Petti Linkola, the ecosystem and the people

I’m blogging again, because I’ve regained access to my own weblog (but not my email). In addition to posting links to items, I’m going to post observations.

Today, I’m going to post on the thoughts of Petti Linkola, the deep ecologist from Finland, and how his thought includes both the positives and problems of environmentalism.

I admit I haven’t read Linkola, though I’m certainly going to at some point in the future, but the Petti Linkola Fansite (he doesn’t possess a personal online presence) expresses his philosophy in his own words.


Linkola has been regarded as some kind of anti-humanist lunatic; there is nothing wrong with philosophical anti-humanism such as Nietzsche or Heidegger, humanism is a deeply flawed philosophy which is why our elites hate anti-humanistic thought. The question is, whether Linkola has crossed a line into anti-human thought, including perspectives contrary to his people’s interests for the good of the environment – like the greens who self-hate their national stock out of existence.

Linkola is clearly a sincere anti-leftist, and I am not accusing him of leftism, but if it had not been for the pre-existence of such psychological tendencies, the environmental movement could not have been hijacked and co-opted by globalist interests and the Cultural Marxist left. Its important to ask whether Linkola recognises and addresses the underlying problem, and I think this is an important question, because the environmental and conservationist movements are far from the way in which our ancestors and other truly ecological people such as native North Americans conceived of their relationship to the environment. Is Linkola different, and if he is, how so? Is his ecological thought a return to tradition, or merely another self-resentful and kneejerk product of the modern age?

Linkola advocates a strict population control policy, and there’s good logic for this in some parts of the world where overpopulation really is a problem. But what about in the west, or East Asian countries such as Japan or even relatively underdeveloped Thailand, where the problem is a fertility crisis as indigenous birthrates plummet below the necessary level of three children per woman/family required for population stability? Surely deadbeat dads who impregnate multiple women without supporting them ought to be sterilised by the state, and a certain kind of single mother too, but Linkola’s own logic that we “forget our narcissistic selves” and “Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen” takes us to the generally pronatalist conclusion, as long as it is balanced by compulsory ecological lifestyles, of course. I can’t help but think of why Francis Galton himself rejected the warnings of Malthus – only people of high IQ stock will listen to antinatalist messages, and limit their birth rate accordingly, whilst people of lower IQ stock will continue to breed like rabbits. That Linkola himself is smart enough to write well-reasoned criticisms of a corrupted society, is why he should have had and supported as many children as he possibly could to outcompete the people living parasitic urban lifestyles.

For whilst Linkola’s expressed philosophy may be extreme, either out of sincere belief or crazy wisdom – statements such as a human diet that will include rats and invertebrate animals, and of course his statements about genocide(!), are not good public relations – Linkola indeed expresses wisdom when he says that all human manure is to be used as fertilizer, or that manufactured products should be durable and last for generations, or that every child should be efficient and knowledgeable enough clean a fish in such a way that only the big shiny bones are left over (a truly beautiful sentiment).

I get the impression that Linkola shares the same dislike of humanity and civilisation I feel, but to a more extreme level where aspects of his writings probably serve to vent his frustration, more than representing serious attempts to attract followers or provide solutions anyone is going to put into practice while we still have time (for how long?). Whilst certain of his sentiments are indeed beautiful, and born out of a deep-felt respect for the beauty in nature, his primary concern is not Finnish ethnocentrism, Sure he opposes immigration, because its bad for the environment, which creates common ground with us, but there are also points of conflict between our interests. I’m forming my opinion of Linkola at present from the quotes on his Fanpage, but I can’t help but think of all my own issues with more mainstream environmentalist thought that seem to have .

Can nature be truly unspoiled, which is the corollary of conserving nature? Or is nature a fluid trickster as was understood by the Taoists, the Aztecs and Heraclitus? Whilst there are pragmatic, cultural and aesthetic reasons for humans to avoid the overexploitation or ravaging of nature, I still can’t help but think most environmentalists don’t understand nature’s nature. Whether its Linkola’s ideas about parental licensing or the left-greens thinking about sticking cameras in Britain’s bins to watch what people are consuming, there’s always something about the whole of environmental thought that’s rooted in a modern human’s sense of what ‘ought’ and not in what ‘is’.

Good human behaviour is instinctual not theoretical, and those instincts are only the same as those of other animals. The whites who replaced the aboriginal Tasmanians and marsupial wolves were only following the same survival instincts as the indigenous people and wildlife, where is the evil involved except for Darwinian success through demographics? If no equivalent moral judgement is ever passed upon a successful non-human animal species that replaces a competitor, then why is the human species different? For anyone to recognise such a difference is to indulge in a kind of moral self-critique, like those whites who self-blame for the failiure of blacks, whether they realises it or not.

And there is the problem, that although there is much value in ecological thought – do you wish for your own children to live in a world with no trees? – but even in Linkola’s opinions I recognise the underlying problem that led to the mainstream and socially liberal Green movement. People from truly nature-positive societies do not wish to preserve harmony with nature to save eagles, trees and bears from their own people but rather to maintain a balance with nature for the preservation of ones own people. People like the Sioux or the Cherokee (or indeed the old Anglo-Saxons) understand their relationship to the environment in ways that are no more ecocentric than they are anthropocentrist, because everything is centred on the good of related kin. Linkola is closer to this thinking than the left-greens but I still get the impression he seems to put the interests of the environment over ethnicity, and this thinking is what made environmentalists vulnerable to the entryism of the left.

What is good for my people?