[Quantum]

Does anybody here subscribe to the theories of Pentti Linkola, the Finnish ecologist who combines traditional fascist ideas of anti-democracy and anti-liberalism with environmentalist criticism of overpopulation, economic growth and consumerism? He seems to be an original thinker but is sadly ignored by mainstream and even extremist society.

I agree with some of his solutions to the pressing issues of overpopulation, economic growth and consumerism and how economic liberalism perpetuates these but disagree on widescale deindustrialisation and his fascist ideology in general.

[starman2003]

Does anybody here subscribe to the theories of Pentti Linkola, the Finnish ecologist who combines traditional fascist ideas of anti-democracy and anti-liberalism with environmentalist criticism of overpopulation, economic growth and consumerism? He seems to be an original thinker but is sadly ignored by mainstream and even extremist society.

I agree with some of his solutions to the pressing issues of overpopulation, economic growth and consumerism and how economic liberalism perpetuates these but disagree on widescale deindustrialisation and his fascist ideology in general.

Haven't heard of him but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more like him--and me, or us --as time goes on. I'd also oppose deindustrialization. Maybe we can someday get the best of both worlds--have high living standards without wrecking the only habitable planetary environment we know--by moving polluting industry to space, as O'Neill proposed. But for now, deindustrialization will probably sink his chances of getting anywhere. We're in a situation where the prevailing democratic/individualist system is bankrupt, yet no good alternative has yet emerged, publicly or visibly.

[Far-Right Sage]

Yes. excellent discussion point, as the topic of deep ecology has been thoroughly under-represented here.

I have long praised Linkola as I believe him to be one of the best natural leaders for the Finns ideologically since Vihtori Kosola and his Lapua Movement were in full swing.

What's interesting about his writing is that much of it contains sizable kernels that challenge the absolute foundation of the liberal moral paradigm and would shake it to its core were the public given a decent education and his words mass exposure. Armed conflict for land or other purposes is often deemed negative because it kills people. If we could draw an arbitrary line in the sand from 1500 A.D. and prevent the outbreak of every armed struggle from that date to the present, what would it achieve? More humans on the planet? First ask yourself why this is a positive and why it is universally accepted as such with no logic or evidence behind the sentiment. War is inevitable, because in the absence of conflict for power, influence, or any other purpose, we will simply have more humans in competition and see the advent of resource wars. We have already witnessed a war virtually universally recognized as being waged for oil (the first Gulf War). With more humans to populate the planet, the wars for oil, minerals, and natural gas will simply degenerate into wars for water, grain, fruit, and access to clean air. Consider the bread riots in Ethiopia and Egypt. Linkola forsees the emergence of this powerful eruption in the ecological balance, and I would sadly state that he is far before his time. Liberalism seems to have endowed men with the minds no longer of scholars, architects, and navigators, but of rodents and fleas.

[Tribbles]

Deep ecology?

I have heard it was invented by this guy:



Arne Næss, Norwegian philosopher.

I`m not certain, but I think maybe that Finnish guy was a source of inspiration for a Finn who went on a killing-spree in a school some years ago. Nobody have yet went on a spree inspired by Arne Næss (which would be absurd indeed) so he might be a better source of inspiration. - for deep ecologists at least.

[starman2003]

we will simply have more humans in competition and see the advent of resource wars. We have already witnessed a war virtually universally recognized as being waged for oil (the first Gulf War).

WWII was fought largely for oil. Germany and Japan wanted Russian and Indonesian oil respectively. The Reich also fought for Ukrainian wheat.

[Far-Right Sage]

Oil was not the driving force behind the Second World War.

It was vital to acquire so the war could effectively be waged, which would be enhanced by no longer being forced to rely on limited oilfields, such as the Romanian Ploesti, but entire regions, such as the Middle East, the Caucasus, or the Dutch East Indies. This was, of course, because a global struggle was being waged.

Britain didn't go to war to prevent Germany from acquiring too much oil. The United States clearly did, when Operation Desert Shield, and consequently, Desert Storm, were launched.

[starman2003]

Britain didn't go to war to prevent Germany from acquiring too much oil. The United States clearly did, when Operation Desert Shield, and consequently, Desert Storm, were launched.

Both wars were to prevent hegemonization. If Iraq had acquired much or even all of Gulf oil, the US still would've been able to buy. It just didn't like an aggressive regime becoming powerful, and preferred the oil remain in the hands of decadent wimps.

[Orestes]

The guy makes me nauseous. Some times in some places there are too many people, sometimes in some places there are too few people, and policies should be shaped accordingly. But making a broader ideological point out of it, I find weird and maladaptive (and yeah, I’d seriously fucking hate anybody who'd make me live in the countryside.)

I guess FRS is going against the old Right-wing grain here. Spengler wrote that whenever in a society having offspring even becomes a question of pro’s and con’s, it’s one of the sure signs that this society has progressed from the vital phase of Kultur to the degenerate and ossified Zivilisation. Glad to see you aboard with us, FRS