Hello lads, currently in the Netherlands at an Erkemran conference, with my friend Faust here.
And yeah, we were talking yesterday about all the things, primarily the environmentalist question, because we've seen all over Europe massive climate protests so yeah, we thought to just sit down here in beautiful nature and talk a bit about that.
So yeah, welcome to the channel, Faust.
Thank you very much.
We've met before.
Yeah, we do.
We have in 2017.
It was a glorious trip, also to the Netherlands, so now I'm back.
Good, good people, these guys.
So yeah yeah yeah, although I'm not, I'm also as a guest here.
I have to emphasize, I'm yeah, it's like a sport event we're at.
Yeah yeah, so I'm gonna hold a speech as well, hold some training with good, good stuff.
Yeah and yeah, beautiful place.
So anyway, we have seen, you know, a new, almost a religious fervor among the youth with your country mate.
Yeah exactly great, and I mean a lot of guys want to counter signal her.
For me, it's like you know, she's bringing attention to some problem.
They're focusing a bit on the wrong thing, which is CO2, but she also has the power of certain.
Some of these individuals might end up looking into it deeper.
So what would you say is a good next step for the more inquisitive of those youths it's.
I think the CO2 thing is kind of used as a distraction right, it's like okay, I don't want to say that it's, it doesn't happen or anything, but I think it's a fairly less significant point than, for example, more direct issues that are easily, more easily solvable, like the plastic in the oceans issue, chemical pollution in China.
And then the main argument anyway against air pollution is that here in the Netherlands, like in America with the Green New Deal and so on, they've proposed legislation where they want to invest a thousand billion dollars like that is roughly a year and a half worth of our entire GDP into climate change, like stopping CO2 and energy transition and new technologies and so on.
But we are a very small country if you compare our what we put into the air in terms of co2 monoxide.
All this it's nothing compared to China and India.
Yeah, that's part of the mainstream discussion here, because we're saying like okay, we are going to invest, like everyone's going to work for free for 15 months for this stuff, like everyone in the Netherlands, every company, every person, and what's going to be the impact on the the environment?
Yeah yeah, same thing with Sweden.
When they talk about you know the population.
Sweden needs to drive less car.
Then again Sweden also, and a smaller country than the Netherlands, smaller impact on the CO2 question.
And then you have China, who's just completely ignoring these sort of things.
So in my view yeah it's, they're punishing the countryside population in in the countries that care, and their policies are contradictory because at the one time they're trying to solve poverty in the third world.
But by solving poverty in the third world you increase consumption.
Yeah you, if you uplift the, the masses of Africa and in in Asia into the middle Class and you give them access to cars and homes.
There's no way that the entire 7 billion people on this earth can live on a sustainable level on the same level as we live in Western Europe.
In fact, we in Western Europe are probably living far too decadently.
We're going to have to reduce some of our consumption.
And one of the main things that you never hear the left about, of course, is overpopulation.
It's the simplest math equation you can have.
The more consumers there are, the more demand there is for products, the more pollution and extraction there is of resources, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, and exactly in Africa, the main culprit, so to speak, in regards to overpopulation, it's a quite easy thing to understand that the more humans there are, the less animals there will be.
Because humans take territory and when they take more territory, less trees, because they cut it down to build fires, basically.
And something to keep in mind too is that when the desert spreads, the ecosystem takes a hit.
And who knows what will happen when one unique flower or insect or frog or whatever it might be, when that disappears, it may have catastrophic consequences.
But of course, it's very controversial, politically incorrect to say that Africans need to have fewer children.
But it was part of the environmentalist agenda to talk about overpopulation up until about the 1970s.
And then it was dropped as a talking point because political correctness and cultural Marxism came up as like the dominant narratives and these sort of things and overpopulation doesn't suit with the social agendas.
And I find this very often with the left, that they have very contradictory agendas.
Because like with the climate deal that they propose here, they have a point in that they are saying like their reasoning is wrong.
Like they're saying we have to reduce CO2 and therefore we have to go to more green energies.
I think the main reason to do so isn't the CO2, but it's the economics behind it.
Oil extraction, like this is a bit of a meme talking about peak oil.
There is going to be a point of peak oil at some point and we can't quite predict when and maybe we have a few decades, maybe we have another century of oil.
The point is oil is not an infinite resource and you do have to start incalculating that into your economy.
And currently our economy is entirely reliant on cheap energy.
But shale oil from in the US for example which is heavily subsidized by the way but they get about 10 barrels of oil out of every barrel invested.
So that's a 10 on one investment return.
That's already quite a lot lower than it was in the 1960s.
For example when the first oil was in Iran where drill was 24 to 1 it was even higher in Texas in the oil boom and so on.
So oil extraction has been reducing but it's still profitable.
But it will get harder and harder to extract the oil.
So maybe at some point we still have oil but it will cost as much oil to get it as to as it's it's a one-on-one relation and at that point it's no point to do it because you're basically throwing money away.
So we do need to start planning for an economy and a system that can deal with that and the side effect might be that it's greener.
And the thing that people suggest always is more electric relying on electricity, solar panels, electrical cars, these sorts of things, windmills.
Now I in my work I deal with electricity and solar related things a lot.
So there's already quite a lot of research on how to get neighborhoods to work independently on just solar panels.
That's already quite an investment.
To get a neighborhood to have sufficient solar panels and to have its entire underground system and transformator houses and everything rerouted so that it's independent, that's quite a lot of investment.
But your main point there is storage.
You need to store that energy for when there's little sun or at night.
And that's a bit tricky because the most efficient batteries we have are lithium.
Lithium batteries, which you have in your phone.
But you also need those for cars.
Teslas, for example, have lithium batteries.
Lithium is all mined pretty much in Africa.
And there's a fairly small amount on Earth, so there's not enough to replace all cars.
I did some math on this.
There's about eight and a half million cars in circulations in the Netherlands.
The worldwide electrical car production at the moment is around 1.1 million cars per year worldwide.
That production might be ramped up, but even then it would take 10 years to replace the entire car in the Netherlands alone.
And due to economic scale reasons, it's obviously logical that's not going to happen that fast.
And then you run up to the physical limit of how many cars can you build with the lithium we have on earth.
So the logical conclusion is you're going to have to reduce the amount of cars in circulation and what kind of cars are you going to use because you're going to have to give certain priorities within the economy.
People are going to have to accept that it's not going to be as common for normal people to simply own a car for private transportation.
That's one part of it.
The other part of lithium mining is of course it's extremely polluting in Africa itself.
Huge pit mines that child labor, all the, you know, if you look at a lot of the raw materials that we use for our advanced technologies like cobalt, lithium, even simpler things like gold and iron, they're mined in Bangladesh and Africa and in Colombia by child labor in extremely poor conditions.
We basically just outsource all of our child labor to the third world.
We're still using Turkish hound labor.
Yeah, so if we're talking about reducing the transportation, because as we talked about earlier off camera, the reason we can have a global economy is that it's so cheap to transport all production has been outsourced, or not all.
Obviously I have clothing in Europe still, a shilling for my own brand.
Yeah, but so much of the production is going to China and Bangladesh and India because it's still cheap to just have it transported back here.
So a green nationalist economic platform would obviously be to focus a bit more on production in our own countries.
Because it's a logical thing.
At the moment we basically, okay, there's two factors in why it's cheap to produce in China.
There's absolutely no regulations.
If you want to go to live leaks and look up what kind of industrial disasters and poor infrastructure they have in China, you can have yourself a wheel over time.
And then there's the very cheap oil.
These two factors make it so that we can produce all of our clothing and all our heavy industry in China, all our steel and everything.
But especially if the cheap oil goes away, or if, for example, another factor might be we have oil for a while, but the Chinese start demanding good labor conditions and better wages, well, then what?
At some point you run out of third world countries to ship your industry to.
But oil, like looking at the oil thing, these mass oil tankers, you can't replace oil really with anything, except perhaps nuclear.
But it's incredibly expensive to start outfitting all your big cargo ships with nuclear reactors like they have on aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
That's not an option.
Solar panels are not functional.
So there's possibly a lot of research you could do.
I'm not an engineer, so maybe there's technologies you could have to replace oil within international shipping, but for the moment there is nothing.
So part of this new environmental agenda, I think, is you have to reroute your entire economy back to a more local level.
And I'm in favor of a very distributive model of economics.
If anyone knows, distributism was the solution proposed by the Catholic Church against socialism and liberalism in the 19th century.
And it's focused on local economics, small-scale businesses.
And I think that's the best model to work.
And the only reason that we have these mega corporations is because of all this cheap and easy transportation.
But yeah, if transportation becomes more expensive, then you're going to have to source a lot of your produce more locally.
You're going to have to source a lot of your raw materials and labor more locally.
This will drive wages up, this will drive demand for labor.
So that's part of a proper economic and environmental platform.
These two are very interlinked, economics and ecology, I think.
And that should be like a nationalist talking point and point to research more and debate more about, is how are we going to restructure our economy to function with ecological circular friendly policies and to compete with the left because I think the left talks a lot about the environment but they talk nonsense and they never talk about the important issues.
It's always doomsday scenarios about CO2 and the solutions they propose are often well the electrical cars.
They're basically saying I will just replace everything without the cost.
It's impossible to replace every car without electrical car.
It's incredibly expensive too.
If you're going to have every neighborhood rely on solar panels and electrical cars, you're going to have to upgrade your entire power grip and significantly.
All your ground cables are going to have to be pulled out of the ground and thickened just to handle all the extra part.
Power generation is another issue.
Solar panels might work for homes but heavy industry and mass consumption is not as efficient.
You need to fill fuels and fields and fields of them.
Then windmills run to the same problem you get with car batteries.
They rely on neodymium and other magnetic metals for the core of the engine.
And we also have a physically limited supply of that on it.
We might be able to fill the entire North Sea with windmills but the average windmill only generates 40 kilowatts hour.
Now nuclear power centers generate 2,000.
So nuclear power would be an actual solution and there's technologies like dual fluoride reactors and thorium which China is researching and we're not because we've got this paranoia about nuclear which we can blame on the left and left always against nuclear.
Well nuclear if you want to switch your entire system to an electrical system like you want more public transportation on electricity, you want your cars on electricity, all this, then you need nuclear.
You basically cannot generate enough power otherwise.
Or coal power centers is still an option because we have considerably more coal than we have oil but then again you're still basing it on a non-renewable resource right?
Yeah exactly.
So a typical leftist thing is this going out onto the streets demanding that someone else does something and this is a semi-visible threat, CO2, global warming, that sort of stuff.
Someone else needs to do something.
This rich white men in corporations need to take the responsibility but it's never ever about taking responsibility for yourself and this is so it's leftist environmentalism same thing as when it comes to being a victim in society.
It's always someone else's fault.
Someone else has to do it and as a right-wing environmentalist we obviously want to look at okay what can we start with?
What can we do ourselves?
I'm a vegetarian for example.
I've been for a very long time.
I've been an environmentalist longer than I've been in any way other way political.
And yeah it does like I try to avoid using car when necessary.
Try to use public transportation, try to not consume as much as other people sometimes do.
I have to say there are non-hypocritical leftists who do live by this, right?
Who are like they have a hippie lifestyle or there are some vast majority like if I look at the typical voter of the green left in this country they're a student who lives off Burger King and sodas and they basically they live like a decadent middle class lifestyle.
Yeah and I will be fair to some leftists as well the hippie Types who actually live outside, they do permaculture.
They are very close to nature.
They have a minimalistic impact upon just consumption.
So, if we're talking about, for me personally, I'm more concerned with plastic pollution, hormonal pollution.
A lot of women who are on the pill get out into the drinking water and turns the fish into having two genders, basically.
There was a study.
Yeah, it's really a meme turning the frogs gay, but it's also to a certain extent true.
And if my wish then would be all these young women who are out protesting against climate change, if they could look at themselves, I don't know how many of those are on the pill, I have no idea, but if they knew the environmental impact that has on there's so many talking points that never get put into the mission, it's always the doomsday CO2 stuff.
Sometimes you hear a little bit about plastics in the oceans, I have to say that there's not enough focus on it, and it's all focused too much on the West.
Yeah, definitely.
I will give a shout-out.
There's a company, Australian or American, I'm not sure, I will link them below for Ocean.
Their business model is they're selling bracelets.
I actually have one myself because I want to support them.
They go around just cleaning up plastic.
They have boats basically in river outlets, etc.
Just cleaning up.
And I know there are some guys researching automatic collectors of garbage.
And so that's when I look upon Mother Earth, etc.
It's just plastic pollution, one huge thing.
And again, I've said this in many videos because obviously it's quite tiresome for European or Western men to always get the blame.
And then we look at who is actually polluting the most when it comes to just throwing stuff into the 10 most polluted rivers around here.
To counter the doomsday thing as well, the Earth is a closed system.
All the energy that comes in gets used.
It's a closed system, nothing really comes out.
So yeah, plastics are still a product, although transformative, of Earth.
And what you'll see is that eventually there will be bacteria that will evolve to be able to consume plastics.
So nature will not be destroyed.
At most, it will be transformed.
We don't have the same animals we have now that we did 10,000 years ago.
Species come and go and die.
And I think there's something of a like reactionary, conservative attitude sometimes towards nature, where they think we should keep it just as it is today.
But that's just not the truth of how nature works.
We as people aren't even the same people we were a thousand years ago.
We've selected and self-domesticated in ways and we are transforming the earth and that's never going to stop.
Species that we cannot use are going to disappear.
That's simply the truth of it.
And I would like to add to this also a critique of Ted Kaczynski a little bit in that he says the industrial revolution is a disaster for mankind.
Yes, perhaps, but it's also irrevertible.
You can't blow it up because even if you were to kill most of the scientists and you blow up all the power grids and so on, there are still so many libraries and hard drives full of technology and there's so many engineers and professors walking around that if in a case of a complete reset of society you'd have a base level of technological knowledge that would jump start society again.
If you look at the Roman Empire when the Roman Empire fell, it didn't revert all the way back to the Neolithic.
The church is still preserving some knowledge and so on.
Another point against Kaczynski is he looks at it at a very individual level and the problem is if one group is still better technology.
Say the West says, okay, Kaczynski is right, we're going to stop with this whole technology thing, we're going back to a feudal society.
The Chinese aren't.
They'll take us over.
Technology is an arms race and you have to take that into account.
If you drop the edge, another group will conquer you.
Look at what we did when we had gunpowder and sailing ships in the rest of the world, did not.
Yeah, definitely.
And also, it's about what kind of people are we?
Are we explorers going forward or are we regressing?
For me personally, yeah, we are in a bad predicament right now.
Do we want to go back or do we want to go forward?
No, we want to use technology to get through these problems.
So it's, I don't want to say we need more technology, but we need to use technology to our advantage.
So I don't think it's a bad idea that we sit here with a nice camera and with a, yeah, when I upload this, people all over the world can see this.
I absolutely love that fact, and we can spread some good message perhaps.
And when I talked about the 4Ocean initiative, they use technology to clean up.
The only solution to our problems is to develop technologies to solve it.
Yeah, exactly.
You can develop more environmentally friendly technologies, but the solution isn't a completely abandoned technology.
Solution has many, many different aspects.
So, anyway, so to end on a like, what can we do note, we have a lot of leftist or default normists/slash leftists who are out now, young people who are, you know, probably most of them are good people, hot on the right place, and they see mother nature is in danger.
How do we as right-wing environmentalists, how do we get them to our cost?
Do you have any questions?
The main thing is just we can win the argument, right?
The question is getting a platform to speak it.
So, I think that if you firstly, what we need to do is amongst our own ranks to work out certain talking points.
Like, we have these talking points about waste.
We have these standardized little talking points that everyone knows to repeat.
Like, there's sort of like a meme, right?
Like, race and IQ.
And sports, sport differences in height, and all these SMPs.
These little talking points that people that don't even fundamentally understand what the reasoning behind it is, they can still repeat them.
So, we're doing to do the same thing sort of with an environmentalist and economical platform for the right is to have these little talking point memes that even the most basic follower can buy local, for example.
Buy local, support your local economy, support your local farmer.
These sorts of things.
So, we need to work on that platform, work on these sorts of memeable ideas.
And I think that's the project for a while we need to work on, you know, develop an actual proper platform and then find places where you can talk about it.
Like YouTube is one, but also the public square and in politics and so on.
Yeah, yeah.
So, good stuff.
And yeah, it's something, as I said, I will continue talking a bit more about this because it's important and because if we want to form a complete worldview, a complete political platform or cultural platform, we need to have everything in order.
It's not enough to just talk about, oh, this group of immigrants are bad or Islam is bad.
Yeah, exactly.
It's like we base our worldview upon ourselves.
We don't base our worldview upon being the opposite of leftists or the opposite of Muslims.
It's like they are who they are.
We are who we are.
We form our own platform here.
We try to make it as congruent with mother nature as possible, both actual nature and the metaphysical.
I think that's the whole thing about rightist politics: you're trying to stick as close as possible to natural law.
That isn't to say that some things can be changed by human hand, but some things also can't.
Like human behavior can be changed somewhat through self-selection.
We've done that as Europeans.
We've reduced our aggressiveness and so on.
We've upped our IQ basically.
Watch Alternative Hype's European Revolution video.
He's got a very good material on this.
And self-domestication talking points from the HPD community.
So there are some things we can change, but human nature still has points that if we are to change it, we become a different species practically.
And those points are immutable.
And the same thing with certain things in nature.
There's certain laws of gravity and motion that you cannot change.
That's right-wing politics is trying, I think, to stick as close as possible to the natural law and to say, okay, this is immutable and unchangeable.
This is what works best.
And that's what we should best our politics on.
Yeah, definitely.
And just end on that note for me personally.
I talk a lot about self-improvement.
So obviously, for me, I don't want to be deterministic in any way, shape, or form.
I always think you can change your own situation, but also being realistic about it.
If you are 160, you will never become a pro basketball player, but you might be good at something else.
So it's about believing in yourself, doing everything you can to better your position, but also taking biology into account.
So now we'll go and see that biology and beat the shit out of each other.
Yeah, definitely.
So we're going to do some training now, some sparring, beautiful nature.
