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. 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.
Population: The elephant in the room
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 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. Coastlines are prime targets of development: already in the s, the great American poet Robinson Jeffers wrote of the despoiling of the Californian coast. 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 for Asia or Africa, the statistics beggar belief.
The population of Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, was seven hundred sixty-two thousand in , the year it gained independence.
As of today , its population is estimated to be somewhere over fourteen million. In , the population of Istanbul was 1. In , the population of Peking was about four million; now, it is around twenty-two million.
For Dems, state pre-emption of local zoning carries growing political risk
Even in the very few countries where there is population decline all of them white countries except for Japan , development of the land continues. 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. 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 , 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. The common element is the belief that trees take precedence over people.
In his thriller, The Brigade, H. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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 the tunnel vision of caring neither for the past nor future, but only seeking advantage for the present, which constitutes degeneration?
Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot by Population Media Center - Issuu
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. 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. 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 elephant is over-population and the disappearance of the natural land.
Read e-book Two Elephants in the Room: Overpopulation and Opportunities We Overlook at Our Peril
Mock the spotted owl at your peril — where minority species disappear, minority races will follow. From to , the population of African elephants is estimated to have declined by around ,, leaving just , still alive in the wild. 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? What I have learned in subsequent decades is this: 1. Population growth of white people is devastating to the environment. 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. 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. 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.