Reactionary Environmentalism

Something I've noticed over time when I end up getting into discussions regarding the environment and environmentalism in general is how some people I would have usually never suspected of exposing reactionary rhetoric begin inching dangerously close to such rhetoric, especially in regard to human environmental impact. As in, people I know who would usually immediately rebuke the idea of genocide, eugenics, euthanasia, or forced sterilization if put them forth in plain terms begin accepting similar proposals when put under the guise of population control, returning to the "natural way of life", or "punishment" in regards to negative human impact. An ethnic or simply targeted genocide is wrong, but wiping out large portions of the population or infrastructure becomes ok ecology wise because we "deserve it" or "to prevent damage". At what point does environmentalist rhetoric become reactionary? How far can "think of the environment" be taken?

Other urls found in this thread:

It dosent honestly matter

The Earth is fucked no matter what at this point at this point
Socialism/Communism should be about ending you and your classes exploitation not some feelsy enviromentalist crap

Pretty far but this is AmPrim 101. The main argument AmPrims have is that they must "reset" the human race to save the planet, BUT it calls for the genocide of literal billions. And nobody wants to massacre billions for obvious reasons. Also morality is intact intertwined with environmentalism. At least that's my two cents.


Jensen argues that in his hypothetical anprim revolution that the population of Earth will slowly contract so there is no-need for any messy super-genocide. At least Kaczynski was honest about this.

That poor crazy almost making sense son of a bitch.

Genetically modified organism will save the Earth.

Also about getting the fuck off the planet. Specifically, evacuating the Main Core (libsocs and anarchists) and the Rear Echelon (Leftcoms).

i see less of that and more of bourgeoise individualism instead and the rejection of taking serious steps politically. just an example:

is it just me or didn't he debunk that with the shared article before?

Holy smokes this! I got banned on this very board for calling people out that were calling for another World War in the name of environmentalism and opening a path to communism.

Well it's really subjective to be honest, like Chomsky says here. But after watching the video, instead of killing billions, what if it was just a runaway superstate that is destroying Earth. Say the US for example, and going to war and forcing their government to conform to such restrictions would save the world would we? I hope so, but that's if we have nowhere else to go.

Combining the philosophy of the unabomber, Charles Manson's ATWA, and David Lane's spiritual guidence, we result in the ultimate triumph of reactionary enviormentalism. Fundementally, I have adopted many aspects of this and rarely even use the computer anymore. Can you say the same? I don't use Electricity nor drive either, and I avoid mass-produced items. "It's better to spend than to mend" is disgusting to me.

Don't you agree, Holla Forums? Is this an aspect that perhaps could bridge our ideological divide and allow ourselves to fight for our somewhat-shared common goal?

Of all the reactionaries, the "greens" tend to be the nutiest. Teddy Goldsmith — founder of the very respected The Ecologist who was awarded the Légion d'Honneur order of merit by the French state in 1991 — is a great example of that trend. He lowkey supported Thatcher's neo-Liberalism (because it undermined coal mining), the Khmer Rouge's social engineering (because it undid urbanization) and Hutu Power separatism (because it fostered ethno-nationalism). He even associated with the neo-Fascist Nouvelle Droite in spite of his Jewish descent.

From the very beginning of political ecology's existence in the late 19th century there existed an aggressively reactionary strain among environmentalists closely intertwined with agrarian Romanticism who focused on "the natural order", "organic communities", "blood and soil", etc. Political ecology becomes reactionary when it moves away from considering mankind as a whole as the center of its concern.

No. Fuck off back to the woods.


Is this real life?

A realistic appraisal of the environmental situation leads to the conclusion that humanity will face a massive depopulation event in the next generations no matter what actions are taken in the present. That expands the range of acceptable ideas dramatically.

Environmentalism that is not just libservice is unavoidably reactionary unless paired with some kind of Ghandian pacifism.

I forgot what the specific term for it is, but it'll be another evolutionary and survival bottleneck with a mass die off

I don't understand what's so hard about "everybody gets to have one and only one child."

Nobody has to get killed jfc

What happens to people who don't obey?

This website looks like an autistic palette swap of that "rope culture" website made by those lolcows at iron march. How embarrassing

Apparently you haven't really adopted the Unabombers view since you still couldn't help but use a computer anyway. Don't you remember when he said that technology will inherently corrupt any "revolutionary" movement or reaction against technological society? Than again he does say right after that "revolutionary's" will also have to use some technology which immediately nullifies his previous statement and makes him look like an idiot but that's Ted for you.

They have to work 40 hours a week.

i know you're just shitposting but that's something some bourgie dipshits actually believe

Take away their excess children and provide them to naturally sterile people? Or maybe provide some sort of economic dis/incentive. It doesn't need to be exact so long as there's downward pressure on the trend.

I don't know what the line would be, where we stop tapering ourselves off, but it doesn't matter anyway because mass killing and/or sterilization is easier.

Nazis were environmentalists and vegetarians.

The only reason america still has forests is because of a republican (teddy rossevelt)

I recall the unabomber writing somewhere that any ideology based on nature or the past is right wing and that also leftists were dumb and possibly gay.

This advanced hatred of nature from the GOP seems to be a concoction of neocons.

A lot of hardcore green people despise humanity, humans, would wish them wiped off the face of the planet to save the trees.

they really just hate the poor that still have the money to buy industry meat and drive a car that isn't an electric car
because there's no emmission from the outlet

Kaczynski criticized both the left and right wings. He didn't say "all leftists are dumb and gay" he said "It's dumb that leftists don't give a shit about anything except that gay shit shot and are hypocrites about everything". It'd be dishonest of me to write this off as Kaczynski confusing leftists with liberals, because he calls out both separately and uses leftist as an umbrella term, and many of his criticisms of the actual left are valid.

Speaking as an ardent environmentalist, the reason why environmentalism has reactionary tendencies is because very few have articulated reasons why preservation of the environment is a human need and right, rather there is a kind of misanthropic sneer at those unable to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of nature, who may be more concerned with issues of basic survival. They are shitting down Maslow’s hierarchy on people who may feel that clearcutting or poaching or mining or whatever are their only means of a living

Ensuring that survival needs are met for the global population will go a long way toward allowing those in the grip of material struggle to revere nature.

Our relationship to nature is not holistic, human beings remain distinct from nature, but that is also why nature must be preserved. The encounter of wild nature as Other allows us to escape ourselves as creatures of society and achieve a kind of transcendence. A world without vast tracts of wild nature would be claustrophobic and totalitarian in its denial of escape.

Kacyznski assumes that ‘leftists’ want to rebel against society, but are hypocrites because they use accepted values of society as a cudgel against their enemies — this is his ‘oversocialization’ thesis. It reflects his essentially antisocial, libertarian outlook because clearly the aim of leftists is to improve society, not to merely rebel against it.

We are supposed to be trying to improve society rather than rebel against it. Everything we learn from Marx and Lenin teaches us that; that is our theoretical basis. But it is clear that a lot of people who claim to follow Marx and Lenin are just edgy rebels and don't give a shit about the theory they claim to subscribe to. That's a valid criticism we have to take to heart. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're into leftism for the right reasons, but you are never going to improve society if you cannot objectively assess the people in the movement and see that many of them do not practice what they preach and will backstab you if you dare interrupt their red liberal LARP session.

would you say it most be….conserved… should we become…..conservatives


I know you’re shitposting but conservatism as a philosophy of preservation and humility isn’t the worst thing in the world. The problem is that American conservatives are just lackeys for capital.

It depends. My mom is a politically unsophisticated liberal but I don’t have any doubt she genuinely wants an improved society. On the other hand, some of the most narcissistic fuckups I’ve met were leftist-adjacent activist types. Not all liberals are the same.

Varg is that you?

I'm afraid all the seats are already taken

Shut the fuck up already about how nonchalantly cynical you are. There won't be a revolution if the world is coming apart at the seams. And your honest to god solution is "evacuating to space"

All of you who are posting wrong, get out. Stop being wrong and stop being naive and liberal with this space bullshit.

Once it doesn't begin with Proletariat (through DotP) deciding how ecology should be protected or continue with Proletariat being in control over execution of the policies. Anything else is a slippery slope that inevitably leads to "competent people" making "hard decisions" for the "common good". This should be obvious, no?

Scientific Racism to the rescue.

A realistic appraisal of political and economical situation leads to the conclusion that there is no depopulation coming (I'm getting ban for eco-revisionism again, am I?), if we'll start actually regulating economy without Capitalists. Also, shoot all Green Fascists.

Gandhi was a religious fanatic. There was no pacifism, only hypocrisy. Mass-murders are perfectly acceptable in his books because karma.

It's not about population. It's about system. We can transition to truly eco-friendly industry within two decades and keep increasing population. We can also kill everyone outside of First World, slaughter poorest half of First World - and still drown ourselves in filth within the same two decades.

When environmental rhetoric includes, apology of capitalism, genocide or eugenics, it becomes reactionary shit.

Most of the people here qualify under that then. When the idea that entire regions of the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable, and this causes two options: Immigration plan or Intentional Genocide, they would be reactionary.

And I would agree with you.

The common people of incredibly powerful nations probably aren't climate scientists and shouldn't be trusted to democratically come up with the best solution. This is a realm of science, not politics.

This is the pinnacle of the dialectic.

< we need to entrust everything to people who are appointed, fed, and disposed of (if necessary) by Capitalists
Yes, of course. Brilliant idea.

Also, I don't care about your super-sized bait about "powerful nations".

Wrong. You don't need to include anything. We are living under Capitalism - which means apologia of capitalism and implicit use of Capitalists to solve problems are already inherent to "purely environmentalist" position.

When you are not making explicit point about using Socialist means (i.e. Planned Economy) to manage our affairs it already makes position reactionary.

Since the most carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are coming from these "powerful nations" you should probably care what they do and what their legislation looks like. If you want to be in a small community in the Bahamas I don't give a shit, but it won't solve anything.

What is your big bold strategy of saving the world, as we speak?


Some good points but saying overpopulation is a myth is some galaxy brain shit. Justice, not growth for growth’s sake, is the goal. (One could also argue that continual increases in population, beyond what local resources can support, benefits owners of capital by creating a massive supply of cheap labor — much of the increase is in the developing world, where subsistence farming is a prevalent occupation, so these people are forced into trading their labor on the market when they cannot support themselves this way.)

However it’s hard to see any way of combating overpopulation that is not unduly coercive. I stand by my earlier assertion that satisfying survival needs and providing a basic security net for all will lead naturally to a decrease in birthdates and an increased appreciation for nature qua nature.

Underrated post.

Why, of course:
1) get obsessive-compulsive disorder about turning off lights and using re-usable packages
2) demand from government to tax me as hard as they can
3) demand from government to give even more money to capitalists, so that they can pollute even harder, while pretending to be eco-friendly
4) demand from capitalists to increase prices even higher
5) have no kids and work 16 hours a day
6) support hardline colonialist policies against anyone outside of First World
7) try to sabotage Communist movements, since there is no time for this - planet is in danger

This gotta do the trick. We are just not trying hard enough, yes?

Are you high? Just removing artificial obsolescence will halve the waste we produce. And that's before we even get to increasing lifespan/efficiency technologically. And then there are improvements Planning allows (which are immense, to put it bluntly).

What are you talking about? Goal of what?

I think you got wrong board.

Lifestylism. Mass production, specialization, and social labour bring us untold riches and if we want to maintain our current level of population, we can't even do without it besides. There will be no genocide to satisfy your aesthetic preferences re the labour process.


Rationing, hard caps on point pollution, mass transit and population concentration, genetic engineering at one end and less carbon intensive agriculture at the other, solar/wind/nuclear/[other], rewilding, manged population growth via material incentives.

This is basically the premise of "Green Capitalism", the belief and the system that tries to uphold the current standards of living while at the same time seemingly trying to cut down on pollution. Naturally, in capitalism, constant growth is required for the system to maintain itself and needless to say, that doesn't go very well together with the idea of cutting down on pollution/consumption. This is where capitalists and communists come together to snuggle: you're willing to put the future of the whole planet on pure faith for the sole reason of cult of muh economic growth (or better yet, some huggy-huggy feel-good humanitarian reasons). Even-though the left recognizes some of the flaws in current state of environmentalism mentioned above, for some fucktard reason the left is so hellbent on liberal thinking that they cannot under any conditions apply that thinking environmentalism over humanitarian retardation.
Equally to capitalists, you want to believe there's some sort of miracle innovation right behind the corner that will save the planet, at a time when our resources are running more and more scarce and the environmental problems are becoming increasingly obvious. You want to be able to uphold the current economy, current set of liberal values, current system.

But is there such innovation coming? What we know for sure is that there is a world of hurt, carnage, hard decisions and plain uncomfortable ahead. Everyone knows this, it's better to embrace it. The main focus for the future of leftist environmentalism would be to stray the current Green Capitalist environmentalism to a more deep-ecological one. Instead of trying to grow wings, it's time to start cutting off limbs for the body to survive.

Why is there a Not Socialist flag but not a Asserist one?

Fuck off, illiterate. Just because you have factories, scientific management, and optimization of (gross production)/(labour time) doesn't mean you have capitalism.

Guess what

None of that is going to happen in time. We need policy right now, every second counts, and none of this is going to happen. It is, naive petty liberalism.

I suppose some geoengineering might be needed too.
Thanks Nostradamus. Get those crystal beads out of your ass, it doesn't help you tell the future.

Voluntary individual action is lifestylism, it doesn't work at scale. You can be individually virtuous all you want, and you'll still die with the rest of us if the collective effort fails.

You're welcome. Have reasnoble expectations, not the teenager who says "WE CAN ESCAPE TO THE MOON, GENETIC ENGINEERING, SCIENCE WILL SAVE US, WE JUST HAVE TO WAIT"

Stop acting like Elon Musk

There is nothing complicated, you retard.

"Climate change" (IRL pollution, not climate change) is the problem. What parties and movements advocate for are methods - you can't solve problem without method. And there are only two methods: Capitalism and Socialism. By "incentivizing" rich with the money of the poor or by democratically solving the problem. If you don't advocate for a specific method, you are advocating for the default method - which is Capitalism. That's all there is to it.

Not saying I am hopeful that it will happen. But if you ask to give a prescriptive list, that's it. Your only argument is "it won't happen", because you know that it would work if tried and rationally implemented.

Socialism is ideal but you aren't going to have socialism if you do not put pressure on the states to enact laws that don't threaten the future. Because then you'll live in a new society and carry all the blame as to why everything is so fucking shitty all the time at that point in regards to everything from immigration to desertification of previously fertile land. Mass extinction of all life in the oceans, and areas of the globe rendered uninhabitable by human life.

I'm sorry, I hate to break it to you, but putting our arms together and saying "NO, MOM, I WANT TO DO IT MY WAY, NOTHING WORKS WITHOUT ME, NUH UH, NO, MY WAY" isn't going to work in the long run and is a serious act of self harm on the worker.

Stop expecting magical solutions to come your way as we speak, because we have to minimizes damage wherever possible.

Then people who do this go up against the wall with all the other saboteurs, by the way. "Good intentions" is never an excuse.

I'm right. And that isn't even my argument. My argument is it won't happen, your high concept ideas would arrive too late if they arrived at all (they won't arrive in time) and right now we need to find out ways to put pressure on states

Or else catastrophic damage to the working class through environmental and climactic disaster will happen, year after year, increasing.

We will not have the growth necessary to ensure these kinds of conditions all of a sudden, it's pure liberal science fiction.

What the fuck are you even trying to imply I'm saying.

Mass politics, and that requires appealing to class interest. There is no way about it. If you can't motivate people for socialism, you sure as hell won't do it for environmentalism.
You're right, I'm not sure what you are even implying. You want to become a larping eco-terrorist, innawoods guy, some play-pretend Varg-yype? Or somehow through wishy washy liberal pressure group-ism to reform society? Consume sustainably? Incentivize the capitalists? What shitty idea is it?

And no, your individual virtuousness won't save you, nor is going to live in some shitty farmer village.

< Capitalism works, I swear!
< you also need to keep Capitalism to blame it for everything
This is why we need gulags.

And what are you going to threaten with?

Corpses emit less greenhouse gases.

That isn't what I'm saying you fucking Mischievous Goblin Fucker

Oh I don't know, the fact if we do nothing then the damage to human life, and life on Earth, is going to continue to be as catastrophic as what biologists predict we're currently in, which is the Sixth Extinction? Fifth being the fucking Dinosaurs? This extinction level of life is currently concentrated in oceans and rain forests, places people I'm arguing with like you don't currently give a fuck about, which is understandable knowing how stupid you are. But eventually all the consequences of that, are going to hit you, on top of consequences of rapid increase of extreme weather and perhaps a return of the dust bowl. Which would threaten the market.

The position of influence is either side will hurt itself if nothing is done. Socialism, because they cannot offer the worker a future if they dig their feet into the ground and say "NO I CAN'T DO THAT MOM! THAT'S REFORM!" and the Capitalist, because oop looks like the market crashed because everything is going to hell and there's nothing fucking left.

The course of action should be to negate potential damage to any future revolution, strategize properly fucking imbecile

Everyone in this thread should be banned

Give me freedom or give me death. Porky's choosing death I guess. At least I can take solace in the fact that he's going down with me.

What makes you different than an objectivist. This isn't about you. The crux of this isn't you.

This is a joke, this is funny.

I beg to differ.

That's fine.

Ouch, that really hurt.

No the picture is of me, smiling at you.

I just remembered, didn't Rafiq write something about environmentalism which basically rounded up to "fuck the environment"? Anyone got a screencap of that, I remember it being posted in the Rafiq thread a month or two ago.

Rafiq will never fail to have the foresight of a young reptile.

Yes, it is. If you claim that it is possible to solve the problem of pollution under Capitalism, then - yes. That's exactly what you are saying.

So you don't understand what Capitalism is. You are a retarded delusional Liberal who believes in Santa and President. You autistically believe that you don't need to understand how current civilization works, you think that if cry loud enough, you'll be heard.

But the grand secret is that there isn't anyone upstairs, there is nobody who can hear you. There is only profit, only the grand game that is market economy. And if you stop playing it, if you try to "do good", you go bankrupt - and then you can't influence anything.

The truth is that there is no profit in actually saving the planet. It doesn't matter how much you preach to everyone - logic of the market mandates that costs must be cut. Anyone who doesn't - goes bust. Which is why all your preaching is useless.

Shitheads like you can run around like headless chickens, screeching about coming apocalypse, getting more and more desperate, but you won't change a damn thing, even if you manage to exterminate 95% of Earth population. Because Capitalism does not work. The only solution is to create entity - unified decision-making process, Centrally Planned economy - that behaves according to actual will of the people.

Wishful thinking, a vain hope that something could be achieved via Likes on Facebook, is not a strategy.

That's not what I'm saying.

Right off the bat you miss my point so I'm not going to read the rest of the post.

Didn't Marx debunk Malthus?

Capitalism will not solve the coming environmental disaster. I'm going to guess 2-3 billion deaths if we continue with currently existing capitalism. Maybe down to 1-2 billion if geoengineering actually works, though geoengineering is probably just as likely to do nothing. Some kind of state capitalism with strict rationing might be able to reduce death count but it will require the defeat of private capitalist interests and if you're going to do that you're half way to implementing socialism anyways. So as bad as things will be, this might be an opportunity.

He was attacking the fetishisation of nature, the idea that nature should be revered in a quasi-religious fashion, rather than our environment needing to be preserved for reasons of human survival. Of course he did so in his typically aggressive and provocative manner and as a result people tend to misinterpret his argument.

I want to pallut earth-chan with my dick

You don't have a point, shithead. All you do is complain about other people not wanting to get on your vague "do something" platform, yet you propose nothing concrete. And certainly nothing that would undo the capitalist logic that has brought us to this place.

I wish more reactionaries were environmentalists like they are supposed to be

It's not vague at all.

Neither do you. You just offer magical science fiction Elon Musk-esque solutions to the future, delaying the present.

Seems like a fucked up strawman to me. What suggested was a set of somewhat challenging policy goals to address environmental concerns. The point isn't that this is a set of prescriptions that we should just float vaguely and hope capitalists pick up on. The idea is that this becomes a part of a socialist platform. Do you think all of the shit he suggested would be possible under a capitalist economy? Make demands for environmental reform while pushing socialism. This weakens capitalists and provides the grounds for instating actually effective environmental policy in the future. Your Elon Musk comparison doesn't work because "lmao space dude" isn't a political program that requires a paradigm shift. Enviro-centric socialism would.