Climate activists attack the girl with the pearl earring

You can say that it’s cringe. You can say you would kick them in the face. You can say they should rot away in prison for the rest of their lives. You could even say that it’s a brave powerful statement, that they are heroes, that this is finally going to change something.

But all I see are two groups of morons arguing with each other. I will be honest to you. I’m only annoyed with these climate activists because they don’t damage the paintings. Besides the very simple fact that I don’t care for these paintings, I just want to see the people who caused this to happen to feel pain. You accomplish that when you damage the paintings, not when you smear some tomato soup on the glass that covers them.

Here’s what it looks like, when my favorite painting is destroyed:

You can see here how Homo Sapiens invades the Amazon rain forest like a kind of invasive slime mold.

It’s not hard to understand how this happens. You can either eat plants, or you can feed plants to cattle and end up with four grams of protein for every 100 grams of protein you feed to the cattle. There are seven billion of us, you all collectively decided that you don’t care about the simple principle that it’s going to require chopping down the forests if you want to eat beef instead of plants. Don’t show up here with your grassfed beef stories, where now grows grass once grew forests too. The entirety of Europe used to be covered in forest, if you cared enough you could once again cover it in forest, but you don’t care, you care about getting to eat beef, from animals fed soybeans from Brazil.

This is the simple principle we’re dealing with: You just don’t care enough about the problem, for the problem to be solved. You’re not too stupid to understand the problem. Any moron can figure out that growing chickpeas and feeding them to someone is more efficient than growing plants somewhere, feeding those plants to some animal that burns and shits out the nutrients and then feeding some small edible portions of the animal to a person (you’re not going to eat the brains, drink its blood or eat its hair).

Any moron can figure this out. The problem is not that you can’t figure it out, the problem is that you don’t want to figure it out. You want social media algorithms to deliver you some American who performs extreme mental gymnastics to argue that because there are grasslands in parts of Africa where cattle can graze you could eat a diet of pork lard and beef without deforesting the globe.

It’s very simple. When you humans weigh ten times as much as all the wild terrestrial vertebrates put together, then for those wild terrestrial vertebrates to have any sort of future, you need to be eating the bottom of the food pyramid, instead of creating an entire underclass of domesticated animals who serve as intermediary food producers for you.

Again, this isn’t happening because we don’t have the technologies available that we need. No, it’s happening because we have to make some big lifestyle changes that you’re unwilling to make. You don’t want to eat shellfish instead of meat, you don’t want to sell your car and travel by bicycle and public transport and you don’t want to stop flying around the world. As a consequence, I get to watch as the last wild animals go extinct and the planet becomes uninhabitable and eventually billions of people die in wars, pandemics and famines.

And so in this sense I’m annoyed by all the climate protests I see: They’re not violent enough. Imagine there’s a train full of people going to Auschwitz and some guy dressed up like a woman tries to block the train by standing in front of it and singing: “hey ho hey hop, the Holocaust has got to stop!” That’s what climate change activism amounts to.

I try to be a honest man. I don’t endorse vague notions of human brotherhood. And neither do the Africans. In much of West Africa, you introduce yourself first with your tribe, before mentioning your own name. But there is no way to justify the future they face. The reality is that if you’re a five year old living in South Sudan right now, you’re being shipped to a gas chamber, because middle aged American men happen to like the taste of beef. That’s why the climate change protests are cringe.

For what it’s worth, the climate protests we see today are also a little late, about thirty years late. Have a look at methane concentrations in our atmosphere:

That’s a hockeystick, but over a twenty year period. Human emissions are roughly stable, but the increase in the atmosphere is accelerating. The reason for that is because the positive feedback loops have already kicked in: The atmosphere is struggling to break down all the methane and the Earth is beginning to release more methane on its own.

And do me a favor, save me the effort of giving you an IP ban. Don’t pretend to be so innocent that you don’t understand that shoving billions of animals into concentration camps and feeding them soybeans imported from Brazil changes our atmosphere and that changing our atmosphere is dangerous. I was that innocent until I was 19 or so. I spent years looking for some hole in the theory. It doesn’t exist. There is no hole, this is really happening and you’re leaving today’s young people to watch it unfold with no way to reverse it after you’re dead. No wonder they’re suicidal. You people should have had the bare minimum empathy for others by not having children, as you have no intention to keep this planet habitable.

And so I’ll make it simple. Instead of pouring some tomato soup over a glass plate, do me a favor: Bring a can of deodorant and a lighter. If you’re going to protest, do it by burning those paintings to ashes. Let all the fags dressed up like women come out and make a statement that they “don’t endorse your actions”. Go to jail for the rest of your life. Be a man. History will absolve you.

20 Comments

  1. I don’t disagree. I too would like to see a healthy ecosystem be the default.

    However, I don’t recall if you’ve ever explained why simply depopulating the world of non-aryans and maintaining the earth with only the 500 million most eugenic aryans in perpetuity wouldn’t be just as valid of a solution. You said in a prior blog that given the choice, most would choose to be born as scandinavians in rural scandinavia, and I essentially agree, I think the earth would be infinitely better if that were the only permitted option.

    • >simply depopulating the world of non-aryans and maintaining the earth with only the 500 million most eugenic aryans in perpetuity

      In my experience, people who say this never seriously wish to address the problem.

      • Well think about it.

        To solve the climate problem contra the free choice of both most people and most browns, you necessarily have to have some gigantic government meddling in literally everything done by anyone anywhere. It requires a 1984 tier global surveillance/coercion apparatus. I don’t say that to try to make a mockery of the idea of solving the problem, I’m simply pointing out that that’s what we’re considering – a world in which environmental transgression is not something the everyman can get away with, is a world in which everything we do is watched, assessed, and then acted upon with reward/punishment by some central authority apparatus.

        All I’m saying is, if we accept that such a thing must necessarily come into being, why not have it fix the singular root cause of nearly all problems, i.e., the continued existence of huge masses of the inferior? That would remedy much more than the environment, while also categorically remedying the environment regardless of what behavior is chosen by the remaining elect. If you had few enough people remaining, they could all eat nothing but steak cooked over charcoal 24/7 and it wouldn’t harm the environment, and if you chose a eugenic enough remainder they’d never do that anyway because of intrinsic conscientiousness.

        All I’m saying is, if you’re going to dream, dream big; if you’re going to get angry, get big mad. Don’t settle for less.

        • Do I seriously need to engage with this? There’s the whole part where 7 billion people wouldn’t go down quietly without a fight if you decided to obliterate everyone not Scandinavian.

          Then there’s the simple fact that none of the stuff you use is going to work if you kill everyone outside Scandinavia. Medicine, pesticides, etc, it’s all imported in giant logistical chains.

          • Hehehe. Yeah. The “nobility,” having noticed its own numbers have ballooned, decides to kill off the peasants so that there would be more for the nobility. Right. That’s bound to work really well.

  2. Look, I don’t eat meat (some of my worst childhood memories involve being force fed meat – it was horrible), and I agree that factory farms are an abomination. However, what makes you think that if humans stopped eating meat, that domesticated animal biomass would turn into wild animal biomass rather than human biomass?

    • If you designate the abandoned farmland as nature reserves then people can’t turn it into more human biomass, as it’s rendered off limits to the economy.

      • Yeah, good luck with that. You’d just get one gigantic India instead. The only way humans are going to leave a piece of land alone, permanently, is if they literally cannot go there because it’s not hospitable to human life. That can mean it’s a desert where nothing grows, or it can mean horrific diseases that wipe out any human population that goes there. We may get more of both as environmental degradation proceeds, of course.

        • Humans lived for like 200,000 years in relative harmony with the natural world, without turning it into a giant India or whatever. The real problems are agriculture and civilization (from which things like animal husbandry derive), but nobody is interested in having that conversation because it’s too out-there for most people. Luckily, agriculture will become impossible soon due to climate change, which means the world’s most annoying species of invasive insects (homo economicus) will finally go extinct and the evils they propagate will cease.

          • Animals (including humans) will spread wherever they’re able to survive. That’s how it works. You need a particular kind of climate in order to have agriculture, and without agriculture, you cannot have massive population densities. That explains those 200K years.

            Anyway, the industrial civilization cannot and will not survive. That’s fairly obvious. Will agriculture survive? That depends on the details of climate change, and I don’t pretend to know those details. I’m highly skeptical of the proclamations of people who claim to know those details.

  3. With anons these conversations always seem to go one of two ways:

    Way 1:
    A: Why are you people so OBSESSED with global warming? Can’t you think of some more pressing environmental issues?
    B: Like what?
    A: Like how my testosterone levels are 10% lower than they would otherwise be because of plastic chemicals in our food!
    Way 2:
    B: You know if we would stop living like we’re on top of the food pyramid even though there are seven billion of us we could probably avoid turning this planet into a desert plagued by constant war, famines and disease.
    A: Nah I’d rather just kill everyone not related to me.
    B: Oh…

    • Eh. I do essentially everything you’d like people to do. No meat, I’ve never owned a car (I take a taxi maybe two times per year, and otherwise walk or use public transportation), and my last flight was several years ago when I made an international move. Oh, and I have no children, either. But Malthus was basically right. Whatever’s available gets used by someone. If not me, then someone else. Eventually, total meat consumption (among other things) will fall, but not before resource shortage forces that to happen. As individuals, humans are pretty smart. As a group (I don’t mean a small group; I mean all of us on the planet), I have yet to see evidence we are any smarter than yeast.

      • Even if you were to merely delay the inevitable by a few decades, that still means you give the planet time to break down the methane that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

  4. “Don’t show up here with your grassfed beef stories, where now grows grass once grew forests too. The entirety of Europe used to be covered in forest, if you cared enough you could once again cover it in forest, but you don’t care, you care about getting to eat beef, from animals fed soybeans from Brazil.”

    The Monks at Mount Athos don’t eat land animal meat. But Fish, Eggs and Dairy. Seaweed and Mushrooms should be added to the Menu too.

    Maybe more people need to eat like the Monks at Athos.

    • >Maybe more people need to eat like the Monks at Athos.

      Religious dietary obligations that medieval Europeans faced seem to have been actually quite compatible with a healthy and sustainable diet funnily enough.

  5. Not killing 20 mice by internal organ liquification avoiding one cow so I can slowly commit suicide eating your NWO slip as they intend, when every single “environmental” problem is a deliberately engineered political one by our farmers victim blaming and guilt tripping us.

    Energy, garbage, fertilizer? All solved by thermal depolymerization, but that’s kept from Mass rollout. Or by cold fusion, which worked fine, it just didn’t have the theoretical backing to ensure it could be replicated 100%, and through some DOE linked shenanigans, got strawmanned into a joke.
    Food is easy once energy is solved (eg aqauponica for a large chunk of basic caloric intake would only takeup the size of one big city to feed the world)

  6. >Not killing 20 mice by internal organ liquification avoiding one cow so I can slowly commit suicide eating your NWO slip as they intend

    Why are you so dumb? You realize the cattle have to eat too right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.