Today, those who deem themselves "Progressives" are indistinguishable from yesteryear's reactionaries. We see these would-be aristocrats in government, journalism, the academy, and so on: our intelligentsia, attempting to destroy the personal wealth of individuals to the point that men are not able to care for their own needs and those of their families and communities. It is a return, this reactionary programme, to the feudal ages. Man, without money, without a money economy, becomes again a peasant, tied to the land, incapable of free movement in search of his own needs and wants, what we might loosely call personal freedom.
It is an attempt to make all men "poor but spiritual" rather than the greedy, Earth-destroying things we are as free people in a money, that is to say a capital, marketplace. I call this reactionary, so-called Progressive, programme Povertarianism.
Take away, for example, a man's car and one has condemned a man to moving half the distance from home that he can walk in a day. He still has to get home at night. No car, no go no where.
In himself a man has no horse power. Horses have that, but not men. Man is not an efficient beast of burden. To the extent he is and to the extent there is nothing better than human labour, slavery results. No horse power, no freedom for men. Thus, I find myself lauding oil companies as saviours of Human Freedom. Go figure. But without them, and this seems to be a big push among Progressives, we will end up stuck on the farm with no money to move away from our oppression, stuck with whatever treatment the State wishes to impose on us. Many collectivists claim they don't like oil companies because they create conditions of ecological catastrophe. I think they lie. I think they would be quite happy with ecological catastrophe if only it were to provide them with further power over the common man. If we were to ban oil companies, ban cars, ban the works, we'd still see pollution, and poverty that would induce tears of joy in the Povertarian. We'd be starving peasants again, probably incapable of the violence of the French Revolution. For the Povertarian, what's not to love? This infantalisation of the masses, like taking the kid's car keys to punish him, is the nature of our governments' actions against us as free people. Locked down, impoverished, dependent on government for our every need. I call foul.
Let's turn to pollution, here in the form of horse manure. I bring this to our attention so we can see just how good it is to live in a Modern world. We really don't need ecology types telling us that we have to stop being wealthy. They can have it. To me, likely to you, ecology and anti-Modernism is a steaming pile of ... well, you'll see.
A one thousand pound horse produces approximately fifty pounds of manure per day or about ten tons per year. In addition, from six to ten gallons of urine is produced which when soaked up by bedding can constitute another fifty pounds daily. Therefore, four horses in stalls can produce 160,000 pounds of manure and wet bedding per year. That is a mountain of manure by anyone's standards.http://www.horsekeeping.com/
Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, Dairy and Animal Sciences dept. offers the standard measurement of:
"An average 1,000 pound horse produces nine tons of manure per year. That is approximately fifty pounds per day."
For some vastly different figures at a steep discount, and more information:
Stephen Davies, "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894," September 2004 • Volume: 54 • Issue: 9; rpt. Foundation for Economic Education. April 28, 2010
A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day. Consequently, the streets of nineteenth-century cities were covered by horse manure. This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. (See Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999])
The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.
*See Joel Tarr and Clay McShane, “The Centrality of the Horse to the Nineteenth Century American City,” in Raymond Mohl, ed., The Making of Urban America (New York: SR Publishers, 1997), pp. 105–30. See also Ralph Turvey, “Work Horses in Victorian London” at www.turvey.demon.co.uk.
This is interesting in that in 1792 when William Moorecroft opened the first veterinary surgery at 224 Oxford St, London, there were 150,000 horses in London alone, (over a quarrter million by the 1820s.)
See Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern. London: Phoenix Giant; rpt. 1996; p. 713.
Freedom means a number of things we might not immediately see in it. It's not a luxury. It's the difference between life and death. When we give up our freedoms we'll soon find ourselves buried alive under tonnes of manure. Our struggle isn't just against Islam, though Muslims are the stick our elitist Philosopher Kings like to use to beat us with, it's against the elitists themselves; but it's as much a matter of fighting our own need not to make trouble. Like oil, freedom isn't free. If we want either, we have to pay.
See also: http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.