Apocalypse Now, Part 1Fenek Solère
Part 1 of 3 (Part 2 here)
I had wanted to write a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if my specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem far-fetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e. twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people, only nine hundred million of whom will be white . . .
— Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (1973)
While the showboating autistic Nobel Prize nominee Greta Thunberg skims the Atlantic waves in the zero-emission Malizia II, heading towards the UN Climate Action Summit to raise awareness about the melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and crops withering on the vine, hundreds of millions from the Global South, always portrayed by an indulgent and sympathetic mainstream media as victims of rampant capitalism and global warming, avariciously eye our European homelands.
For as Houari Boumedienne, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Council of Algeria and the country’s second President – all blazing eyes, pointed face, and swept-back reddish hair – predicted in a television interview in 1974, a mere decade after his group had driven the French from the country: “No quantity of atomic bombs could stem the tide of billions of human beings who someday will leave the poor southern part of the world to erupt into the relatively accessible spaces of the rich northern hemisphere looking for survival.”
Current statistics on worldwide demographics prove his hypothesis was correct, with the world’s white population having plummeted to less than ten percent of the global total, according to a recent revision to the projections originally made in a 2017 working paper for the UN’s Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Boumedienne supported his thesis in his book The Battle Against Underdevelopment (1974), which was in effect the text of his keynote speech to the United Nations, including declarations about “victories to be won against poverty and insecurity.”
And less than five decades later, in over two thousand towns and cities across the entire developed world, hundreds of thousands of well-intentioned but gullible schoolchildren are taking to the streets to protest environmental depredation and bio-diversity loss. We also have Extinction Rebellion, Our Revolution, This is Zero Hour, and Sunrise Movement activists, who take their lead from the Occupy movement, Gandhi’s satyagraha strategy, and Martin Luther King’s civil disobedience, attempting to close down airports and bring our capital’s tree-lined avenues and neatly-ordered squares to a standstill. But such activities are no longer solely the preserve of street activists. We also have corporations such as We Don’t Have Time, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, the Sanders Institute, the Green New Deal, and the Business and Sustainable Development Commission; the World Bank and the World Economic Forum monetize such cleverly manipulated and “femographic” youth-oriented movements through non-profit front organizations such as the Natural Capital Coalition and The Climate Finance Partnership in order to divert $100 trillion in assets currently locked up in pension funds into eco-service companies.
These people are naturally being championed by ecological groups, whose spokespeople espouse sentiments like those of Hannah Laga Abram of Santa Fe:
We are living in the sixth mass extinction. Ice is melting. Forests are burning. Waters are rising. And we do not even speak of it. Why?
Because admitting the facts means admitting crimes of epic proportions by living our daily lives. Because counting the losses means being overpowered by grief. Because allowing the scale of the crisis means facing the fear of swiftly impending disaster and the fact that our entire system must change.
But now is not the time to ignore science in order to save our feelings. It is time to be terrified, enraged, heartbroken, grief-stricken and radical.
It is time to act!
And we get manifestos such as those supported by the UK’s Student Climate Network:
We’re young, we’re students and we’re calling for change. Our movement started when tens of thousands of young people took to the streets in towns and cities around Britain, in an unprecedented emergence of a youth climate justice movement.
We’ve joined a movement that’s spreading rapidly across the world, catalysed by the actions of one individual in taking a stand in August last year. Greta Thunberg may have been the spark, but we’re the wildfire and we’re fuelled by the necessity for action.
The climate is in crisis. We will be facing ecological catastrophe and climate breakdown in the very near future if those in power don’t act urgently and radically to change our trajectory. Scientists have been giving increasingly dire warnings about the state of our planet for years, with the urgency and severity of their message escalating in recent times. It’s abundantly clear: change is needed, and it’s needed now!
Each and every one of these individuals is working hand-in-glove in an Ecological-Refugee Complex, reminiscent of the Military-Industrial Complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his famous farewell address. This includes ideological allies such as Sunrise USA, the Karam Foundation, Refugees International UNHCR, ORAM, Refugee One, Save the Children, World Vision, Oxfam, War Child International, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and IsraAid, which are all queuing up to give succor to people such as Mohsin Hamid, who wrote in his National Geographic article “In the 21st Century, We Are All Migrants” that migrants
move when it is intolerable to stay where we are. We move because of environmental stresses and physical dangers and the small-mindedness of our neighbors – and to be who we wish to be, to seek what we wish to seek.
But at whose expense and at what cost?
There is still widespread dissension amongst the scientific community about the reality of climate change, with senior figures of international standing and unimpeachable repute like the botanist David Bellamy; the meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson; Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction; Professor Judith Curry, Head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; and Steven E. Koonin, a theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, who question the assertions being made day-in-day out by the entrails-sifting soothsayers who almost seem to want the sky to fall in on us.
These are devotees of disaster who promote exaggerated and spurious claims in order to boost their research grant applications, such as in the no-smoke-without-fire case of the e-mails leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, suggesting that scientists who favor climate change are manipulating the data to prove their claims. And these people simultaneously turn a blind eye to a much more obvious disaster in the making, uncontrolled population growth in Africa and the Indian sub-continent, with Africa having gained an additional 477 million mouths to feed since 1980, and India’s population having doubled between 1975 and 2010; in a related issue, the Pakistani diaspora has increased by a staggering fifty-seven percent since 1998. No efforts to save the planet can succeed without taking these factors into account. As Dr. John Feeney, an American writer on environmental issues, has said:
It’s the greatest taboo of environmentalism: the size and growth of the human population. It has a profound impact on all life on earth, yet for decades it has been conspicuously absent from public debate. Most natural scientists agree our growing numbers and our unchecked impact on the natural environment move us inexorably toward global calamities of unthinkable severity. They agree the need to address population has become desperate . . .
The uncomfortable reality is that while Western governments are trying to cut their carbon emissions, China is simultaneously expanding its coal-fired power stations, all while the UN and the EU argue for open borders and the mainstream media seeks to weaponize idealistic young people’s good intentions and genuine concerns in order to fast-track the globalists’ goals. One can only remember Jean Raspail’s colorful predictions in his masterful The Camp of the Saints in 1974:
And now, stretching over that empty sea, aground some fifty yards out, the incredible fleet from the other side of the globe, the rusty, creaking fleet that the old professor had been eyeing since morning. The stench had faded away at last, the terrible stench of latrines that had heralded the fleet’s arrival, like thunder before a storm. . . . How many of them were there, out on those grounded wrecks? If the figures could be believed – the horrendous figures that each terse news bulletin had announced through the day, one after another – then the decks and holds must be piled high with layer on layer of human bodies, clustered in heaps around smoke-stacks and gangways, with the dead underneath supporting the living, like one of those columns of ants on the march, teeming with life on the top, exposed to view, and below, a kind of ant-paved path, with millions of trampled cadavers . . . The old professor – Calgues by name – aimed his eyeglass at one of the ships still lit by the sun, then patiently focused the lens until the image was as sharp as he could make it, like a scientist over a microscope, peering in to find his culture swarming with the microbes that he knew all the time must be there. The ship was a steamer, a good sixty years old. Her five stacks straight up, like pipes, showed how very old she was. Four of them were lopped off at different levels, by time, by rust, by lack of care, by chance – in short, by gradual decay . . . Perhaps there had been just fuel enough for this one and only voyage. Or perhaps there was no one on board anymore who felt the need to take care of such things – or anything else – now that the exodus had finally led to the gates of the newfound paradise . . . An antiworld bent on coming in the flesh to knock, at long last, at the gates of abundance . . .
Springtime in Tallinn
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
The Burial of the Blarney Stone: Ireland’s New Hate Speech Legislation
Polite Society: A Film for the Coronation
We Can’t Save the Earth Without Reducing African Birth Rates
Robert Brasillach and Notre avant-guerre: La Cagoule Remembering Robert Brasillach, March 31, 1909–February 6, 1945
Survival of the Fittest: Interview with Alexander Deptolla of Kampf der Nibelungen
Strength Through Joy: An Interview with Béla Incze of Légió Hungária
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
While I’m not advocating the nuking of Boumedienne’s Algiers or anything similar, it is nonsense to follow his assertion made in 1974 that ‘atom bombs’ are of no protection, or that stern military action using conventional weapons will have no effect no migratory waves. Normal military action particularly naval force will be quite effective in stopping boats crossing the Med Sea. The most important aspect is the will and determination to defend ourselves.
Why go through the difficulty and expense to develop and deploy nuclear weaponry if the will is lacking to use them in a situation were national survival is at stake.
Indeed. Migrants can only arrive by land, air or sea. In Australia, we’re fortunate to have the ‘by land’ option ruled out.
By air, preventing unauthorised arrival is very simple. Governments should fine airlines that uplift people who don’t have prior approval to arrive in their country.
By sea, even modest naval forces should be sufficient to take unauthorised migrants back to their port of departure. This can be done humanely, with food and medicine provided to people in need. Laws mandating the confiscation of people-smugglers boats will make that trade unprofitable very quickly.
Migrants arriving by land are harder to manage as the southern border of the US demonstrates. But a system that incentivises neighbouring countries to stop migrants crossing through, combined with diligent border security will work reasonably well.
In contrast with the author and Raspail, I’d argue that the big risk for us now is not a huge wave of ‘illegal’ migrants turning up at our borders.
The far bigger and more immediate risk is the growing number of ‘legal’ migrants invited in by our governments. This tide is driven by our governments caving to the demands of business for economic growth, cheaper labour and skills that didn’t cost them anything to develop locally.
Former Australian PM John Howard won hearts and minds by portraying himself as being tough on illegal migration. The press saw him as some kind of right wing hero because he turned back the MV Tampa with its few hundred illegal migrants. But Howard also presided over unprecedented levels of legal migration, including unheard of numbers from China. Legal overseas migration numbers were close to ten times the numbers that the earlier, ‘leftist’ PM Paul Keating allowed in the mid 90’s.
The Camp of the Saints is an interesting novel, but it’s counter-productive if it diverts our focus from the active replacement of our people – by invitation – by our business and state elites.
The Southern Hemisphere is a mess because the inhabitants (1) have been breeding at unsustainable rates & (2) they have destroyed their productive farmlands/environments.
The white nationalist movement should not only gain control of and protect our homelands from foreign invaders, but we should also start working with grass roots organizations to bring the non white birth rate in in the southern hemisphere (particularly Africa) down and help the teach the inhabitants how to preserve and use their farmlands/environment.
No amount of snide remarks about the low IQ of Africans or Mestizos in South America is going to change the fact that billions of desperate people are going to want to move North.Not to mention, our enemies will use the optics of starving Africans, Arabs and South Americans against us.
If demographics is destiny, then I vote for increasing white birth rate and doing everything we can morally to lower the birth rates of non whites.
This all can be achieved under the cloak of “Saving the Environment”. It also helps we have truth and facts on our side.
If it were not for immigration, Western Countries wouldn’t be growing at all. If you care about the environment, the issue is the non whites inhabiting and coming from the Southern Hemisphere.
This is a win win win for white Nationalists. Do something constructive about the environment, gives us an opportunity to Red Pill some white liberals & we can reduce the birth rate of non-whites and reduce the reason for them to want to immigrate in the first place.
I agree with everything you say in this post. I became aware of the terror of population growth upon reading ‘Zero Population Growth’ back in the early ’70’s, and have never stopped ranting to anyone who will listen about its effect on the environment. I looked up the population number in 1943, when I was born — it was 2.3 BILLION. Now, just 76 years later (I was born August 22) — it stands at 7.7 BILLION. That is a TRIPLING of world population just within my lifetime. Does everyone understand this? Yet no one EVER talks about. I do agree that whites do indeed need to increase their number — at least 3 or 4 children per woman — or adoption of white children from uncaring homes which cannot raise them properly. The Third World, led by Africa, the Islamic empire of 57 middle eastern counties, India, as well as SE Asia, and South America — MUST be forced to limit their reproduction to 2 children per woman (which is still far too many, but the only workable solution). I read Raspail’s work a few years ago and rejoiced that someone had spelled out the problem so perfectly!! It should be required reading for all peoples of European origin.
“No quantity of atomic bombs could stem the tide of billions of human beings who someday will leave the poor southern part of the world to erupt into the relatively accessible spaces of the rich northern hemisphere looking for survival.”
Current statistics on worldwide demographics prove his hypothesis was correct,
Well, we don’t know that before we’ve tried the nukes, do we?
In fact, it would only take one box of machinegun bullets and a GoPro camera. Once the footage of a FRONTEX naval vessels gunning down survivors in the water hits the internet, the invasion will stop overnight.
It would help if Angela Merkel would hold up the severed head of one of the invaders and declare that this is what happens when you violate the Mutterland, but that’s not going to happen, is it?
Greta made the sailing trip in two weeks.
Columbus, with a shorter voyage, took ten weeks.
Did Greta dahling get a little help from her friends??
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.
Edit your comment