Volatility

March 20, 2018

The Exterminators Have Asked

>

 
 
(Today is this blog’s ninth birthday. Covered some ground since I turned a Baseline Scenario comment into my first post. And yet on day two I was already writing about geoengineering, the climate crisis, and GMOs. So the whole thing has been along one trajectory.)
 
The New York Times, leading propagandist for every form of Earth destruction, does it again: “Should Some Species Be Allowed to Die Out?” (Magazine cover story)
 
The only rational and moral answer is, yes, Homo sapiens evidently must die out if Gaia is to survive. Certainly the NYT would insist it’s an either-or.
 
Actually, what needs to go extinct is not true humanity – free, leisure-loving, usufruct-based, part of the ecology – but the debased, depraved, “civilized” humanity, Homo civilis. Only this will save both humanity and Earth. Thankfully this infestation has almost depleted its food supply (its accessible fossil fuel energy and therefore its industrial food supply as well) and must imminently go the way of the dodo and the many other species it murdered.
 
As for the innumerable species being exterminated by civilization, for which the NYT and corporate environmentalists* cry such crocodile tears, even the lowest microbe is worth more than the entirety of this grinder “civilization”, which is worth nothing. That’s why the only way it can exist at all is by destroying humanity and the Earth. That’s why civilization feels such infinite hatred for the Earth and for free humanity and actively wants to wipe them out.
 
 
*The purpose of mainstream environmentalism is at best to manage ecological destruction, negotiating how much is to be destroyed at what rate, in much the same way the Judenrate negotiated with the Nazis over how many Jews were to be killed how quickly. In both cases the conscious end goal is total destruction.
 
 
 
 
 

1 Comment

  1. Here’s agreement about the typical mainstream “environmentalist” strategy.

    There are lessons in this history for today’s collaborators. Had the local environmentalists worked with the loggers, ORV crowd (there were no mountain bikers back then) and Forest Service and other so-called “stakeholders”, most if not all of French Pete would now be a clear cut as the forest would have been divvied up between “stakeholders”.

    Back then there was no such thing as “collaboration” and the environmentalists held their ground against all odds. Think of how much more difficult it was then to fight the timber industry when the industry dominated Oregon’s economy. Yet today’s lame collaborators help the FS and timber industry log our forests using the same worn out excuses-it will burn if we don’t log it, and/or we need to share the land with all “stakeholders”.

    Every time I hike French Pete, I am so glad we didn’t have collaboration as the main strategy of wilderness advocacy organizations.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/21/the-lessons-of-the-battle-to-save-the-ancient-forests-of-french-pete/

    Comment by Russ — March 21, 2018 @ 4:31 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: