The main reason for me making this video is that I am sick of scholastic material asserting the idea that depopulation and/or population control is inevitable and necessary. I’m sick of being told that I will have less in the future and should accept that. This relates heavily to the other page on this site So what is Agenda 21? “Behind the Green Mask” which you should read and watch all the videos in.
In this video I show how textbooks, even ones that you might not even expect, advocate adaptation to austerity and descent culture as well as depopulation. If you are too lazy to listen to me talk for 11 minutes and watch the video for pictures, just fast forward to 2:40 in the video to see a chart which expresses how the elite and other people want the worlds population, resource, and energy use to start drastically declining.
David Holmgren uses the fear of global warming to push a certain agenda
I wonder if David Holmgren knows that his philosophy essentially plays right into elitist objectives such as depopulation, centralization, top-down control, less energy and resources, overall descent society, and etc.
Holmgren even claims in the book that he is basing much of his ideology off of the Club of Rome and their public reports from the 70s. – Read these quotes by climate activists for a better scope of their goals
One quote that stood out to me in this book (besides claiming that depopulation is essentially necessary numerous times) is this one…
“…Israelis and Greeks having coffee on the street cafe as close to the choking car fumes as possible may be more in touch with their world than affluent Swedes living in beautiful, clean and green Stockholm, worrying about Strontium 90, synthetic oestrogens or genetically modified organisms getting into their organically certified food.”
This basically means that we should regard rubbish as just a part of nature. In fact, it was written under a short, two-paragraph section entitled “Rubbish as Nature.” A potential student activist that reads this may be less interested in protesting or learning about these modern horrors. That’s why I call it propaganda.
Here is another quote from the book that seems ambiguous, and might not make too much sense at first.
“Having pinned the relevance of permaculture to a future with less energy, what might be its relevance in some brave new world of abundant energy and resources (nuclear, genetic engineering, space colonies, or any of the other hoped-for or feared possibilities)? I suspect that the impact of permaculture would contract to influence the lives of relatively isolated individuals and groups who hold to minimal energy and resource use for ethical reasons.”
And my response to this quote is:
- Who will these isolated individuals or groups of people that use less energy and resources be if they aren’t the Amish people? The people from the Hunger Games? I guess this book was mainly written for Amish people or cheap people? It couldn’t have been written for people concerned about the environment, like I originally thought it would be, as we can see by the first quote about regarding rubbish as nature.
- Why would anybody (unless they have some sort of religious conviction like the Amish) choose to live with less technology, resources, and energy? What ethical reason is there to use a tiny bit of electricity as opposed to enough consistant electricity to run things like a refrigerator or washer/dryer in your home? But after listening to Mr. Holmgren you may feel ashamed to live with appliances like these (Holmgren denounces solar panels in this book, and claims trees function as better solar energy collectors).
- If it wasn’t for corporations controlling and putting a price on everything and destroying the environment: energy and resources would be plentiful just enough for all, anyway. Why should we learn to live with less energy when it is the corporations that have kept that energy from us? It is possible to live with modern technologies (depending on which technologies and products are used) in a way that is conscious of safety, human health, environmental health and etc. without using excess energy or resources. Why would Holmgren rather us be using less energy and technology while decreasing (killing off) much of the global population? Why does Holmgren assert (to the point of advocation) that collapse is inevitable rather than try and do something about it?
Holmgren mentions keywords that you must research on your own if you really want to learn how to build natural landscapes. This seems to be indicative of the style of modern teaching. The book’s main purpose seems to be to offer a new way of thinking to the reader.
Also, I did learn some things from this book. My main gripe is that this book was taught in a permaculture course that I paid money to take. The course was supposed to be about constructing and maintaining natural landscapes, not living like I’m in the Hunger Games.
Holmgren takes a few jabs at the elite in this book, but it appears to be fluff to me.