Environmental interventionism

Environmental Interventionism

Loading word count...
Listen to this article

If we look at the environmental issues plaguing the Earth, but without the leftist ideological glasses which distort the scientific facts of the underlying problems, we see clearly that pollution and befouling of the environment is primarily a nonwhite problem and in particular, a Sino-Indian problem. European countries, here including the European-descended ones such as USA, Australia and others bend over backwards to run their industrial machines with as little damage to the environment as possible, whereas the Chinese are content to pour raw industrial waste into rivers and oceans, poison the earth and turn the air into unbreathable goop, whereas India’s crimes against basic hygiene, let alone environmental well-being are visible (and smellable) even from outer space. Of course, no amount of Kyoto protocols or diplomatic fingerwagging will deter these arch-polluters, which is why I’m writing this piece to propose a new strategy: environmental interventionism. 

Environmental interventionism is envisioned as a goal of foreign policy wherein white Western will use the tools of foreign policy, including but not limited to diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions and even open war in order to force non-Western powers to stop polluting the Earth, in particular such biomes as the Pacific and Indian oceans which do not belong to any single civilisation, nation or race and can only be considered to be the common patrimony of all mankind. A future coalition of white nations and worthy non-white ally states will pool their resources, diplomatic, economic and military clout and use them to impose a global regime of environmental protection on unwilling nations, such as the number 1 and 2 offenders, China and India. While the full diapason of foreign policy tools must be used, environmental interventionism is named after and will likely be defined by the most radical tool it recommends, the environmental military intervention, by which the alliance of white Western states would stage a military intervention into a noncompliant non-Western state with the end of ending the source of pollution.
These military interventions would take different shapes. In some cases, it might be possible to achieve the ends of the environmental military intervention merely through firing of long-range strategic assets which would destroy industrial capacities. For example, there are some indications that it would be possible to completely deindustrialise China merely by destroying the three ports of Qingdao, Shanghai and Hong Kong, which due to the particularly smooth nature of the Chinese coast are the only three Chinese ports capable of handling the volume of freight required by an industrial society. Thus a hypothetical environmental military intervention against China will likely take the form of long-range missile strikes agains these three ports to destroy port infrastructure (including the freight railway connections radiating out of the port facility), long-range deployment of naval mines to deny the area in the three respective bays to both civilian and military ships or perhaps even the employment of advanced futuristic technologies such as the Rods from God – which in practice would be a way to bombard the port infrastructure without warning or chance of interception by AA assets. 

In other cases, it may be necessary to invade offending countries, defeat their militaries, overthrow their governments and physically dismantle their industrial infrastructure. It is, however, important to not be tempted by the desire to nation-build, as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alliance should invade the offending country and accomplish the environmental goals specified and then either retreat its military and let the chips fall where they may (an inhumane, if environmentally sound path), or put the offending state under an international mandate, effectively turning it into a client state or colony of the alliance. The administrative roles can, of course, be filled by willing locals, but ultimate decision-making power must be vested in white men who’ll steer the territory’s economy into the desirable direction. 

Now that we’ve gotten the most bombastic part out of the way, let’s discuss the way that an environmental interventionist foreign policy will likely be conducted. While I find the notion of dismantling China brick by brick very appealing, it is far likelier that the Chinese state can be pressured, intimidated, talked or sanctioned into cleaning up its act, insofar as it believes that it’ll make an enemy of the West in the event of continuing its filthy ways. Furthermore, it is likely that Chinese deindustrialisation might happen by the West simply withdrawing its orders from the Chinese manufacturing sector and repatriating its industrial base, something that might be achieved even without conscious implementation of environmental interventionism due to sheer geopolitical realities. Be that as it may, the military option must nevertheless remain on the table, otherwise the non-compliant countries might not take the threats seriously, just as they refuse to take the Kyoto protocol and other environmental stipulations seriously today. 

However, this policy cannot proceed with the current understanding of environmental endangerment. For reasons related to this flawed and unscientific view of the environment, I am reluctant to call myself an environmentalist and prefer the term conservationist. Indeed, the modern environmentalist view of pollution seems almost tailor-made to excuse Sino-Indian fouling of the environment and deflect the blame onto Western states which despite having highly advanced industrial economies, nevertheless have some of the lowest rates of environmental destruction in the world. I am speaking here of the irrational obsession with carbon and carbon emissions and the supposed greenhouse effect which causes the nebulous and ill-defined “climate change”. The obsession with carbon has ironically fuelled the rise of two highly destructive and environmentally unsound technologies, namely wind power plants, which are not only eye-sores, but are also lethal to nearby birds and bats, as well as electric vehicles, whose lithium batteries require the wholesale destruction of entire biomes to produce and are near-impossible to dispose of safely. 

Environmental destruction and harm must therefore be redefined to mean measurable, objectively bad acts against the environment. More often than not, these will be acts that even the layman can see (and smell) are harmful to the environment. A heap of rubbish, smog and soot particulates which obstruct the airways, a lake of industrial runoff, a trawler fleet stripping an ocean bare of fish, a mountainside shorn completely of trees, a species of animal hunted to extinction for the purported medicinal qualities of its penis – these are obvious and unmistakable crimes against nature, far more concrete and available to the senses than the dubiously measurable or harmful “emissions”. 

Having thus defined the parameters of what constitutes environmental harm, laid out the diapason of foreign policy tools employable against states guilty of environmental harm by means of working backwards from the most radical tool, the environmental military intervention, all we are left for is building the moral case for such an alliance. Some may ask, by what right do you propose to violate the sovereignty of other nations for what are essentially domestic affairs? What business is it of ours if the Chinese choose to poison their own lands with toxic chemicals or if the Indians elect to treat human and animal waste as an object of reverence? Putting aside the obvious answer that left unchecked, India, China and the rest of the nonwhite world will eventually befoul the entire planet and especially the world ocean as a shared body of water, we must answer this very important question if we are to proceed. 

My answer is simple: the white nations of Earth, both individually and collectively as the white race have demonstrated that we have the moral right to rule the Earth. We’re the only people that treat this planet as a gift to be cherished and a garden to be cultivated, whereas every other race with the possible exception of the Japanese behave like locusts, seeking to consume its resources completely and irrevocably. Even the Japanese attitude towards whales is questionable, though it is notable that the Japanese have so far refrained from wreaking environmental destruction on their islands and their surrounding waters, despite having one of the most advanced industrial economies on the planet. By our behaviour as responsible stewards of God’s Green Earth, we’ve earned the right to dictate to others the terms of use for the planet. Either they will learn to live responsibly, or they will cease to live. That may be considered to be the unofficial motto of environmental interventionism.

And that, in brief, is environmental interventionism. Of course, it could theoretically be implemented today, with the disposition of current governments and international institutions in the West, but I suspect that it will only be implemented in the future, as a policy plank of a broader white racial identitarian ideology once such an ideology becomes the dominant moral and political paradigm. No matter what other positions that future ideology takes, it must necessarily recognise the importance of responsible stewardship of the planet and the unique position of the white race as guardian and gardener of the planet, endowed with the moral wisdom to safeguard it and all its creatures from the iniquities of the filthy, brown, black and yellow masses. 

Post Author

Leave a comment

4.3 12 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x