Linkola tempered with Evola hints at how civilization can maintain the best of its “wildness” while still allowing for order in a spiritual sense.

I’m with Jim Morrison on this one — we need new frontiers, constantly, or we become stagnant and infighty.

Linkola sees nature as a thing to be artificially preserved by human society. He entertains a bourgeoisie picture-postcard vision of nature as a bucolic fantasy playground for a class of deep ecologist poet-philosophers and rulers of a working class relegated to the status of lesser beings. This may seem like a bizarre aberration of deep ecology but is in fact perfectly consistent with its anti-wildness, pro-civilization tendency. Linkola is not so much an environmentalist as he is a civilized elitist who sees the natural world as an ideological vehicle.

Linkola is squarely opposed to wildness. He once even criticized nature of having too much of it. Wind, according to Linkola, is a fault in nature; there should be no wind. This may seem odd at first, considering his mythical status as the supreme nature-lover, but it too fits neatly to his alienated vision. As artifacts preserved under glass domes are not upset by any winds, so should not Linkola’s bucolic fantasy. The wind to Linkola represents that which is changing, free, anarchic – wild. It is to be rejected.

Linkola has stated that domestication is the single positive achievement of mankind. Yet another seeming paradox. Domestication is the enslavement of nature to the benefit of permanent human civilization. Why would Linkola praise it as the one thing humanity was ever good for? The answer is quite obvious in light of the above: Linkola is not so much an environmentalist as he is a civilized elitist who sees nature as an extension of his own individuality.

It is perhaps true what the followers of Linkola say, that he is the most misunderstood of all environmental writers, but it is not Linkola’s detractors so much as his uncritical followers who most misrepresent his ideas. If they actually considered the contradicting parts of his works in relation to the rest, as opposed to merely thumbing through them in a frantic effort to avoid the ethical implications, they would perhaps see that his thinking is not only troubling but also incredibly confused ecologically.

If you want to get people to appreciate nature, get them to appreciate wildness as the essence of nature. If you want to alienate them from nature once and for all, by all means introduce them to the conservationist domestication philosophy of Pentti Linkola.

http://www.arktos.com/books/our-publications/pentti-linkola-can-life-prevail.html

It’s a very scary term these days, though.
It would take a special salesman to sell that one.

I see a resurgent interest in Fascism.
Which is one of the newest forms of government.
Hitler and Mussolini didn’t do it any favours, but in principle, it had a lot going for it. Once again, good ideas ruined by maniacs.

Probably any political system will ultimately fail, due to the preponderance of fools and maniacs. And there’s the rub.
There are now so many people in various degrees and flavours of mental illness, how does one define “normal” any more?

But why stop there? There are many qualities that may emerge from the human design as a given person. Among these are character, fitness and longevity, and intelligence.