The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism

The Face of Genocidal Eco-Fascism

I am not exaggerating.

This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the  human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon  modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words.

He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers  suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is  full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink  the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

He sees America as the root of the problem:

The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth.


We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the  national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of  the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.


A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes  he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society  as a whole:

Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole.  In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on  democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most  mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic coutries  the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has  accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

In that sense, Linkola’s agenda is really nothing new; it is as old as humans. And I am barely scratching the surface; Linkola has called for “some trans-national body like the UN” to reduce the population  “via nuclear weapons” or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks”.

But really he is just another freedom-hating authoritarian — like the  Nazis and Stalinists he so admires — who desires control over his  fellow humans. Ecology, I think, is window-dressing. Certainly, he seems  to have no real admiration or even concept of nature as a  self-sustaining, self-organising mechanism, or faith that nature will be  able to overcome whatever humanity throws at it. Nor does he seem to  have any appreciation for the concept that humans are a product of and part of nature; if nature did not want us doing what we do  nature would never have produced us. Nature is greater and smarter than  we will probably ever be. I trust nature; Linkola seems to think he  knows better. As George Carlin noted:

We’re so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something  now. Save the trees. Save the bees. Save the whales. Save those snails.  And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these  fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to  take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one  another and we’re gonna save the fucking planet?


There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Difference. The planet is fine.

Linkola and similar thinkers seem to have no real interest in meeting  the challenges of life on Earth. Their platform seems less about the  environment and more about exerting control over the rest of humanity.  Linkola glories in brutality, suffering and mass-murder.

Now Linkola is just one fringe voice. But he embodies the key  characteristic of the environmental movement today: the belief that  human beings are a threat to their environment, and in order for that  threat to be neutralised, governments must take away our rights to make  our own decisions and implement some form of central planning.  Linkola, of course, advocates an extreme and vile form of Malthusianism  including genocide, forced abortion and eugenics.

But all forms of central planning are a dead end and lead inexorably toward breakdown; as Hayek demonstrated conclusively in the 1930s central  planners have always had a horrible track record in decision making,  because their decisions lack the dynamic feedback mechanism present in  the market.  This means that capital and labour are misallocated, and  anyone who has studied even a cursory history of the USSR or Maoist  China knows the kinds of outcomes that this has lead to: at best the  rotting ghost cities of China today, and at worst the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward resulting in millions of deaths and untold misery.

Environmentalists should instead pursue ideas that respect individual  liberty and markets. There is more potential in developing technical  solutions to environmental challenges than there is in implementing  central planning.

If we are emitting excessive quantities of CO2 we don’t have to  resort to authoritarian solutions. It’s far easier to develop and market  technologies like carbon scrubbing trees (that  already exist today) that can literally strip CO2 out of the air than  it is to try and develop and enforce top-down controlling rules and  regulations on individual carbon output. Or (even more simply), plant  lots of trees and other such foliage (e.g. algae).

If the dangers of non-biodegradable plastic threaten our oceans, then develop and market processes (that already exist today) to clean up these plastics.

Worried about resource depletion? Asteroid mining can give us access to thousands of tonnes of metals, water, and even hydrocarbons (methane, etc). For more bountiful energy, synthetic oil technology exists today. And of course, more capturable solar energy hits the Earth in sunlight in a single day than we use in a year.

The real problem with centrally-planned Malthusian population  reduction programs is that they greatly underestimate the value of human  beings.

More people means more potential output — both in economic terms, as  well as in terms of ideas. Simply, the more people on the planet, the  more hours and brainpower we have to create technical solutions to these  challenges. After all, the expansion of human capacity through  technical development was precisely how humanity overcame the  short-sighted and foolish apocalypticism of Thomas Malthus who wrongly  predicted an imminent population crash in the 19th century.

My suggestion for all such thinkers is that if they want to  reduce the global population they should measure up to their words and  go first.


No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: