In Defense of Wokeness

Depopulation and Populism.

Very few intelligent people like overpopulation. Environmentalists hate it, but also rural conservatives who hate the city. Overpopulation results in migration and colonialism and the destruction of native cultures. Overpopulation also hurts the prospects of Marxism or socialism. According to Marx, all tribal societies were communistic, and it was only with the rise of urbanism that hierarchies arose.

Overpopulation leads to the slums of Bangladesh, pollution, trash, smog, filth, and the bugman. Dense populations lead to behavioral sink, where fertility drops, genders become confused, and neuroticism leads to suicide and cannibalism.

The Roman Empire, at its height, had 70 million people. This declined after the fall of Rome, and reached 70 million people in Europe (excluding the North African and Syrian territories of Rome) by 1200. At such a scale, Europe once again became an expansionist force, taking back Spain, launching crusades into the Levant, and also into eastern Europe. By 1492, Europe began a slow but inevitable process of offloading its excess population to the Americans, Africa, and Australia. At present, 19 million Europeans have emigrated from Europe, despite the low birth rates of that continent, which is roughly 5% of the population total.

Between 1492 and 1640, 446,000 Europeans migrated to the Americas. This level of migration is massive even by modern standards. When Thomas Malthus wrote his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population, it became clear that European populations were growing faster than emigration could deplete. The doomsday predicted by Malthus was then delayed for a few centuries by the invention of ammonia and nitrogen fertilizers. But the logical principles underlying the Malthusian argument remain prescient and relevant.

Proponents of green energy suggest that solar panels, wind farms, hydroelectric, geothermal, or even nuclear power can replace or augment fossil fuels. Since everything is a function of energy (clean water, transportation, recycling), we can never “run out of resources” as long as the sun is shining.

The problem is not that we are “running out of resources,” but that human beings are treating the natural world as if it is their piggy bank and toilet. We are cannibalizing the beauty of the planet. Supposed “green tech” is built entirely off lithium and other minerals which turn mountains into strip mines. Mining leeches poison into the ground water and creates a field of toxic waste. Islands of floating trash, beaches brimming with sewage, factory farms filled scenes from hell. Even supposed “free range chickens” are, upon independent review, put in concentration camps.

Strip mine: the source of “green” energy.

We put animals in concentration camps as we put ourselves in cookie-cutter boxes. The “green activists” propose we eat tofu or bugs. At some point, is death not a sweat release? Isn’t death natural? And doesn’t a society which lives in such a way, below animals, deserve to die?

There’s a lot of money to be made off suffering chickens. There’s also a lot of money to be made off suburban developments, green energy scams, strip mining, plastic containers, internet porn, and social media. All of these require customers — the more the merrier. That’s why Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are pushing for a trillion humans.

Musk, in particular, is a populist. He wants people to have family values, consumer goods, low inflation, fiscal responsibility, cheaper housing, and lots of babies. He wants to “put the woke away.” Stop the gay agenda, the “groomers,” the LGBTQIA+, the racial resentment. He still supports immigration — but the “good kind,” from India and Asia, rather than the “bad kind” from Africa and the Middle East.

The problem with Musk’s vision is that, in an overpopulated world, it is not natural to want to reproduce. That is not to say that some do not adapt and overcome — but some of this “adaptation” is not of a healthy kind, but when “like meets like” in this case, it is a degenerate attitude which adapts to a degenerate world.

Another problem is that, even if fertility could be upheld (such as in Africa), the argument that “technology can overcome resource scarcity” does not now correlate with the empirical evidence. Soil depletion, for example, is already occurring. It is not that we don’t have the technology to protect soil — we do — but the problem is not technology. Rather, sustainable farming practices make food more expensive. Governments are unable to regulate them because of the power of corporate agricultural lobbying. If you think AIPAC is big, wait till you see the $30 billion in farm subsidies. To learn who rules over you…

This problem, which is rooted in corruption, profit, and greed, is not solvable with “technology.” If some “super fertilizer” increases crop yields by 100x, this will merely push the problem into the future. In the mean time, every inch of natural land will be thrown into a meat grinder to churn out more batteries for “renewable, green energy.” When these batteries become totally useless after 10 years, they will be thrown into the trash heap. Yes, they are possible to recycle, but if it’s cheaper to blow up a mountain than to recycle them, why not just blow up the mountain? It’s not a problem of technology. It’s much deeper than that.

If we accept that the world is overpopulated, then there is no “populist” solution. The people are part of the problem. There are a few ways to decrease population, historically:

1. War.

2. Famine.

3. Disease.

4. People stop having kids.

I don’t know about you, but war, famine, and disease all sound pretty bad. They will become inevitable, but I’m not here to cheer them on. If you want to nuke the world, unleash the Black Plague, or starve billions to death, be my guest, but I would at least like to consider the alternative.

The alternative, “people stop having kids,” is essentially the Klaus Schwab “woke” plan. You may not like it, and it may never be “populist,” but this is what peaceful depopulation looks like. It looks gay. It looks like expensive housing where it is financially difficult to raise a family. It looks like birth control, condoms, incels, plummeting sperm counts, xenoestrogens, transgenderism, and all the rest. You may not like it, but this is what peak depopulation looks like.

Alex Jones has moaned about this for decades. “EUGENICS!” His intention is to trap liberals in hypocrisy. If you support “making the frogs gay” and the Georgia Guidestones, aren’t you essentially in favor of global depopulation? And isn’t global depopulation just another word for eugenics?

Liberals don’t fall for this. Teaching kids about anal sex in Europe and America is going to lower the white birthrate (and the birthrates of any poor immigrants who come here looking for a better life), but it will not (at least immediately) stop Africans from having four children each. In the mind of a liberal, eugenics is when whites have more babies, and if whites are having less babies, it can’t possibly be eugenics. Checkmate, Mr. Jones.

Alex comically responds by claiming that this is a form of “reverse racism” eugenics, where the Nazis are secretly trying to destroy the white race. Hitler was the author of the Kalergi plan, or something. The end effect of all this nonsense is populism. Jones is a stooge for the billionaires who want to aid global population growth through populism. That means more trash, more sludge, more seed oils, and all the rest. They’ll drain every last mountain of every lack speck, until they make the whole world flat.

There are reasonable critiques of eugenics. If you select only for intelligence, for example, you might develop Tay Sachs disease. If you select only for beauty, maybe you’d only get dumb blondes. Currently, we’re selecting for whoever is most well adapted to Netflix and porn. You can ignore selection, but that might not make it go away.

It’s possible that genes don’t exist, in which case any kind of mass sterilization wouldn’t affect anything. It would simply mean that some blank slate humans would become sterile, and other blank slate humans would replace them with exactly the same kind of blank slate humans. All humans are, after all, interchangeable cogs. In this case, eugenics is no more or less immoral than teaching kids about anal sex.

Eugenics only becomes immoral if genes are real. In that case, if your eugenic selection is somehow flawed, and you breed a race of neurotic autists or subservient soyboys, then you run into some serious problems. Perhaps such eugenic experimentation has already taken place over thousands of years of civilizing and capital punishment.

In the case that genes are real, eugenics seems highly dangerous, unless done “perfectly right” (what does that mean?). The only moral case against eugenics is that it could be involuntary. However, voluntary sterilization in exchange for cash defeats this argument. You can cry about racism or whatever, but I can’t hear you over the sound of this mountain getting blown up for the next 2 billion African iPhone batteries.

Before genetic engineering.

This is not to say that I advocate for eugenics, but merely that I am unphased by conspiratorial arguments that equivocate depopulation with eugenics. So what? Not an argument. Hysterical moralizing and shrieking, “EUGENICS!,” is popular on the woke left and the Jones-tier right. The woke left seems to have found a loophole, “as long as it’s not pro-white.” My goal is not eugenics, but rather, immediate and rapid depopulation. Arguments about eugenics are irrelevant.

It may, however, be the case that embryo selection or other forms of genetic engineering make eugenics real in an undeniable and cataclysmic way. In the same way that the chariot or mounted archers of the Eurasian steppe have devastated every single world empire from Britain to Beijing, genetic technology might turn liberal and populist objections into metaphorical “horse prints.”

After genetic engineering.

It may also be possible that a “it’s actually real this time” pandemic, akin to the Black Plague, could make all of these arguments irrelevant and kill a billion people in the next 10 years. Or, by 2090, we run out of soil to farm and mass famine ensues. Or, the American navy collapses, pirates rule the high seas, and international food exports halt, leading to mass starvation or famine. Or, the nukes start flying. There are many situations in which “wokeness” as a tool of depopulation becomes irrelevant. In such a situation, I will withdraw my support. Until then, give those teachers a pay raise.