Counter-Currents
1,207 words
Czech version here
I saw a recent photo of Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist, and the poor thing looked quite ragged. Just run down. I felt deep sympathy for her. She’s right: Her childhood is being stolen, and people are indeed suffering. I hope she makes it.
She is often mocked and ridiculed – sometimes relentlessly – by the Right, but I feel this is misplaced anger, and that Greta is not being viewed with nuance. She has been called a “stupid bitch,” her appearance has been mocked, and her developmental disorder is frequently used against her. I wish to present another side of this discussion, from the standpoint of a man who deeply believes in natural hierarchies and aristocrats of the soul.
I like Greta. She has a good heart. She just needs to understand what’s going on. She could be a powerful ally. It is sad to see the evil globalist forces exploiting a young, innocent girl – one of my own stock – to push an agenda that aims to see her hated, despised, and abused in her own homeland.
I have discussed previously that I do not believe children, or those who have not been exposed to all of the data – data that is often hidden by the mainstream media – can be considered “true believers” in an ideology. This applies to Greta, but also more broadly to the entire Left-wing environmentalist sphere.
I’ve met and talked to a lot of what I call “single-issue liberals,” many of whom are some flavor of environmentalist. They are people who identify more politically with the Left/liberalism, due largely – if not entirely – to their stance on environmentalism and animal rights. To me, the very interesting thing is that these are not even people who have been won over by Leftist environmental policies (banning straws and the Green New Deal are non-starters), but they are simply so put off by the neocon/fake Right being so deliberately hostile to environmental concerns: “Drill, baby, drill” slogans and libertarians who believe that torturing animals is fine because “animals are private property and the government should not tell you what you can and cannot do with private property,” for example. These single-issue liberals are people who often have a true connection to the soil and nature itself. They are well-intentioned and sincere in their desire to become proper stewards of the environment, yet they see no path in the mainstream political landscape to deal with what they accurately see to be growing issues that can very well lead to catastrophe and the total collapse of entire ecosystems. These are people who are often implicitly expressing that hierarchies do exist in nature, and that we have a crucial role to play in that order.
There are very real concerns. There will be more pounds of plastic in the ocean than fish if trends continue. The West banning straws will do nothing to mitigate or reverse this, as nearly all of the waste comes from ten rivers that are located in Africa and Asia. Microplastics have been found in all species of sea life, and their harmful effects are not yet fully known. Cancer, birth defects, lower fertility rates, more sickness, and other negative effects may result from this mess.
Global air pollution is another real concern, and increasing asthma rates, cancers, and other illnesses can all be traced to air pollution. Again, as with the plastic and waste in the ocean, it’s mostly coming from the same parts of the planet: the Global South; i.e., non-white nations. This is why I believe environmentalism matters, wholly irrespective of the truth of anthropogenic climate change. We are the stewards of the natural world, and we should act as such. The Left-Greens do a lot of damage to this simple idea with their lies about climate refugees and paper straws.
Left-environmentalism is mostly about taxing the middle class in Europe and North America, while simultaneously opening our borders to so-called “climate refugees.” Greta is being manipulated by very evil people to push an evil agenda. This is true. However, we have the chance to show those single-issue environmentalists the other half of the story – and many could become wonderful allies.
Right-wing environmentalism has very deep roots. Madison Grant, John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Walther Darré, Jorian Jenks, Knut Hamsun, Savitri Devi, and Pentti Linkola, to name only a few, were all deep ecologists and Green naturalists. These individuals have had a tremendous influence on me personally, but also in many cases influence how we view the natural world and its preservation today. Unlike the Sierra Club, which took money to remain silent on the impact that mass migration and population growth have on pollution, environmentalism, and climate change, the Deep Greens are willing to confront such topics that are too uncomfortable for the mainstream. We should be discussing limits to growth, de-growth, re-wilding, ending aid to all nations with exploding populations, sanctioning others, and limiting overseas markets. Linkola has discussed “lifeboat ethics,” which is the realization that you can’t save everyone, and that by trying, you lose everything. We cannot have infinite economic growth and sustainability; they are contradictions in terms. We cannot have open borders – and hence, infinite population growth – and try to decrease air pollution in our cities. We must face harsh realities. And only the Deep Green Right will dare to address them.
The Deep Green understands the natural hierarchy, and our place and role in regards to nature. The Left is often consumed with notions of “environmental justice” and the infusing of racial grievance politics into naturalism, as with the Green New Deal, which reads more like a manifesto written by petulant Diaspora populations than as a plan to deal with the destruction of the natural world by the very people writing such a laughable program.
In her speech, Greta was right. Her childhood has indeed been stolen. People are suffering, people are dying, and all these clowns want to talk about are fairy tales of infinite economic growth.
Greta is tapping into something very powerful that her handlers may eventually lose control of, and that’s what I’m fueling. I want the golem to turn on their creators this time. I hope to be part of the Deep Green movement that shows Greta and others like her that there is more to the story than the globalist cabal is letting on, and that we have solutions to these problems that loom ominously on the horizon. I hope to help Greta – and, indeed, all of Europe’s children – by helping to provide them with a safe homeland and a sustainable society – one that does not abuse, exploit, traffic, mock, or deride, but rather nurtures, guides, educates, and protects the next generation. I view Greta like I’ve viewed so many others who have been used and betrayed by these goblin-faced demons: as somebody who needs us more than ever.
If not for yourself, carry on, weary as you may be, for the next generation. I look at Greta and see a girl who could have been my little sister. I’m sorry that her childhood, along with so many others, has been stolen – and that is what this entire movement is about: building a future so that our people may live on.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
A very good essay. The technique by primates of using children to reduce the likelihood of reaction to some adult behavior is called ‘agonistic buffering’. Greta Thunberg is an ‘agonistic buffer’ for the adults who are behind her.
Only a high-trust, low time-preference society can take the kinds of actions that would allow a population to make the kinds of trade-offs needed to actually create a sustainable future for a given people. After everything that has happened in the last 30 years, most White people are, I believe, ready to make the trade-off between ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’, between consumption (and ‘growth’) and community.
If the West is to maintain both culture and its technological ‘edge’, we will need to figure out how to both advance and contain/manage technological development. This will likely entail more transparency in a population’s agreement to allow both the development and deployment of technology. The Folk might say, ‘Yes, we want our technologist to pursue technology X, but we don’t want it deployed into our existing technological base without our permission’.
There must also be a recognition that most White people are concerned about ‘technology’ and it’s effects on our lives and our communities. A community should have the right to reject any technological introduction into their communal space. The deployment of 5G is a good example of how a technology that is designed to increase the power of private corporations and the surveillance state is being forced upon communities that do not want it.
Ecology is a science. ‘Environmentalism’ is political-economics, specifically a capitalist enterprise designed to exploit people’s concerns about ecological degradation to generate profit. Actual ecologists have almost no say in the direction or policy-proposals of ‘the environmental movement’. With regard to humans, the chief problem is waste resulting from our ability to both increase and concentrate our numbers in small areas, thereby increasing and concentrating our production of waste.
“THE DEEP GREEN RIGHT”! This is something I have been waiting to hear for years! I have previously instead been assaulted by well-meaning Christian groups calling environmentalism “The Green Dragon”. I have also been assaulted by Leftists shrieking at me that it is ‘my fault’ — as a white person — for ALL the environmental problems worldwide caused by ‘my’ capitalist corporations! Oh, I can only wish I owned a ‘capitalist corporation’!
Seriously, this post puts ‘Third-World overpopulation squarely on the table. And isn’t it amazing that it took a White Nationalist to do it! I’ve been yapping about African and Indian overpopulation for years, but no one is allowed to ‘believe’ that ‘those people’ could do any wrong — it is all our fault, not theirs.
And also laying on the table the fact that it is African, Asian and South American rivers contributing mightily to the pollution, not just ‘Western smokestacks’. Further, the increasingly better diet demands of Third-World countries, about 5 billion new ‘eaters’, will surely increase the need for meat, just as Americans are being shamed for desiring even a four-ounce steak once a week.
I am so glad to see this post — it actually gives me massive new hope for the future. It is something firm I can bite into. I am thinking of composing the design for a T-shirt: DEEP GREEN RIGHT! And I will arrange my life to build on this concept. It gives me hope for how I can contribute to making it possible for OUR kids.
The Christians on this subject are especially irritating, following the fake Right’s obnoxious opposition to anything environmental.
Many of them are quite rightly stoked in right-wing conspiracy theories, but only with reference to Christian themes (the Anti-Christ, the NWO, the Rothschilds Etc.). They go so far, and then come up with the most glib responses to cries of overpopulation (‘Are you one of the ones who are overpopulating?’). They oppose population control efforts such as those by Bill Gates or the UN (though the depopulation (((they))) are striving for is only after a country has been turned upside down) and seem to think that God will take care of it.
I can’t help but feel this shows the limits of their metaphysics, however twisted they are.
Thank you for the kind comment!
I’ll be adding much more to the Deep Green canon in the coming months/years.
I haven’t followed the issue with Greta but I do feel that people who mock her are misdirecting their anger. She’s a child. With Asperger, if I recall correctly. It’s quite clear she’s being used as an icon for another dead-end, by adults who want to place the burden of change on children. How are taxation and school strikes going to fix the very deep flaws in the way we relate to culture, society, and nature?
Even if Greta is sincere, it’s obvious that the adults behind her are not.
As an anecdotal aside, I also knew an environmentalist Leftist once. Unfortunately, my experience wasn’t so positive. She was an “environmentalist”, pro-open borders, pro-mass immigration, feminist, pro-Islam, pro-LGBT, and even pro-pedophilia. I don’t think she was genuinely environmentalist but rather it was just the thing to be in this day and age. She was like a soulless pod, programmed to believe and parrot everything the political elite wants.
Also, since I don’t have any social media accounts, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Richard personally. I enjoy your tweets and articles. I even bought and read your book, and I look forward to the next one. Thank you for helping your people.
In my opinion, most environmentalists cannot be brought to our side. As far as I can tell, they are driven by a deep sense of altruism and self-denial, so they will never abandon the well-being of third-world non-White people, no matter how much damage those people cause to the environment. Just show them a video or several photos of starving, crying African children and their rationality will evaporate.
You are totally right about ‘altruism’, which can become ‘pathological altruism’ if carried to insane possibilities — like old ladies having 100 cats in an old 0ne-bedroom house. It’s the ‘hoarding’ mentality carried to ridiculous extremes. Wikipedia has an entry which everyone ought to read who hasn’t already heard of this subject. I know a lady who knits blankets to send to the Congo, where the daily temperature is between 85F – 95F, and humidity 90%. I pointed this out to her and she replied, “Yes, but the tiny newborns have to be kept warm”. It’s hopeless’. It’s talking to a wall. But we have to keep up the drumbeat of sanity and the possibility of planetary destruction if this never-ending population explosion is not halted, and fast!
I would suggest that the majority of people concerned about the environment practice negligible self-denial vis-a-vis those concerns. Also, their concern is not usually selfless– many strongly feel that environmental degradation is, or will be, affecting their lives directly.
The shekel-grabber Jordan Peterson, who has worked in the UN, explained during a lecture (Cambridge I believe) a revealing set of facts. First, they have no idea how to solve the problem (or are just pretending not to), and second, that people start to care more about the environment when they earn at least $5000 per annum. This would seem to be a sketchy idea at best.
Global average GDP per capita is $16,000, but the global median GDP per capita is around $4000, so if their plan is to increase world GDP so that the median is $5000, they still have a lot of work to do. If we surmise that this is indeed their goal, then a substantially greater amount of people will have be added in the process of creating more wealth, and more resources and land will have be consumed. All with no guarantee that these newly enriched peoples will start to care about the environment. Unless their plan is to lead us off a cliff edge on purpose.
What a kid’s got to do to get some attention.
And keep the family together, and Mom home once in a while.
Its tough.
Catcus Ed was there 30 years ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/914504/posts
Deep ecologists are almost by definition prepared for illiberal solutions. Even the mainstream groups were negative on immigration until the 1990s. Keep it away from left v right.
All enviros already have a serviceable mental framework welded into their skulls: humanity v green.
The key is to meme a specific nonwhite immigrant face versus cute and fuzzy endangered critter Repeat.
Interesting link and thoughtful comments, thanks.
At a time when the American President is re-legitimising the use of import tariffs, I wonder whether there’d be value in putting a specific tariff on goods made in countries with poor environmental standards.
Manufacturers in Western nations must comply with (relatively) strict environmental laws. Along with the cost of labour, this is one reason they shift to lower cost production centres.
But the international nature of trade and capital means that those cheaply manufactured goods can still be sold in wealthier Western nations – at a premium. The environmental costs of manufacturing are externalised in this process. A tariff on goods made in these conditions would either bring manufacturing back to less polluting countries, or encourage better environmental standards in the highly polluting ones.
Liberal globalists will shriek about protectionism of course, but the health of the planet requires a strong response.
I’m sure even Greta would agree.
.
Borzoi of the TRS group has done a lot of podcasting and posting (raceborz.com, American Sun, Third Rail podcasts etc) on radical environmentalism and how you’re not really serious about environmentalism unless you embrace “illiberal” solutions. He’s also their resident tech Cassandra and collapsitarian (ala Dmitri Orlov). Anyone looking to incorporate environmentalism with White Nationalism or raise awareness of technological downsides should check him out.
I love Borzoi but he’s read too much John Michael Greer and taken it WAY too seriously. Greer is a speculative writer and actually existing nature has a way of making fools out of people who think they know what is happening, much less what is going to happen.
I think the best way to redpill many white people is to greenpill them first, and gently. Just talk about out-of-control population growth and resource scarcity, then talk about the impact of immigrant birth-rates and how illegal labor props up anti-ecological industries.
And then sooner or later I show them The World’s Most Important Graph.
Agree 101% re exposing normies to Borzoi – he blackpills himself, much less the less-initiated. I usually assume anyone who’s reading comments on CC is at least a “second circle” WN initiate.
Then again, see John Smithee in this thread…
You’ve seen me comment at Z’s, I’m much more of an optimist. The best of Whites can accomplish amazing things that seemingly defy reality, even while albatrossed with GoodWhites and orcs.
E Michael Jones did a little research on her family and came up with a short video saying that she is crying for her mother Malena Ernman who was a Eurovision contestant and a qualified and successful singer. Eurovhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8BqnFjSOw
Very well written, but I fear that the way that Greta’s childhood has been stolen isn’t in the fact that the environment is threatened. She won’t truly feel the consequences of poor ecological decisions until she is old and grey. Her childhood has been stolen by her very own parents because they raised her to be obsessed with issues that THEY should have been stewarding themselves, rather than letting her just be a kid.
It is a tough matter, because all parents want to instill a strong ethos in their children. But just as I, an avowed nationalist and race realist, shelter my children from concerns about demographics, the same should be done with children on issues of ecological stewardship. They should be sheltered and allowed to be children. Instead of brainwashing them, teach them by example. Discussions about politics and such can wait until they are teenagers.
I have zero doubt that this girl has been immersed in leftist politics and environmentalism since she was nursing and in diapers.
Also, don’t be too optimistic about these people flipping to our side. Getting them to see the light would be tantamount to installing an entirely new operating system in their brains. They will not see the light unless they seek the light out for themselves.
What the fuck is a ‘race realist’ ??
Uhhhh lol
If you’re reading counter-currents and don’t know the answer, read some more.
The outright “anti-environmentalism” of the kosher Right is a self-own. They’re playing cartoon Klansmen in the Left’s cultural minstrel show with “drill baby drill” etc…
I was raised as one of Nick Jeevy’s “American Sardaukar” and as hunters & fishermen not far removed culturally or sometimes temporally from men who actually lived off the land, we were taught to respect natural resources because our kids would someday need them. Conservation, not “environmentalism,” if you will.
Opposing the strip-mining & irresponsible logging of the beautiful Appalachian wilderness, the Soviet-level pollution of the Great Lakes and our rivers, etc.. wasn’t a political thing. It was no different from running off some vagrant destroying your property – your childrens’ patrimony.
Global finance capitalism is an R-selected anti-White anti-strategy for resource non-management. As Ann Coulter pointed out in “Adios,” non-Whites treat our natural resources and national parks like locusts treat crops.
Genuine environmentalism is as White as our k-selected genes and lifestyles. It always has been and always will be our issue, our patrimony from our ancestors. Our generations have been worm-tongued out of this inheritance by the usual suspects. We need to take this cultural and existential high ground back.
Has anybody besides me noticed that she is supposedly 16 years old and yet looks like she has not gone through puberty yet? She looks like she is 11 or 12 at most.
During the libertarian stage of my political evolution I used to go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify how the free market could fix environmental problems. I remember a popular talking point I would regurgitate was that smoke stacks and factories burn much cleaner nowadays because they want to enhance their profits by burning fuel more efficiently. While this may be true in some instances there are many companies that will pollute without hesitation so long as their government lets them get away with it. This is as true as the fact that some humans will rob and murder if the police do nothing about it. What I began to realize was that, like Communism, Libertarianism assumed too much about the infallibility of human beings.
Nowadays I’m less inclined to believe that collectivism is inherently bad. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether or not Jews or other non-whites are at the helm.
I have always been a huge environmentalist but it was almost something that I was ashamed to admit. Growing up in the US, environmentalism was always met with scorn and ridiculed as faggy hippy bullshit. I couldn’t understand this mentality or why anyone would think that urbanization, overpopulation and ecological destruction were good things or nothing to worry about.
I have always loved open and natural settings even if they were mere slivers of grass lined by malls and fast food chains. Often it would be a lone farmhouse with several acres with an owner barely hanging on to life. The cold reality would sink in every time a for sale sign would eventually pop up on the property. Sooner or later the bulldozers and excavators would roll in and rip the place to shreds. A big box store, a strip-mall or McMansion abomination would eventually be erected in its place. What was once a beautiful plot of land or a historic piece of early American/European architecture would be tuned into another shiny soulless feeder button for the consumerist zombies. The old, unique, and charming is replaced with the new, the dispensable and the ugly.
Once I became aware that many of my fellow whites felt the same way as myself it was quite liberating but also depressing. I realized that non-whites outnumber us and most of them think we are crazy for caring about trees and wildlife. They don’t seem to understand why we make such a big fuss about littering or why we demand clean and peaceful surroundings. It’s even more frustrating to hear friends talking about going on missionary trips to Tanzania to feed, minister and build wells for savages and pigmies that resent them and hate their guts. These people will never learn.
We whites are pagans by nature. We worship the natural cycles of the cosmos and have a unique adoration for non-superficial beauty aesthetics. I don’t mean that we worship nature as a Muslim might worship an invisible sky entity. What I mean is that we see nature as something to be mimicked. To deviate from the path of nature is to reject truth. It is in the soul of the European to seek out the fundamental and absolute truths of our universe and to continue making our lives better now and for future generations.
The Jewish nature is to see the environment as something that is below them to exploit and conquer for power of personal wealth. This is also their attitude towards the rest of humanity and every other creature inhabiting this planet. To the Jew this world is of no consequence and they are entitled to freely destroy it so long as they will eventually enter paradise after death. Such a worldview is so alien and vile to European man that it is beyond any words to try to explain our disgust with it.
I think this disconnect may be the reason so many whites tend to have such a revulsion and distaste of middle eastern religions. It is also probably why so many of our people are rejecting Christianity and embracing atheism or other spiritual outlets. Many of us have decided to say the hell with it and move as far away as we can from “civilized” society and going off-grid growing our own gardens and homesteads. Perhaps one day we will discover a new kind of spirituality that fits better with our instincts and and our sense of morality. Until that day comes all we can hope to do is to remain “tolerant”.
I second that emotion!
Back in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, it was easy to sell natural conservation in this country because you could point out how America’s landscape so powerfully shaped its cultural heritage. The frontier was where the cowboys and indians lived! In TR’s time, conservationism was part and parcel of patriotism.
But ever since the 70s, unfortunately, ‘environmentalism’ has been the province of people who hate America, Americans and the American heritage–if not Western Civilization generally! I blame this on the Club of Rome, which was a front for the Rockefeller/Rothschild globalist agenda.
What we need today is an ecological movement that is both pro-nature and pro-heritage. Maybe something like the old Wandervögel of Germany would fit the bill.
Art philosophy calls for mimicking nature. We reject things which seem ‘artificial’ and ‘forced’. We prefer things which seem to be ‘organic’ and self-organising.
Kant put it like this: purposiveness without purpose, where it has the automatic appearance of a flower or a hill, but without forcing political meanings into them, and without relying upon references to external things. I’ve considered that from the analytical perspective this interpretation seems to be based on illusion, as we can deconstruct the ideas easily with counter-examples. However, the everyday language that we use to describe works of art and the emotions that people experience with them reveal the truth of these ideas.
Art, representing Order. Art being a reconstruction of Order intertwined with us.
Greta is being exploited, not least for the passion and naivete that accompanies adolescence. It equates to child abuse (though I’m not so dull as to think her classic line “how dare you” shouldn’t be celebrated in memes across the right). Wonderful writing as always from Richard. This is what based strength and non-pathological altruism looks like, folks.
Deep Green Right. I like this phrase.
Thank you Mr. Houck for another fine essay.
Finland’s 2nd largest paper Ilta-Sanomat (“Evening News”) released a story on Linkola today (12th of November) that might interest you and Counter-Currents readers.
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006304552.html
The headline: Pentti Linkola dismisses girls’ education as a means to stop the climate change but is a fan of Greta Thunberg: “A magnificent girl”
The Linkola part of the story:
—–
This year’s UN population projections predict that population in Africa will grow from 1,3 billion to 4,3 billion during 2020-2100.
Enviromental philosopher Pentti Linkola who already warned us about overpopulation in the 1970s says he’s pleased to see that population demographics has merged into the international climate discussion. However, he completely shoots down the idea that girls in developing countries should be educated.
-The more you educate the more you consume. African girls consume less in their mudhuts. When educated they start flying all around the world and their consumption grows 5-10-fold, Linkola thunders.
In order to control population growth, Linkola wants to stop aid to developing countries and close European borders. According to the environmental philosopher, saving drowning refugees from the Mediterranean is just the tip of the iceberg.
-When the populations of tits and woodpeckers grow too much they start to migrate and most of them drown. The same should go for refugees. They certainly should drown in the ocean, Linkola says.
Linkola sees that the native European population is reducing nicely, although child benefits and other incentives should be abandoned. He says that the population projection in September about the record low birth rates of the Finns was one of the best news in a long time.
The environmental philosopher doesn’t believe that the statements of the scientists will lead to any measures on a political level. He remembers that scientists have made similar statements before.
-For the politicians it’s all about growth, growth and more growth. I don’t think they listen to anything or anyone, except for forestry businessmen and the industry bosses.
Even though he doesn’t trust the state, he considers that the efforts of the environmental activists and researchers are not wasted. The 86-year-old feels especially warmly about the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who is 70 years young than him.
-I avidly follow everything that is written about her. She is a magnificent girl, even if in a slightly curious way. We will have to see how long she can keep fighting.
—
In the rest of the article Linkola’s views are put against those of Kristina Lindström, a Finnish Professor of Sustainable Living. She’s a typical liberal do-gooder who says predictable things like: “Nobody has a greater right to consume more than others. We can’t tell African girls to just stay in their mudhuts.”
Lindström is one of the signers of recent World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency (along with other notables like Professor Mickey Mouse from the Institute for Blind, Namibia). Here we can see the folly of rights-based policies in its purest form: even after signing a climate change doomsday letter, our dear professor puts the universal right to education – even the right to consume/ – above the survival of mankind and countless other species.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment