[December 2021. Since many years, already, Grégoire Canlorbe is now totally retired from politics and no longer has any responsibility in any political party. His ideas also have much evolved since this article, which he doesn’t endorse anymore.]
By Grégoire Canlorbe, Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral
“The agreement of the Paris COP 21 was not signed to save the planet and to prevent us from roasting due to an imaginary temperature increase of +2°C. Behind all that masquerade is hidden, as always, the ugly face of power, greed, and profit. All the industrialists who are in favor of that commitment, which will ruin Europe and immensely impoverish its citizens, do so for the good reason they find in it a huge and easy source of income. As for NGOs, when they are not simply motivated by greed, their motive consists in a resolutely Malthusian ideology. Their object is to return the world to a very small population, on the order of a few hundred million people. To do so, they impoverish the world, remove the power of fossil fuel energies, and thus ensure that the number of deaths increases.”
Professor István Markó (1956 – 2017)
The eminent Davos man that is Emmanuel Macron does not only profess his faith in cosmopolitanism—namely, the refusal of sovereign nations, as well as of genetic and cultural differences (between men), and of moral boundaries (in the human heart).1 Climate activism, which fights for the reduction of the human emissions of carbon dioxide—in the name of the warming supposedly caused by those same emissions—occupies an essential place in the creed of the current French President, who does not hesitate to challenge Trump on this ground. Be it climate activism or cosmopolitanism, Macron’s conceptions lie in the lineage of the global superclass whose emissary he is.
By “global superclass,” an expression we owe to Samuel Huntington, and which owes its popularity to the political commentator David Rothkopf (who took it over), one must understand a transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people, whose gestation dates back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century and whose constitution accelerated with the fall of the Soviet bloc. Among its members, the global superclass includes as much financiers, and the leaders of various international institutions, as executives and business leaders, writers, university professors, NGO bosses, or movie stars. More or less informally, cosmopolitanism constitutes the ideology par excellence of the global superclass, but it is far from exhausting the gist of its worldview: climate activism, which we will see is in league with Neo-Malthusianism—and with what might be called Gaia’s cult—is equally well anchored among the members of the global superclass.
We intend to show here that climate activism, which one has to notice unfortunately is very largely endorsed, in France, among men and women (who claim to be) on the right, has no place in a right-wing program worthy of the name. In other words, we intend to show that the right must endorse climate-realism, by which we designate a posture which readily acknowledges that climatic conditions have never been stable but perpetually variable, and regards as highly improbable human responsibility for the “contemporary” warming; 2 which, without denying the need to preserve the environment, sees CO2 as a benefit, and not a pollutant; which, without losing sight of the damage occasionally caused by modern industry, encourages the exploitation of fossil fuels and nuclear power, and suspects a Neo-Malthusian plot to be at work behind the calls for the exit out of the nuclear power and coal. On the condition that it espouses climate-realism, the right will lead an authentic resistance to Emmanuel Macron—and, by extension, to the global superclass that mandated him.
From the questioning of anthropogenic CO2 to Gaia’s philosophy
The thesis of anthropogenic global warming, which is the basis of climate activism, argues that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, and that they have caused a warming of the global temperature that is worrying both for the planet and for humanity.3 Most often, this thesis falls within a broader vision of man and Nature, which could be called the doctrine (or philosophy) of Gaia; this vision is that of the human being as an entity foreign to Nature, and of modern industry as a parasitic activity that empties the Nature of its blood. This vision is also that of Nature as a protective and benevolent mother, who would never do harm to her children, and whom the human being, in turn, indulges in mishandling shamelessly with his exploitation of mineral and agricultural resources, his action on the climate, or his demographic development (which weighs in on resources).4
The truth on carbon dioxide
That carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the XIXth century, and that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect, this is attested; however, it is a dubious notion, at the very least, that these emissions are the determining factor of warming, to the extent that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is quite minor. In addition to representing only 0.04% of the composition of the air, CO2 has a greenhouse effect of 1: by comparison, water vapor, which has a greenhouse effect ten times more powerful, represents 2% of the composition of the air. With regard to the temperature recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age, and therefore the end of the XIXth century, there is indeed a rise, but the increase in question is only 0.8 degree centigrade. Therefore, it is not only unlikely that the human emissions of CO2 are involved in the warming: it is simply wrong, moreover, that the warming in question has risen to an alarming level.
The bad trial brought against CO2 does not stop there. In its denunciation of industry, hard ecologism—another way of referring to Gaia’s doctrine—is never as vehement, and as aberrant, as when it incriminates carbon dioxide as a pollutant for the planet. Far from damaging Nature, the human emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to make the planet greener, for the good reason that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Thus, despite deforestation, and as a result of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the air, the planet has gone green by about 20% over the last thirty years. The harmony with which anthropogenic CO2 is inserted into the cycles of Nature is all the greater as the “lung of the Earth,” in other words phytoplankton—which produces 70% of the oxygen present in the atmosphere—also bases its diet on carbon dioxide.
Vegetation, through photosynthesis, converts the CO2 from air, soil water, and sunlight into organic matter devoured by herbivores, omnivores, insects, and many bacteria and fungi. Several studies, exploiting observations of various kinds, found a 30% increase in the productivity of vegetation during the XXth century; that growth corresponds to the food of almost a quarter of all living beings on Earth today, which is the immense benefit of a greater carbon dioxide content in the air, and of very slightly colder temperatures, since the beginning, around 1860 – 1900, of the exit out of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1300 to 1860 and provoked in Europe as in China a great number of famines and distresses well documented by the written archives of those countries.
It is worth keeping in mind that despite the so often repeated claim that the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been so high, the rate in question is, in fact, extraordinarily low with respect to that of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm that it used to reach hundreds of millions of years ago. Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic—periods in which plants reached heights, and displayed levels of health, without comparison to the present period—look like the golden age of the vegetal world; and the crusade of the supporters of hard environmentalism to obtain the reduction of the current CO2 rate, which hardly exceeds 400 ppm, may well lead to an age of darkness for the vegetation. Engineers working in greenhouses know full well that plants are more fulfilling, and more resilient, in the presence of increased CO2 levels; and that conversely, a decreasing rate of CO2 is very detrimental to them.
Eventually, the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide from petroleum, coal, natural gas, and cement since 1751 are just one percent of the carbon that flows naturally between oceans, the atmosphere and vegetation and soils. By the admission of the IPCC (Figure 6-1, page 471 of the 2013’s AR5 WG1 report) a fifth of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed each year by the vegetation and the oceans of medium and high latitudes whose surface is relatively cold. The carbon dioxide released from the use of oil, coal, natural gas, and from cement production, represents only a small fraction (5% to 6% in 2017) of the carbon dioxide that each year enters the atmosphere and comes essentially (namely, almost 95%) from the degassing of the oceans—especially the zone between the tropics—and from the degassing of the soils where the dead vegetable matter rots. Those 5% or 6% are very well verified by the measurements of the quantities of the two isotopes 13 and 12 of the carbon from the air—measurements that have been made routinely for more than forty years.
The truth on the planet
Admittedly, the supporters of climate activism, whether they are, or not, “Davos men”—an accepted expression to designate, by synecdoche, the members of the global superclass—do not limit themselves to incriminating CO2 as a pollutant, and as the decisive factor of warming. They conceive of human industry—more particularly, coal and nuclear power—as a vampire who bleeds the unhappy planet dry; invoke the unavoidable exhaustion of resources, pillaged shamelessly by that same industry; point out the extinctions of which man has rendered himself guilty with his imprint on the environment.
Concerning the deleterious impact of the human emissions of CO2, one commonly represents to oneself the following facts as evidence that the so-called warming linked to the human emissions of carbon dioxide is damaging Nature: the level of seas and oceans would increase year after year, engulfing entire islands, while the level of glaciers and polar caps would decrease; besides, temperatures would register a gradual augmentation, while the frequency of extreme weather events and the area affected by droughts would also reach increasingly high levels.
Again, CO2 has a radiative effect in the troposphere that is completely negligible compared to that of water vapor; and since its concentration in air is also a consequence of the temperatures that modulate the degassing of the ocean, the responsibility of CO2 for the warming is all the more unlikely. There has been certainly an increase in the temperature recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age (which extends approximately from the beginning of the XIVth to the end of the XIXth century); and more specifically, an increase in temperatures at high and mid-latitudes with a maximum in the 1940s, then a cooling down till around 1975, and a new plateau since 2000. As we have already mentioned, the magnitude of the increase in question is quite modest: in fact, the figure of 0.8 degrees centigrade, which is often advanced, must be taken with caution, since the changes are much more marked at high latitudes than in the tropics.
The sea level is rising; but, as shown by hundreds of tide gauges, from about 1 mm / year to 3 mm / year depending on the movements of the soil that carries them: by comparison, a storm brings variations from one to several meters in a few hours. In the extreme majority of cases, rising water levels have therefore nothing to do with the engulfments that strike here and there (and that are most often due to a classical erosion effect).
For ice, it is necessary to distinguish between ice packs whose maximum surface at the end of winter, and thickness, vary from year to year with oddly fluctuations in opposite directions in the Arctic and Antarctica; the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which seem to continue to thicken, the snowfall offsetting the flow of glaciers or rivers of ice that, on the periphery of the ice cap, bring the ice to the sea; and some arctic glaciers that have been declining in recent decades. On average, the Artic ice level has not been decreasing since more than ten years; and ironically, as Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon reminds us, it is less ice, and not more, that polar bears need for their survival.5
It is an equally chimerical notion that extreme events, including tornadoes and storms, are on the rise: Richard Lindzen, a MIT physicist specializing in the atmosphere, recalls that the decrease in the temperature differential between the high latitudes of the hemisphere North and the zone between the tropics can only reduce the strength of atmospheric circulation, and therefore the frequency of extreme events. As for deserts, they have also been in recession for twenty years, as plants, in virtue of the increased rate of CO2 in the atmosphere, have less need for water, and can therefore thrive more in a desert environment.
In the end, there are probably many meteorological or industrial misfortunes the planet would rather do without; however, the rise in temperature seems to be quite natural, and its magnitude is not abnormal at all. The rise in water levels is not worrisome, either: these are the great storms that, every ten or one hundred years, cause damage; quite simply, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are thickening, and the state of the sea ice has no effect on the sea level. As for the frequency and the gravity of extreme events, they diminish, as well as the extent of the deserts in the world. CO2 is not a poison, it is even the essential food of plants; and as Lindzen eloquently summarizes, “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.”
Admittedly, the reality of pollution, whether or not it is linked to industry, cannot be denied: the Pacific trash vortex is a testament to the extent of pollution that man is capable of engendering. However, it is not self-evident to present the human being, let alone his industry, as necessarily polluting—and therefore, as necessarily toxic to the environment—; and this all the more as the treatment of industrial pollution improves day after day. One only has to think of the Beijing air, whose toxicity has considerably diminished, and is now out of proportion to the smog that used to reign in London a short while ago. The skyscraper-sized air-purification tower that China experiments in Xi’an is a testament to the care that man is capable of giving to the Creation that is left between his hands. With regard to pollution associated with nuclear energy, let us remember that no one died as a result of the nuclear accident that occurred in Fukushima.
Concerning the resources of the globe, the Neo-Malthusian conceptions are articulated around the conviction that, if economic growth exceeded demographic growth as of the Industrial Revolution, thus allowing the propulsion of demographic growth, this situation is not only unsustainable, but will culminate into the depletion of resources—including food resources. We will come back a little further on this subject. In the meantime, it is worth noting that the peak oil is constantly being pushed back, even though proponents of hard environmentalism have ceaselessly described it as imminent. In the words of the late István Markó, “Those who convey the idea that the finite character of resources renders infinite growth impossible, leave out of account the ability of the human being to innovate in our technology, to enrich our knowledge of nature, and to enhance our extraction strategies.”
Extinctions are an undeniable phenomenon: thus, over the last 600 years, about 800 species have disappeared; but it is absolutely false that only man is involved in extinctions. In the vast majority of cases, the species that have disappeared, or are jeopardized, owe their extinction to Nature itself: with the arrival of new invasive species or parasites (viruses, fungi, bacteria, and so on). If it happens to the human being to exert a deleterious imprint on his environment, and the species which it shelters, it is just as true that Nature is not hospitable by itself; the comfort of life does not fall from the sky, and it is at the cost of his efforts to make his environment hospitable that the human being has raised his condition. As István Markó once again reminds us, modern industry, though booed by hard environmentalism, has played a decisive role in this respect: “The victory of medicine, which is so often praised, would never have been possible, without the chemistry of fossil resources. It is the chemical and industrial advances in pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers that have enabled us to master our environment.”
From the concern for biodiversity to the struggle against cosmopolitanism
In approaching with an overview the popular speeches on pollution, the depletion of resources, warming, one cannot but notice that they revolve around the following idea: Nature is good, but man is bad; Nature would never harm her children, man is the only one responsible for extinctions and other catastrophes; whatever he undertakes, man is an evil creature whose imprint on Nature is necessarily novice, and in the final analysis, man is an intruder on Earth. This view of man’s relationships with Nature is opposed by the vision developed by Patrick Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace—an organization he was to distance himself from by reason of his deep disagreement with the hard ecologism eventually promoted by Greenpeace.
“Being an ecologist,” says Moore, “I see all life as one system on Earth. Ecology is about the interrelationships among all of the different forms of life, including humans of course. We came from nature, we evolved from nature in the same manner, evolutionarily, as all of the others species did. To see human as separate and, in a way, the only evil animal, is how it is now projected.” If the right, in France and elsewhere, wants to base its ecological policy on an image of Nature that works, a healthy and accurate conception of Nature, it must endorse ecologism in the sense of Patrick Moore—and, by extension, espouse climate-realism. On this condition, and only on this condition, the right will prove an authentic opponent of the global superclass, which not only endorses the cosmopolitanism legitimizing its existence, but the Gaia’s philosophy sustaining its climate activism (and as we shall see, its Neo-Malthusianism).
A word deserves to be said about the panda, whose strategies for survival and reproduction, instinctive, leave one to wonder about the angelic conception of nature as a mother concerned with the fate of her children. In addition to feeding exclusively on a certain type of bamboo, whose energy capacity varies during the year, and is very weak during the heat of the female, the panda is a solitary animal, avoiding its congeners. Therefore, the reproduction of the panda is highly hazardous; and this is not only because, for a though very short fertility time (namely, three days), the male and the female are struggling to meet each other, but because the male is generally too tired to engage in an intercourse (by reason of the low energy quality of bamboo at this time of the year). Mother Nature is not more benevolent to the panda than she is to the human being: she does not embrace her child that is the panda, she condemns him to extinction; and it is genuinely the human being which saves the panda.
That some species have died by the fault of man, and that man has the duty, not only not to undermine biodiversity, but to rescue endangered species, we certainly do not deny it. We will even venture to argue that the preservation of natural species, a fortiori the protection of endangered species—whether their disappearance is linked to the action of the human being or the cruelty of Mother Nature in person—is a goal we must seek for the same reason that cosmopolitanism must be fought: living creatures, including those social organisms that are human nations and ethnicities, must survive and flourish in the richness of their respective natures; the flowering and diversity of life must be recognized, preserved, sanctified.
From Gaia’s cult to the Neo-Malthusian profession of faith
The global superclass, which claims its attachment to biodiversity,6 however promotes a false and misanthropic view of Nature, to which it associates a cosmopolitan profession of faith that rejects ethno-cultural diversity. Because global warming is thought of as a global issue, climate activism is in league with the cosmopolitan ideal of a global government that would supplant, at last, sovereign nations, dissolve genetic and cultural identities, dispel political boundaries—be it to promote human flows or the flows of goods. However, this alliance goes beyond pragmatism: Davos men are not less sincere in their adherence to the cult of Gaia than they are in their veneration of the god-Humanity—a humanity free of national subdivisions, and of cultural and genetic specificities.
In addition to the demonization of carbon dioxide, an equally decisive aspect of Gaia’s philosophy consists in the belief that contemporary economic growth, which has outreached population growth, and thus allowed the leap forward of the world’s population, amounts to betraying Mother Nature: a betrayal for which the price to pay is the ineluctable disappearance of food resources (under the weight of demographic growth). Climate activism, Neo-Malthusianism, and cosmopolitanism are therefore narrowly solidary ideals; and one can expect a resolutely Neo-Malthusian agenda on the part of the world government that the global superclass, which acts under the pretext of fighting against global warming, aspires to develop from the UN.
If hard ecologism culminates into the rejection of fossil fuels and nuclear power, it is, first and foremost, because growth based on nuclear power and coal amounts to an emancipation from Nature—an emancipation that the clergy of Gaia likens to a transgression and a rape. In the words of economic historian E.A. Wrigley, the Industrial Revolution, by basing growth on fossil fuels, has allowed the emergence of a “world that no longer follows the rhythm of the sun and the seasons; a world in which the fortunes of men depend largely upon how he himself regulates the economy and not upon the vagaries of weather and harvest; a world in which poverty has become an optional state rather than a reflection of the necessary limitations of human productive powers.” This is what economist Deepak Lal, specialized in the comparative study of civilizations, has called “Promethean growth,” as opposed to mere “Smithian growth,” which consists of increasing the extent of the division of labor.
To a large extent, the horizon of hard ecologism, we believe, is to return to a traditional growth, thus Smithian, based on the division of labor and associated with an economy of organic type (or agrarian economy)—a growth limited by the area of cultivated land and supported by birth control. A more moderate, more pragmatic version of this program certainly promotes the exit out of nuclear power and coal, therefore the evacuation of Promethean growth (for the benefit of the return to Smithian growth); but professes an intermediary way between the return to an agrarian economy stricto sensu and the continuation along the path of fossil energies and nuclear power. This intermediate path consists in the development of so-called intermittent energies—namely, solar energy, tidal power, and wind power. Basically, it comes down to the same thing: the return to an economy slavishly linked to the vagaries of the sun, the wind, and the tides—and to a growth that no longer depends on the way man domesticates Nature, a growth whose only hope lies in the extension of the division of labor.7
In line with its blaming modern industry, hard ecologism also rejects Promethean growth for properly Neo-Malthusian reasons. Neo-Malthusianism consists in the conviction that current population growth, which has been propelled by the Industrial Revolution, and has been overtaken by economic growth, will lead ineluctably to the disappearance of food resources—and therefore, mass starvation. In the hope of preventing this catastrophic outcome for the human and the planet, Davos men, who sacrifice to Gaia, are ready to sacrifice economic and demographic development—and therefore, to impoverish the world and increase the number of deaths. As such, the fight against the human emissions of carbon dioxide is not only a response to the goal of saving the climate: it lies within a more fundamental struggle against the industries (namely, coal and nuclear power) that have allowed the demographic explosion of humanity.
Why France should lead the resistance against climate activism
As a remedy for the toxic conjectures of which the global superclass has made a habit, it is also good to read Patrick Moore on Neo-Malthusianism. Although, as Moore reminds us, Malthus, in his time, predicted with relentless logic that mass starvation was inevitable, given the linear character of food production, and the exponential character of population growth, “The truth is that has been reversed now.” Nowadays, population growth “is actually tapering off in terms of an exponential curve;” in contrast, “food production has become exponential in its ability to feed the entire world population,” which definitively discredits the criminal messianism of Davos men, for whom only the reduction of the population—through the renunciation of Promethean growth—will allow the preservation of food resources, and the survival of humanity.
In the end, here are, in our opinion, the three reasons why a proudly right-wing France will have to lead the resistance against climate activism. Firstly, the alleged anthropogenic global warming, which we have seen is far from being established, is thought of as a global problem; and as such, serves as a Trojan horse for the global superclass: promoting the reduction of the human emissions of carbon dioxide is very precisely a pretext for promoting the development of the UN into a global government.
Secondly, CO2 is far from being a poison, and even constitutes, as we have seen, the basic food of plants (and of phytoplankton species). France being a garden, it must become the Garden of Eden of right-wing ideals—freedom, territory, and aristocracy—; and to do this, CO2 emissions will have to be strongly encouraged. France, the spearhead of a freer world, but also greener, more territorial, more aristocratic—a more beautiful world, in short!
Thirdly, the fight against global warming conceals a more fundamental struggle against what we have called, taking over Deepak Lal’s expression, “Promethean growth:” namely, growth based on fossil resources and nuclear power, that which domesticates Nature, and which no longer requires population control to adjust the demography to the limit of cultivable land. Climate activism is genocide by deindustrialization: motivated by a Neo-Malthusian ideology (that does not take into account the progresses of agriculture, which have become exponential, and the henceforth linear character of population growth), it intends to reduce the world population by depriving it of the exploitation of fossil energies and nuclear power. In leading the resistance against climate activism, France will lead the resistance against the genocidal ambitions of the global superclass.8
The author of the article, Mr. Grégoire Canlorbe, is Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral, founded and chaired by Mr. Henry de Lesquen. Grégoire Canlorbe is also a supporter of the Association des Climato-Réalistes—the only climate-realist organization in France.
This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. István Markó, who gave his very last interview to Grégoire Canlorbe (which was related on Breitbart News Network). The author wishes to thank, besides, Mr. Camille Veyres, scientific expert on climate; Mr. Deepak Lal, economist, and former President of the Mont Pelerin Society; Mr. Patrick Moore, co-founder and former President of Greenpeace; Mr. Václav Klaus, former Czech President, and a spearhead of climate-realistic national-liberalism; Mr. Willie Soon, Harvard astrophysicist; and Mr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric physicist, for the precious discussions that fueled this article.
1 Rejecting cosmopolitanism does not mean rejecting free trade, globalized capitalism, or the “cultural dialogue” among nations. Cosmopolitanism attacks nations and their borders, calls for the dissolution of racial and cultural identities, preaches moral relativism: rejecting cosmopolitanism means rejecting this mortiferous program, and not rejecting globalization.
2 The allegedly contemporary warming is observed from 1975 to 1997, but neither before (cooling from 1945 to 1975) nor after (stagnation of temperatures from 1999 to 2015).
3 More specifically, the thesis of anthropogenic warming argues that the human emissions of CO2 have caused a warming of the order of a fraction of a degree Celsius, in an unobservable quantity, called the global average temperature, and that in thirty or forty years, there will be an increase of this temperature that will be worrying for the human and the planet.
4 The so-called scientific consensus on the decisive role of the human emissions of CO2 in global warming—and on the worrying, abnormally high character of this warming—does not exist. There is indeed a consensus, but this consensus is “ideological” and religious: it is motivated by the religion of Gaia, and not by logico-experimental considerations. The same can be said of the so-called scientific consensus on the non-existence of human races: science is by no means unanimous on the subject, and scientists who claim otherwise do so as religious, not as scientists. In this case, it is the religion of cosmopolitanism that drives them to lie.
5 In Willie Soon’s words, “Polar bears need less sea ice to be well fed and to reproduce. Why? Think about this for a minute: Polar bears eat a lot. Any large colony will need a great deal of food. The bears’ staple diet is seal blubber. But seals are a long way up the food chain. So a fully functional and healthy eco-system is required. And that means oceans warm enough to support the lower links in the food chain from plankton all the way up to seals.”
6 The “United Nations Decade on Biodiversity” (2011-2020) demonstrates the importance of the theme of biodiversity for the UN—and more fundamentally, the global superclass. Nevertheless, the biodiversity that one is trying to preserve here is quite relative: indeed, it does not extend to ethno-cultural diversity, even though it is perfectly legitimate to include among living beings the human ethnicities and nations, which are, strictly speaking, social organisms (or superorganisms).
7 Among the proponents of hard environmentalism, some go even further: in rejecting not only Promethean growth, hence modern industry, but the international division of labor that Smithian growth calls for. Producing “locally” is expected to allow a lower emission of CO2 levels, hence the rejection of capitalist globalization by this extreme version of Gaia’s doctrine. That said, the global superclass, which promotes globalization in the name of cosmopolitanism, cannot reject Smithian growth—and the international division of labor that it implies.
8 Three genocides prove at work in Western Europe. A genocide by substitution—the replacement of the indigenous populations by the migrants arriving en masse. A genocide by deindustrialization—the dismantling of nuclear power and fossil industries in favor of the impoverishment of the population (and of the increase in the number of deaths). And a genocide by malnutrition—the proliferation of cancer by reason of the sugar that has invaded the diet.