, or faith that nature will be able to overcome whatever humanity throws at it. Nor does he seem to have any appreciation for the concept that humans are a product of and part of nature; if nature did not want us doing what we do nature would never have produced us. Nature is greater and smarter than we will probably ever be. I trust nature; Linkola seems to think he knows better. As George Carlin noted:


We’re so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something now. Save the trees. Save the bees. Save the whales. Save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another and we’re gonna save the fucking planet?



There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Difference. The planet is fine.

Linkola and similar thinkers seem to have no real interest in meeting the challenges of life on Earth. Their platform seems less about the environment and more about exerting control over the rest of humanity. Linkola glories in brutality, suffering and mass-murder.

Now Linkola is just one fringe voice. But he embodies the key characteristic of the environmental movement today: the belief that human beings are a threat to their environment, and in order for that threat to be neutralised, governments must take away our rights to make our own decisions and implement some form of central planning. Linkola, of course, advocates an extreme and vile form of Malthusianism including genocide, forced abortion and eugenics.

But all forms of central planning are a dead end and lead inexorably toward breakdown; as Hayek demonstrated conclusively in the 1930s central planners have always had a horrible track record in decision making, because their decisions lack the dynamic feedback mechanism present in the market. This means that capital and labour are misallocated, and anyone who has studied even a cursory history of the USSR or Maoist China knows the kinds of outcomes that this has lead to: at best the rotting ghost cities of China today, and at worst the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward resulting in millions of deaths and untold misery.

Environmentalists should instead pursue ideas that respect individual liberty and markets. There is more potential in developing technical solutions to environmental challenges than there is in implementing central planning.

If we are emitting excessive quantities of CO2 we don’t have to resort to authoritarian solutions. It’s far easier to develop and market technologies like carbon scrubbing trees (that already exist today) that can literally strip CO2 out of the air than it is to try and develop and enforce top-down controlling rules and regulations on individual carbon output. Or (even more simply), plant lots of trees and other such foliage (e.g. algae).

If the dangers of non-biodegradable plastic threaten our oceans, then develop and market processes (that already exist today) to clean up these plastics.

Worried about resource depletion? Asteroid mining can give us access to thousands of tonnes of metals, water, and even hydrocarbons (methane, etc). For more bountiful energy, synthetic oil technology exists today. And of course, more capturable solar energy hits the Earth in sunlight in a single day than we use in a year.

The real problem with centrally-planned Malthusian population reduction programs is that they greatly underestimate the value of human beings.

More people means more potential output — both in economic terms, as well as in terms of ideas. Simply, the more people on the planet, the more hours and brainpower we have to create technical solutions to these challenges. After all, the expansion of human capacity through technical development was precisely how humanity overcame the short-sighted and foolish apocalypticism of Thomas Malthus who wrongly predicted an imminent population crash in the 19th century.

My suggestion for all such thinkers is that if they want to reduce the global population they should measure up to their words and go first.


article here:
http://www.infowars.com/the-face-of-genocidal-eco-fascism/

original article here:
http://azizonomics.com/2012/05/18/the-face-of-genocidal-eco-fascism/

Noob
05-18-2012, 02:30 PM
Why doesn't hey just subtract himself from the population size? Nothing is stopping him from committing suicide.

John F Kennedy III
05-18-2012, 03:56 PM
Why doesn't hey just subtract himself from the population size? Nothing is stopping him from committing suicide.

This people never take their own advice.

Xhin
05-19-2012, 02:52 AM
Well, he did say that if he could take a few million people with him, he'd gladly sacrifice himself.

jkr
05-19-2012, 04:43 AM
physician kill thyself?

Working Poor
05-19-2012, 07:41 AM
physician kill thyself?

lol!

Cowlesy
05-19-2012, 08:02 AM
Is there any risk that this lone finnish fisherman with no wife or kids who lives in a hut by the sea rises to global power, thus threatening us?

pcosmar
05-19-2012, 08:14 AM
Is there any risk that this lone finnish fisherman with no wife or kids who lives in a hut by the sea rises to global power, thus threatening us?

It ain't this one lone fisherman that concerns me,, but the many in positions of power that share his views.
This is neither new nor unknown. It has been a goal of several.

John F Kennedy III
05-19-2012, 01:08 PM
It ain't this one lone fisherman that concerns me,, but the many in positions of power that share his views.
This is neither new nor unknown. It has been a goal of several.

This.

Lishy
05-19-2012, 01:19 PM
Bah. He's probably just a conspiracy theorist with Stockholm's syndrome, so he's just parroting the Georgia guide stones.

Anyways, I'd like to see proof that the earth's resources cannot handle our population. Last I checked, corrupt corporations are to blame, and not the population growth. Furthermore, Urbanization gives us the illusion of overpopulation because we keeping boxing people into small areas, and fail to meet their demands with government programs.

There is no proof the earth cannot handle our population. Quite the contrary with the rise of advanced technology, we could probably handle a couple more billion... Solar Power for one, allows us to produce electricity with no drawbacks, and no exploitation of resource. And NON-MONSANTO GMO (As much as some hate to admit this) allows us to produce more food than we ever need! There's enough for everyone!

Similarly, with wind power (Albeit, it is difficult to set up in the front yard), we also have an unlimited supply of energy from a resource besides solar!

I'm getting tired of these naysayers who say the earth cannot handle the population anymore! How about they get off their lazy fucking asses and help us find alternative power resources!?

And if food is such a problem.. How about we abolish Monsanto and let farmers use the wide open, rich lands of this earth!? It's not food that is a problem! It is Monsanto suppressing farmers!!!


We're wasting more resources on our god damned stupid wars than we are with the population! Missiles cost billions-BILLIONS of dollars which could instead be used to help the people! And instead they bitch about how we don't have enough resources for the people!?!? Please, I don't believe that for a second! Do you know how much fuel a missile wastes, and our tanks, and jets!? Compare that to cars in society which keep getting better and better gas mileage!

If we're so worried that maybe we might get overpopulated someday, then let's be more open about the issue, and simply trust the people! Open, scientific research will do more for helping people decide not to have children than ever the government-funded propaganda!

God damn, these people are fucking ignorant pessimists! Our mentality and stubborn ways are what will destroy civilization! Not overpopulation!

Victor Grey
05-19-2012, 01:39 PM
Ah let him ramble his nonsense.

His type act out in violence, oppose it in kind. Simple.

The whole problem could be solved with a good sized rock.
Honorable gesture to his luddite philosophy.
Maybe defenestration for the chuckles.

His assumption is incorrect anyway. The US and the west isn't the problem, population levels there are stabilizing. Progress marches on at the same time.
ROTW is where the issues are, with the issue itself being overblown none the less.

Science is advancing and I believe it'll fix the problems they harp about soon enough anyway. He might get his mass starvation jollies in those areas one day perhaps, but things will work out.

Much ado about nothing.