Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

It's Not Easy Being Green (New Deal)





Welp, it's Summer in Texas again. Needless to say it's hot as hell, but I'll take this moment to soak up this heat for the next 12 years while I can, because we don’t have a choice…because we’re all gonna die if we don’t… because of temperature…I won’t even say if it’s because it’s too damn hot, or too damn cold because depending on the day and what these progressive-democratic-socialist nuts think or feel, it could be either depending which way the wind blows (or if it’s blowing at all).

So my initial thoughts, as you might have already guessed, is that this thing is complete bull. If “climate change” or “global warming”, or whichever term they feel is more expedient at the time, was such a big deal, then it would be the only thing we’d hear about, everyone would be on board with this.

I don't think that our so-called leaders in power, or Americans for that matter, would be too quick to make the sacrifices necessary to save the planet. I could be wrong though, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that:

People would totally stop buying and selling ocean front properties because they’re afraid of flooding from rising sea levels. We’d all stop driving our cars and riding bikes to work instead to prevent CO2 gasses because carpooling wouldn’t even be good enough. And by the way, Bob Murphy's studies show carbon actually promotes the growth of vegetation…so immediately, what the heck? Oh, and naturally politicians would cease the use of their private jets.

And of course, the U.S. would immediately stop its production of over 9 million barrels of oil a day and stop becoming the world leader in production. We'll just let the Saudis fill the gap. Maybe they’d go as far as to kill off their first borns to eliminate a heavier carbon footprint, because believe it or not, some people actually think that the Earth is warming because there are too many people on the planet. So what? Are you saying you want the human species to die out? Just stop breeding? Good luck telling that to the Catholics. No offense, Catholics. You walked right into that one. Lemme have a little fun in my moment of grief.

People will stop buying and selling baby wipes. Which I know they make flushable ones but to be COMPLETELY HONEST, I am a cheap ass, and buy the non-flushable ones. And I simply do not care if I am “damaging the environment” because frankly, I will commit a polar bear genocide JUST to be sure my ass is squeaky clean. Subjective value, BABY!

And of course, we’d stop all the wars and bring our troops home.

The bottom line is, if we really ever want to see a “change” or improvement in the environment, then we need to use the most efficient and productive methods that we currently have. This will spur innovation for better alternatives. Otherwise we’re taking steps backward.

But let’s be real, politicians don’t really care about the environment or what’s in our best interest similar to their approach to war. It doesn’t help the folks back home. Just specific players and industries. Just like FDR’s “New Deal”, It’s a BS excuse for the state to seize control of industry and individual liberty. Plus, the “new jobs” that will get created are just gonna be BS government jobs requiring little to no skill, making Americans ever more dependent on the state for financial stability. It’s just a continuation of how Progressives bought off the American people with free goodies. This is why Progressivism in an authoritarian, right-wing plot to destroy us all.

 The truth of the matter is, industry and economic prosperity, is the true enemy of the state. By embracing free markets and capitalism, growth is promoted on a large scale by creating more businesses to compete with one another. This competition leads to lower prices, and increases the standard of living for everyone by yielding higher quality of products, and ubiquitous choices. 

But just like taxes: when we do well for ourselves, we get punished by the government. To say that the Green New deal would do just that is an understatement.

This slimy piece of legislation is ironically a pollutant, both to Americans, and everyone in Washington, and no wonder everyone there voted "present". It's polluting economic, and social prosperity. To put it simply, if these pricks care about the environment so much, they’d end the military industrial complex… Uh-oh! No more big, bad bitches for Boeing and Lockheed to show off on MSNBC of who really “runs the world.” 

*Allow me to share some environmental catastrophes due to the MIC below*

   *Updated as of January 14, 2019*

Habitat Destruction and Refugees

Viet Nam - 
  • U.S. forces sprayed herbicides Agent Orange on the forests and mangrove swamps that provided cover to guerrilla soldiers. 
    USAF spraying Agent Orange over
    Vietnam
  • est. 20 million gallons of herbicide were used, decimating about 4.5 million acres in the countryside. Some regions are not expected to recover for several decades.
  • warfare causes the mass movement of people = catastrophic impacts
  • Widespread deforestation, unchecked hunting, soil erosion, and contamination of land and water by human waste occur when thousands of humans are forced to settle in a new area.
Invasive Species

WWII 
  • Military ships, cargo airplanes, and trucks often ALSO carry non-native plants and animals to ride along with the soldiers = invading new areas and wiping out native species in the process. (RATS)
  • Laysan Island in the Pacific Ocean rats nearly wiped out finch, rail, & brought in sandbur - an invasive plant that crowds out the native bunchgrass that local birds depend on for habitat.


Below are some more catastrophes from Lenntech.

Afghanistan Alone! 

2001’s Operation Enduring Freedom, the Genesis of the War on Terrorism (still happening today)

Suffered extensive damage to environment
  • many people suffered health effects from weapons applied to destroy enemy targets
  • estimated 10K villages, and their surrounding environments were destroyed
  • Safe drinking water declined, via destruction of water infrastructure and resulting leaks, bacterial contamination and water theft. 
  • Rivers/groundwater contaminated by poorly constructed landfills located near the sources

80% of Kabul residents lack secure access to clean water

Afghanistan had major forests watered by monsoons. 
  • During the war, Taliban members illegally trading timber in Pakistan destroyed much of the forest cover. 
  • US bombings and refugees in need of firewood destroyed much of what remained. Less than 2% of the country still contains a forest cover today.

 Bombs threaten much of the country’s wildlife. 
  • One the world’s important migratory thoroughfare leads through Afghanistan. 
  • The number of birds now flying this route has dropped by 85%. In the mountains many large animals such as leopards found refuge, but much of the habitat is applied as refuge for military forces now
  • Additionally, refugees capture leopards and other large animals and trade them for safe passage across the border.

Pollution from explosives entered air, soil and water.
  • One example is cyclonite, a toxic substance that may cause cancer
  • Rocket propellants deposited perchlorates, which damage the thyroid gland
  • Numerous landmines left behind in Afghan soils still cause the deaths of men, women and children today.

Increased Production

Even in regions not directly affected by warfare, increased production in manufacturing, agriculture and other industries that support a war effort can wreak havoc on the natural environment. *Are you listening, ladies that run the world?!?*

 During World War I, former wilderness areas of the United States came under cultivation for wheat, cotton, and other crops, while vast stands of timber were clear-cut to meet wartime demand for wood products. Timber in Liberia, oil in Sudan, and diamonds in Sierra Leone were all exploited by military factions. "These provide a revenue stream that is used to buy weapons," says Bruch.

But not even all of this is a good enough threat because as the article says, “in some cases, precision weapons and other technological advances can shield the environment by targeting key facilities, leaving other areas relatively unscathed. ‘You could make the argument that these weapons have the ability to minimize collateral damage.’ ” 
 - Geoffrey Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.

So that just proves these MIC hawks are willing to take the risk and experiment with the technology they have to make war safer.  For a Neo-con, when it comes between the making more war toys and the price of damaging the environment, I’m sure they’d say once more, “the price is worth it.”


Now Neo-cons aren’t the ones behind this plan. AOC for sure isn’t, and even Koala Harris wants a “resolution” in Afghanistan (let's be honest, she's totally a cop). The Neo-cons who are actually in charge like Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let this pass. But if you ask me, I think this is just a litmus test on all the stupid people in the country for the statists to really see what they could get away with (especially if the Democrats take home to 2020 election). With all the feel-good, lovey-dovey emotionalism that’s so tasty to the pee-brained millennials that are balls deep in student loan debt, how is that not an easy target for these statist parasites to suckle upon? How much of our lives and freedom could they take from us? They come pretty far as it is, and I don’t think they’re stopping any time soon. 
















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom