My quest began with environmental concerns, and led to conservatism. The key point at which my thought pivoted was the realization that human destruction of the environment occurred because humans could not anticipate the consequence of their actions, or did not care, simply because no one is enforcing the principle of reality on them. Instead they exist in desires, judgments and feelings which focus on the nexus between the individual and the social group, leaving no concern for reality, God or nature (which are conflatable terms).
Consider this burst of juvenilia — in vino veritas and in childhood the same — from the German black metal band Absurd:
Thuringian plain, deep dark forest
Evil dwells on there in the woods
Snowcovered hills, cold winds blowing
Romantic place, is it understood ?!
Evil in the forest in Germany’s Green Heart !
Hateful savages, strong black minds
Out of the forest, kill the human kind
Burn the settlements and grow the woods
Until this romantic place is understood !
Animals, beasts, horrid landscape
Cause there are no signs of human living
When you look around no human living
Now this romantic place is understood !
It conveys a sentiment most of us find appealing: remove the humans, and leave the forest, which is beautiful in its pristine state. They did not intend it as a policy statement, more as a symbolic explanation of their turning away from what society regards as “good” to what it sees as “bad”: the removal of human life.
And yet they capture the essence of nature: a romantic, stormy and wild place which is not rational like humans, meaning that it does not make decisions by justifying them with higher principles. It responds only to cause effect reasoning, and it sets its goals by need and passion alone. In that is a higher reasoning than our human “higher” reasoning.
The environmental problem of humankind originates in bad governance. We allowed ourselves to grow with no greater principle than “we have more people, so we cut down more trees.” We then granted each person desire limited only by money, which means of course that they will all want houses and four kids and lots of products to brag about and cars to drive. We called this equality but really it was murder. Murder of our own future, and murder of our environment, which we may call ecocide or multiple genocide of non-human species.
I do not subscribe to the romanticization of nature, only to the knowledge of the romanticism of nature. Nature wants to kill you. Without the houses, medicines, soaps and barriers the force of nature would infest you with parasites, kill you with diseases, or outright tear your limbs apart. And yet that is its romance. Nature has no subterfuge, no sabotage and no deception. It is merely a struggle for survival by consumption of other things. (Somehow, trees have escaped the worst of it. Perhaps they are the wisest beings on the planet. I know that in their presence, I feel a great ancient wisdom that my puny human mind can barely begin to grasp.)
All of our environmental problems could be reduced by good leadership. Good leadership treats its people as a whole, not as individuals or a collective in which all must receive equal treatment. Like nature, it picks the best — the strongest, the healthiest, the most beautiful — and it elevates them above the rest because it wants more of them. It excludes those who contribute nothing or are evil. It rewards those who are excellent so they may enforce excellence on the others.
Our reasoning since the fall of the kings consists entirely of intermediates. Instead of leading, we choose paths by what is popular. Instead of finding the good, we treat everyone as an average (“equal”). Instead of having goals, we make each person an island in himself where his goals are the whims he has, which means those goals change constantly and amount to nothing but a steady accumulation in the landfill of the vestiges of his passing fascinations.
What does nature need? To be left alone, in enough land for itself. That means no fences, roads or weekenders in certain areas. Just forest, or prairie, or even desert in its pristine state. To do that however we must do what is eternally unpopular and tell people no. No, they cannot have houses in the outer suburbs. No, they cannot immigrate here. No, they cannot buy large cars. No, they cannot open another McDonald’s or dry cleaners and make profit from it. Leadership says no to those whose goals are not good; in our current society, we pretend that merely stopping some who are bad is the same thing, but it is not. Good leaders filter all that is incompatible with goals, instead of defending themselves lamely against known evils while the unknown slip past in droves.
Those who think you can be an “environmentalist” are nonsensical. The problem of the environment is the problem of human leadership. The problem of human leadership is egalitarianism, which means we cannot say no. Until the notion of equality falls, we will continue to grow out of control and consume more resources, no matter how many useless “green” products we produce or above-average IQ people we convince not to breed. Ecocide is our act, and it reflects our poor choices, thus we must reconsider how we make choices. Anything else is a surrogate act that will not achieve its goals.
Ob arm, ob reich, im Tode gleich. – Totentanz
Our world suffers a surplus of billions of people. I do not mean this from a materialistic and utilitarian perspective, but an ecological one, meaning that we have imposed upon our ecosystem a pernicious overload.
Planet Earth probably possesses enough resources to keep the current population alive, but a healthy ecosystem does not present such a low richness of species. As human habitation expands, we find we are left with cities, developed rural areas, and a few national parks to preserve natural land for human enjoyment. As a result, the only creatures we see on earth in the future will be humans and those that depend on humans, like the ever-present rats and pigeons of the city.
The alarming increase in population growth of humanity also suggests an unhealthy ecosystem. This is a threat not only in terms of quantity but through an unprecedented influence over the environment that goes far beyond what any Paleolithic man could have imagined. Certain human populations grow fastest because they rely on r-selected reproductive strategies, which emphasize survival through high birth rates. Combined with low mortality rates in first world countries, this creates a condition where human numbers always increase and would require a world cataclysmic event — comet strike, nuclear war, fatal pandemic — to decrease population by a statistically measurable amount.
The world has moved towards an almost absolute imperialism of exploitation activities, where what is not considered as urban, by default, becomes rural, but it is always an economically feasible resource. The mass migration to urban centers has resulted in population explosion and urban expansion, plus the desertification of soil surrounding urban centers, while rural life has been relegated to a simple activity for the exploitation of agricultural resources. The areas that do not show any human intervention are very few and in danger of extinction as the population expands, because each person added requires not just space to live but resources for the food, water and products necessary for survival.
Despite the many environmentally-friendly alternatives proposed throughout the decades, sustainability has revealed itself as a myth in the process of disintegration just like democracy and equality. We cannot “sustain” a reckless population that has no reverse gear and no off-switch. The idea that all of us can crowd into this planet and drive Priuses, eat tofu and live in 200 sq ft micro-houses misses the point that it is our need for resources and public spaces that crowds out nature.
The earth as an organism will survive us. We are in geological time a blip and as with most species, we will statistically be inclined to exceed our carrying capacity and eliminate ourselves through our inability to regulate our numbers. Life becomes a Moloch that demands death when the life that occupies earth serves no purpose other than to grow and feed, destroying the natural balance and diversity required for ecosystems to keep life as a whole — including non-human life — alive.
Is there is a vital balance if death is not present? If death is the absence of life, then death is the default condition of all, and in order of a balance to protect life, death must be accepted as part of the universe. Death is part of the life cycle, and the fact that life is a struggle against death that can be stopped only with death itself makes death something natural, normal, and necessary. And as we see that the absence of death leads to death for all, we realize the wisdom of this natural design.
Long Live Death!
The Left accuses the rest of us of not sharing. We always have too much of some kind of privilege of benefit: money, position, comfort or even sanity.
In their view, we are perpetually excluding them for unfair reasons or no reason at all. As a result they, the enlightened Left, must teach us to share with others… or they’ll guillotine us.
The biggest problem with their narrative, I mean besides its nature as a parasitic justification for theft, is that it is incorrect. We are not being selfish; we are preserving ourselves.
On the right, we have always stood for preservation in the form of a more complex word, “to conserve.” Conservation means not just preservation, but nurturing and maintenance. It’s the difference between a museum piece and a working farm.
Every now and then the Left lets slip that their agenda is not really about what they say it is. It is about the fact that someone somewhere has something that they want, and they will demand it unless beaten back with sticks thicker than our thumbs.
Their biggest gambit in the last century or two has been to re-style language so that our preservation somehow becomes elitism, mainly because all of us hate the idea of being cut out from something because we don’t meet the standards of the club. But smart marketing is not reality, and could be the ultimate stupidity in using what sounds clever to replace what is known to be true.
For an example of preservation in action, check out this racist. His tribe of indigenous individuals are unable to compete with foreign-origin labor that quite honestly works harder and may simply have a higher birth rate. While the indigenous individuals are rare and have many traits that the others do not, including the tendency to adopt orphans from nearby homes, they are ultimately slowly being replaced by the more generic outsiders. And this racist fellow is trying to prevent that assimilation:
A spokesman for Prince Charles said: “The red squirrel is a most cherished and iconic national species, and, as Patron of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, The Prince of Wales keenly supports all efforts to conserve and promote their diminishing numbers.
“Where appropriate, this includes the humane and lawful control of grey squirrels as well as other measures to enhance the natural habitat of reds across the Duchy of Cornwall estate, in accordance with established estate management practices.”
There are 17 red squirrel strongholds in northern England with an estimated 140,000 red squirrels left in Britain, but there are thought to be more than 2.5 million greys, according to the Forestry Commission.
The Prince worries that the red squirrels will cease to exist as a result of biological genocide. The greys, who find life easier here than in their homelands, will simply replace them. What was unique and rare will vanish and be replaced by what is generic, average and adapted well to breed and thrive, but at the expense of balance in a very intricate local ecosystem.
But those grey squirrels are people too! All squirrels are equal, they all bleed red, and the color of their fur just doesn’t matter. We are a nation now formed not by the genetics of our ancestors, but by our newfound allegiance to the idea of equality… even if that really doesn’t give us much to go on. Even if there are 18 greys for every red, the reds should just accept this as the new order and lie back and think of England, then let go.
Thanks to a five decade association between the two in the West, environmentalism and liberalism seem to be joined at the hip. This was not always so, and the original “green” movement would never have approved of what liberalism has converted it into.
Green criticisms of liberalism start with the realization that liberal policies create results contrary to green interests. Liberalism, based in appearance of intent more than consequences, will counter that it wants to help green interests by adding them to its agenda. Unfortunately the rest of the agenda contradicts those green interests.
If we are serious at all about reversing ecocide, our thinking will direct itself as keeping population low so that most of the land can remain in its natural state and not be over-exploited. Since pre-technological times, humans have exterminated species and created wastelands by the simple presence of too many humans. Overfishing arises from a need (and a financial opportunity) to feed more people. The same is true of cutting down the forests which absorb most of our pollution and return to us fresh oxygen.
Even the global warming debate entirely misses this point. What could reverse the presence of atmospheric carbon? Millions of acres of trees absorbing it, for starters. But we as humans follow our individual desires, which means that if we can sign the dotted line for the loan to get the suburban house, developers will bulldoze another thousand acres and make a subdivision. Then, since those developers need to stay employed, they will find more people who might want such housing and offer it to them at a lower rate. Like most things human, our tool has now become our master.
Ideally — from an environmentalist perspective — humans would view nature as an equal partner because we depend on it for air, water and food. Creating nature as an equal partner however would require us setting aside half of the land for nature alone and leaving it in its pristine state, much as happened when aristocrats owned exclusive hunting preserves. This would require humans to leave half of all of the continents in their natural state in all ecosystems and climactic types, not just the ones we cannot use for suburbs. This alone would reverse alleged global warming and ecocide. It would also directly obstruct leftist objectives such as immigration, welfare and social mobility.
Naturally this offends our tail-wags-dog modern myth that (economic) growth is essential. Instead of creating growth by creating new opportunity, like space travel or new technologies, humans have opted to create growth by population surge which produces more dependents and thus strengthens our ability to enforce control through public opinion. Against this I raise an example from literature.
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien writes about a mysterious ring that essentially dominates the minds of those who possess it. Many theories have been written about the ring and what it symbolizes, including that it is a metaphor for technology or even language itself. I suggest that Tolkien told us exactly what the ring meant: it is referred to as “the ring of power,” and power is what it wields. We might describe power as meaning the ability to control without a natural parallel, or power for its own sake. This separates the type of power the ring wields, which is a freedom from natural consequences, from the might of a king which involves nurturing what exists and improving its prospects. The ring allows a person to detach from the rules of nature and in secret — because its power hides them from view — doing what they wish for themselves alone.
Power is the ability to control others, to grow civilization and to have wealth and money. By going down this path we enter into an age of things for their own sake: economy for its own sake, military strength for its own sake, control of citizens for that purpose alone. This detaches power from its objects and makes it an isolated commodity that can be sought to fill the void in our souls rather than to create that which might do so. This power represents a fundamental truth of civilization as a managed, directed process: it’s a trap.
Civilization kills populations. Where the reign of kings provides a stable life, civilization inevitably advances for its own sake. Almost no one will be willing to argue against “benefits” to society at large that come from expanding its power. And so people stop pursuing quality of life and start pursuing power itself. They can be wealthier and stronger by expanding civilization and so they do it; they can control nature and others with technology and so they exploit it. Civilization leads people into power at which point they become reckless because the only standard is what pleases other people by telling them what they want to hear. But that, too, is power; the oldest form of power is the nocturnal mob assembled to force a single issue on others and retreat in anonymity before daylight makes the consequences known.
By the nature of trying to please its citizens in order to create power, civilization becomes oppressive. Success at manipulating others is a salesman’s game, a merchant Reich. And yet it improves nothing, but the human ego prefers feeling strong to knowing that life will turn out well. What humans need is not growth but stability, safety not chaotic but “interesting” social life, and freedom from worry instead of liberty to engage in self- and socially-destructive behaviors. Power contradicts all of these needs because it must make people subservient, much as the forces of Mordor do in The Lord of the Rings, and thus compel them to need their leaders. This enables leaders to use these people as fodder for power, whether growing industry, war or simply making them neurotic and automatically obedient.
We should look at our human needs first and then make our methods serve those. We need less time at the job and more time making our families stable and happy. Kids need mothers at home and safe neighborhoods. These do not happen with political objectives which are the root of power. They happen when culture values sanity over power and we put leaders in charge who can restrain us from our own impulse control issues. Otherwise, like fat people with gift cards at a donut shop, we become our own worst enemy.
Manipulating large groups of people requires deception that is plausible enough to take the place of what they should actually be thinking. This leads toward a need to create symbolic issues that conceal complex problems behind simple yes/no style plans. These plans universally revolve around quantity, meaning replacement of one institution with another, instead of qualitative improvement, or taking what exists and improving it (similar to evolution) until it works.
As stated here before, the “climate change” propaganda creates a vast boondoggle bonanza that empowers just about any idiot to do anything and justify it as reducing carbon, raising awareness or any of a dozen other hare-brained justifications that give good cover to larceny and parasitism. Media tells us that climate change is universally accepted and we’d have to be poor, ignorant, and bigoted morons to consider any other truth. Most people want to rise in life, so they’ll never admit to such unfashionable views.
The more likely issue remains the changes humans have wrought to the environment by changing what’s on the surface of Earth. The more people we produce, the more farms we need and the more land we cover in concrete. The result is a radical adjustment in how much land becomes available for vegetation and wildlife. As it turns out, this is crucial, because the amount of vegetation expands with the rise of carbon in the atmosphere, mainly because CO2 is a vital nutrient that plants use in the photosynthetic process.
A recent study found that a large rise in CO2 sequestration is due to growth of plant life in Australia:
Each year, land plants and the ocean absorb about half of the 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.
On average, says Canadell, carbon sinks on land absorb around 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon, but in 2011 this figure spiked to about 4.1 billion, accompanied by a big drop in atmospheric CO2.
“The land had removed more anthropogenic CO2 than ever before recorded,” he says.
The first thing to note here is that this is in fact reason for optimism. The Earth is capable of absorbing CO2 at places where people did not expect it to occur:
“We saw this incredible carbon sink in the southern hemisphere,” says Canadell. “The semi-arid regions were playing the biggest role and particularly the grassy component.”
“We never thought savannahs of the world could potentially have this effect.”
Even more surprising, he says, was that 60 per cent of the extra plant growth was in Australia’s semi-arid areas, north of Alice Springs.
The authors argue that much of the carbon sequestered may soon be emitted again, because of droughts, but that’s not a certainty. Part of the reason to be optimistic is because plants are not just passive recipients of climatic conditions, rather, plants help engineer their own local climate, creating the conditions in which more plants can grow.
Studies show that Australia’s droughts are largely caused by the direct effects of land clearing, rather than greenhouse gas dependent climate change. This is because forests have the ability to soak up excessive rain during wet periods, while releasing water during excessively dry periods.
If forced to choose between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of native vegetation, it’s very clear to me personally that the destruction of native vegetation is the worse evil of the two by far. Admittedly, part of that is due to the fact that I am convinced that we will be incapable of maintaining the industrial machine for much longer. Gail Tverberg believes that we simply won’t have enough oil to emit enough CO2 to reach above a two degree temperature increase.
There are large positive feedbacks involved in climate change that nearly everyone is familiar with, but what is very rarely if ever discussed are the significant negative feedbacks produced by plants. Trees respond to an increase in temperatures by producing more biogenic organic volatile compounds, which create a type of fog that reflects light and reduces temperatures. A similar mechanism occurs in the oceans, where plankton produces dimethyl sulfide, which changes albedo by encouraging the formation of clouds. An increase in temperatures produces an increase in plankton, which thus increases the amount of dimethyl sulfide. Life attempts to create the type of conditions suitable for life.
Of course, the important point to take home is that this negative feedback is highly dependent on a functioning biosphere. If there are no forests, there are no biogenic organic volatile compounds. Trying to prevent climate change is a very noble goal, but it increasingly appears doomed. If you tell governments to stop using fossil fuels, you tell them: Be sure to use your fossil fuels now, before a global carbon tax agreement makes them worthless or a successful alternative makes them worthless. Governments are actually now in a race to exploit whatever fossil fuels they still have, before the world agrees not to use any fossil fuels anymore. In addition, with solutions like biofuel, the cure is worse than the disease.
Even more, you supplant a realistic plan — clear spaces for plants — with an unrealistic one, which is to “raise awareness” such that every person is guilted into buying green products, buying cars with expensive and toxic batteries, giving carbon cap subsidies to the third world, and similar symbolic surrogate activities which don’t address the actual problem. Further, this mistaken plan allows destructive practices like subsidizing population growth, importing immigrants and continued building of cities to expand rather than contract.
Population distinguishes this issue. Although a guy in the Democratic Republic of Congo may use a fraction of the fossil fuels you use, the difference between the amount of land required to feed the two of you is much smaller. Nobody wants to touch this problem, as sadly people would rather pretend that a problem of this magnitude will simply be solved by STEM-nerds developing a new techno-fix and a variety of irrelevant politically correct feel-good measures.
By not creating room for other countries to send their excess people abroad, those countries become forced to address their own internal population problem. This type of insanity, where countries that aim to be at the forefront when it comes to preventing climate change continue to let their populations grow despite their low fertility rate is made possible by a technocratic mathematical vision that treats trees not as life-creating participants in their own local climate, but rather as carbon stocks that can be chopped down, as long as you make sure to build hideous wind mills or place solar panels on your roofs to meet your CO2 quota.
No politician will find these issues to be winners at the ballot-box, which people choose easy options and simplistic lies in favor of complex truths and long-term commitments. Thus they invent the surrogates we suffer under to this day, oblivious to the consequences because those in turn create new problems which create new opportunities for popularity at the voting booth. Democracy makes itself into a product and the result is a loss of ability to clear aside the ersatz issues and focus on the actual problem.
Humans want to be heard. Each person must then come up with a unique contribution. Thus they all interject their own view of something, and the result is chatter. First, because they’re creating chaos. Second, because they’re not focusing on reality. They’re focusing on sounding cool, unique, ironic, innovative, radical, etc.
Thus with the global warming debate, or any debate, the first thing to do is separate real data from hype. Individuals hype to be cool, science labs hype to be in the news, governments hype to mobilize the sluggish and exhausted citizenry. For this reason, while the biggest media empire in history is bashing away at the global warming claim, I suggest we look locally instead.
If your weather is weird, indulge in a thought experiment: look out the window. How much concrete do you see? Most of us live within close proximity to cities which are mostly parking lot, road and concrete buildings. The effect of this concrete is to disrupt the weather patterns nearby.
Concrete reflects heat backward and displaces air currents that previously ran over the area. It repels water causing flash flooding and then when that water is not absorbed into the dirt, a drought. It removes the tree cover that processed moisture and sunlight and avoided intense weather patterns, mellowing the intensity by converting it into other products.
“Global warming” is — as I’ve said before — a proxy. No one looked up what “proxy” meant, so here is what it means: a proxy is a symbolic activity through which humans discharge their fears of more complex and broad-reaching things. If you are secretly afraid your government is collapsing, you may find a proxy in watching a certain news show or joining a radical political group.
What global warming stands for is our general fear that we’re screwing up the environment. Most people stop there however. They can’t face that the problem is too many people, and for each new one added, that we add more parking lots. Humans = concrete. We need places to shop, get medical care, go to school, work, exercise, etc. in addition to whatever tiny spaces we live in.
Thus humanity expands like poured pancake dough on a hot griddle. With it comes the concrete, covering every square inch that isn’t a decorative garden. The natural process is disrupted, and thus the weather starts screwing up. Global warming? Try every local community getting it wrong at the same time, like a whole audience applauding at the wrong moments during a play.
Most political issues are “proxies,” or highly visual events which stand for more complex underlying needs. Symbols tend to hide their actual meaning because that to which they refer is bigger than the symbol, and yet people tend to treat the symbols literally. Global warming symbolizes our impact on the environment as a whole, and the anti-carbon agenda represents our hope that we can avoid changing all that needs changing and instead focus on just one aspect.
A more sensible thought is to look at the basic equation of human impact:
D = P x I
Damage (D) is the result of Population (P) times Impact Per Person (I). This simplifies a complex issue to demonstrate a simple fact.
That fact is that population has more effect than changing impact. This equation shows us two scales along which we can slide. We can adjust Impact Per Person, which lowers Damage. Alternately, we can lower Population which also lowers Damage. The glitch is that if we adjust Impact Per Person, and population keeps growing, we end up with the same Damage as we would have had we kept Impact Per Person the same.
Thus, a world of seven billion people living in mud huts, eating vegan diets grown in their own gardens, and walking instead of driving has the same effect as perhaps three billion people living 1960s American-style lifestyles. Trying to reduce impact becomes a losing game once we see how low we would have to make impact in order to accommodate our sprawling population. Even more, that misses out on the real problem brought on by overpopulation, which is land overuse.
Recently Ašţal Journal published an insight into the overpopulation dilemma:
John Barry writes:
The remarkable thing is that the real cause of global warming is rarely mentioned. It is the elephant in the room. Everyone can see it but no one wants to speak about it, presumably because this subject is a contentious one and challenges the core beliefs of many religions.
The undeniable fact is that we, the human race, are the cause of our own difficulties and unless we reduce our numbers, we will self-destruct.
In our last issue, we were supporting very similar views:
That climate change and its cowardly short-term compromises may gather so much attention while overpopulation remains in the shadows as the elephant in the room is an eternal source of contrived astonishment. Out of all the explanations provided for the increase in carbon dioxide production, overpopulation should figure again and again at the very top. The pressure that overpopulation puts on the planet has become ―to employ a fashionable word― unsustainable; as unsustainable as the collective forgetting that pervades throughout the majority of countries, from decision-makers to social scientists, from educators to laymen. What is most disturbing and enraging is that it has been more than a half-century since the full disastrous consequences of population explosion have been worked out, and that so little progress has been made, so little goodwill displayed, so little awareness raised.
Even our thinking about the environment itself is based in the same denial described above that denies global warming, as another source writes:
The very fact that we debate global warming endlessly while ignoring this ongoing process of decline shows that we, as a species, are in denial about our effects on our natural world. As products of our modern era, we’re accustomed to using a process:
- Isolate a factor.
- Norm to some iterative constant.
- Reduce to cause-effect logic, exploit.
Despite its effectiveness for producing internal combustion engines and digital computers, this process is useless for understanding architectonic systems, or systems where the parts interact to form a self-supporting whole, meaning that no part functions as a pivot but all parts are in some way pivotal. Dragonflies eat mosquitoes, and bluejays eat dragonflies; bluejay excretory waste feeds yeast, which grows enough yeast to break down organic products and attract more advanced creatures, and these return nutrients to the earth to grow plants which in turn feed male and immature mosquitoes. It’s a giant cycle composed of many counter-dependent internal cycles.
People are afraid to face these simple truths, so they invent symbols to use as proxies. If we just each buy a Prius and eat organic local foods, we can prevail. Right? Well, no. Everyone else will go on doing what they’re doing and create the same catastrophe. Even watching wealthy first worlders decide they’re going to avoid having children “for the environment” reeks of this same mentality. This is symbolic, not a look at actual reality.
Actual reality is that Earth is finite and humans, aided by first world modes of living, are seemingly infinite. We will eventually expand to cover every livable space and then tackle the rest. This will happen because we cannot say NO to anyone, since they are all equal. If someone shows up, and “just” wants a place to live, go to school, work, hospitals, roads, food, cars, etc., who are we to say no? — if you want to know why we need arrogant kings, there’s one answer.
Something else to consider is that blaming technology is a dead end. What enabled this growth was not technology per se, but the level of organization common to a first world mode of living. We use soap; we deposit feces away from food; we remove vermin and stop epidemics. This enables us to grow like an unchecked weed. And yet, it also dooms us to the suffocation of overgrowth, which either we will stop or nature will use to stop us.
Like all human problems, the crisis begins within. It is dishonesty (and thus, sin) to take an abstraction from nature and proclaim that the symbol stands for the whole. It is dishonesty to ignore reality in favor of a proxy or symbol because it is easier to understand the symbol and thus to communicate it to others and bring them onboard. As it is outside our heads, inside our heads we are also suffocating from an overgrowth of lies because the simplicity of truth is something we fear.
** Frequently Asked Questions about: **
** NATIONALISM **
** Nationalism FAQ **
** Revision 1.0 - January 20, 2014 **
** by Brett Stevens **
** http://www.amerika.org/ **
Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is described by ethnic group and its culture, contrasts the dominant idea of the last 200 years which is that of the arbitrary geographical region united by belief in liberal ideology, cosmopolitanism and internationalism/globalism. As the organic alternative to ideological government, nationalism defends unique attributes of individual ethnic groups, and posits a world order in which culture enforced by communities, not ideological rules enforced by centralized government, be used to regulate local communities.
1.1 What is Nationalism?
1.2 What is not Nationalism?
1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?
1.4 Is it a political system?
1.5 List of famous nationalists
2.1 Reasons for Nationalism
2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement
2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government
2.4 Identitarian advantages
3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?
3.2 Is violence required?
3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?
3.4 How would this happen worldwide?
4.1 About this FAQ
4.2 About the Author
1.1 What is Nationalism?
Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.
As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.
The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.” These are not compatible with the view of nation that was common in history up until the last century:
The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary.
Since the French Revolution in 1789, the majority of political forces in the West have been opposed to nationalism, which is the idea that the ethnic group defines the nation. The opposite is the “proposition nation” which is the idea that people can be united by ideology or finance alone.
Nationalism supports ethnic self-determination, meaning that any group which combines culture (customs, learning, art, oral histories) with heritage (ethnicity, race, tribal identity) is allowed to “define” its own borders, laws, and cultural change.
1.2 What is not Nationalism?
It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won’t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it’ll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. – Malcolm X
Nationalism is neither the idea of racial supremacy nor its refutation. It is a context to racial aptitude, meaning that in each nation, those who are desired there are those from the nation only.
It leaves aside other questions in favor of this rule alone. Since nationalism focuses on the smallest natural division among human populations, the ethnic group or ethny, it is not racialism per se but a defense of a human variation on a finer scale.
Modern usage tends to like to conflate “nationalism” with “patriotism,” where one who has patriotism for his nation state and its proposition ideology is a “nationalist.” This is obviously the opposite of what nationalism actually is and is used this way to muddy the waters of perception on this important issue.
Nationalism is tied to identitarian politics and integralist social systems. Identitarian politics holds that a group requires strong identity as a prerequisite to having cultural consensus about moral values and behavior; integralist social systems advocate a unity between social institutions based upon a strong underlying values system such as the one delivered by culture.
For more questions on race, see The Race FAQ by John Goodrum.
1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?
Pan-Nationalism is the idea of nationalism for every ethnic group on earth. Instead of dividing us, as politics does, this acknowledges that even ethnic groups in competition have the same ultimate goal, which is separation and self-determination.
Pan-Nationalism sees all nationalists as comrades in a struggle for a world order where ethnic groups can determine they want nationalism and thus exclude all others so that ethnic self-determination can take place.
In contrast to racism, which suggests that groups can co-exist and compete and one group will come out above the others by inherent superiority, Pan-Nationalism suggests that groups cannot co-exist because each needs the right to self-define, and that racism occurs only when this right is blocked.
1.4 Is it a political system?
Nationalism is a meta-political system in that it is a choice made by a society about how it shall be organized. Thus it is the container in which politics is decided.
There are essentially two forms of politics, “ideological” and “organic.” Organic and integralist beliefs like identitarian divide people into groups by heritage and shared values, and from those shared values, build a system of natural law. Ideological beliefs attract people to a quest to create “what should be” and then define the group by obedience to that standard. Organic systems tend to focus on things that are bigger than the individual; ideological systems tend to focus on the individual, and in uniting them into a “collective” which implements its ideology through strong institutions.
For this reason, while nationalism is not a political system, it tends to exclude non-organic political systems from its point of view.
1.5 List of famous nationalists
* Theodor Herzl – Conceptualizer of Israel. “Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve…He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly.” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Herzl.html)
* Marcus Garvey – A nationalist who advocated a return to Africa for African people worldwide, Marcus Garvey encouraged identitarian pride among Africans in diaspora and founded several companies with the intent of settling in Liberia.
* Chiang Kai-Shek – The leader of the nationalist movement in China, Chiang Kai-Shek united his people and moved them toward modernity through education, national pride and a strong cultural identity.
* Osiris Akkebala – Contemporary African-American prophet and leader Osiris Akkebala writes on topics of nationalism, religion, culture and self-determination, urging Africans to adopt more stringent standards and live by cultural norms, rejecting the assimilationist norms of society around them.
* Oswald Moseley – Early English Nationalist leader Oswald Moseley saw that mass immigration would create a muddle of English culture, leading to a police state fractured by internal ethnic and class violence. Fifty years later, all of his predictions have come true.
2.1 Reasons for Nationalism
Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic “identity nationalism” and Liberal “civic nationalism” were essentially middle class movements. – Modern History Sourcebook,
Nationalism provides an alternative to the type of modern government that, starting in moderate liberalism, inevitably drifts toward a powerful nanny state, a globalist reach, and the gradual replacement of all culture with crass materialism and control by financial interests.
By investing each group in pride in who it is, and encouraging the development of a cultural value system outside of government, nationalism provides localized resistance to global rule and cosmopolitan culture. Internationalism, and the desire for a common global culture, commerce and people, is destruction of our natural diversity in favor for a more machine-parsable humanity, in addition to being an inevitable path toward the type of society described in either (a) George Orwell’s “1984” and/or (b) Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Vaclav Havel’s “Power of the Powerless.”
The Nationalist way of life has several advantages:
Each ethnic group becomes a laboratory of humanity. It is free to develop its own theories (stored in “culture” and through the resulting social selection, “heritage”) about the process of civilization. It then becomes the test case for those theories and values systems.
Groups do not need to dominate others to succeed, but triumph by achieving self-sustenance with no credibly-formed “enemies.” Nationalism has existed through all written history as the way by which tribes protect themselves against assimilation while refining their own abilities.
Because ideas and their corresponding cultural and genetic ideals are kept important in localized ways in political units of medium size criteria, the multitude of details and arguments and histories that make up any idea are kept consolidated at their origin. Natural diversity and unique variation is preserved.
4. Deep ecology
Regulation as a means of protecting the environment has failed. Under the regulatory agenda, population has skyrocketed to over twice the maximum sensible carrying capacity. In addition, regulation has not been able to limit the reckless behavior of individuals and the profit-seeking motives of even small businesses that cause them to sacrifice the environment. We will never have enough police and laws to enforce these ideals. However, if we build them into each citizen with a strong link between identity, land, culture and heritage, society becomes self-enforcing with people defending the land and its flora/fauna as an extension of themselves.
2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement
The model of the ideological state is based on elites interpreting ideology, then making rules, and then the centralized power of the state and its institutions enforcing these on the citizens. The weak point in this system is that it requires a certain number of infallible, incorruptible and omniscient police to enforce its rules.
In reality, rules make it easy to violate the law in spirit if not exactly, are hard to enforce, and generally catch only the clueless while those who intend to violate the laws take precautions and get away with it. By putting values into rule form, the ideological state makes the law and not the spirit of the law the target, and thus gradually separates people from having any agreement in common regarding values. Formalization literally breaks down the value system it in theory protects.
As a result, governments becoming increasingly militarized and intrusive as time goes on, not because government is evil, but because government unintentionally induces more violations of the law. This enforcement cycle finally culminates in a condition like tyranny, at which point corruption takes over and the lawbreakers find a way to act under color of law.
Nationalism offers a culture-based society which implements a decentralized values system enforced by fellow citizens on each other. Ideological government looks for transgressions of the letter of law; culture-based society looks for intent to evade the law and ostracizes people who have bad intent and are bad actors. The result is that there is a need for less regulation, and the freedom of people to associate with each other means that they exclude those who act badly and/or act against them with approval of their fellow citizens.
2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government
Ideological government by its nature requires a centralized powerful government to enforce its rules. This government never shrinks in size, since once people are hired into it, they seek to protect their jobs by inventing new causes for their agencies and institutions.
The result is a constant state of mission creep which results in big government which, by needing to justify its own existence and continued growth, intrudes into areas where it cannot succeed so that it has permanent struggles (war is the metaphor most commonly used) which will always merit more government in the eyes of the public.
Much like a gold rush builds up an industry based on selling supplies and services to prospective miners, government is its own industry and finds ways to justify itself by inventing “necessary” services for citizens to purchase with their taxes.
Eventually, so many people are employed or indirectly paid by government that it becomes beyond criticism, and the resulting transfer of wealth to non-productive sectors both through entitlement programs and government hiring weakens the currency and prestige of the nation, signaling its imminent collapse.
2.4 Identitarian advantages
There are no Utopian governments and there are no ideal plans. Identitarian politics however has a massive advantage in that it does not attempt to “fix” things which cannot be fixed, and by binding together the people by cultural rules instead of enforced ideology, creates a sense of community and shared struggle toward the end of society’s health. This is different from the ideological goals of the modern state which seem to always be intensifying, yet never get resolved.
3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?
A state converts to nationalism the same way it converts to any other form of government. There is either an election, or a revolution. A new party takes power and reshapes the society. Those who fit into the new order find it easy to thrive; those who do not tend to relocate to greener pastures.
3.2 Is violence required?
No, because most of the steps required for nationalism are easiest achieved through elections. This is because nationalism is the default state of humankind; people prefer to live, work, sell to, rent to, hire and socialize with people like them. If anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action are removed, nations inevitably drift back toward nationalism, which is why internationalists demanded those laws in the first place. Once some nationalist policies get adapted, they tend to be seen as more favorable than diversity, which creates social chaos no matter which selection of groups is chosen because the idea of diversity itself destroys the notion of shared cultural values, trust and goals. For these reasons, what is required is not violent overthrow, but selective removal of bad law, and society naturally goes nationalist.
3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?
One of the most frequently asked questions is phrased as, “If we go nationalist, where do non-majority people go?” The answer is that they will be happiest on their own home continents, surrounded by others like them, with ethnic self-determination. If they are already racially mixed, there are plenty of countries like Brazil, Russia, Iraq, and Mexico where this is encouraged and they will find a welcoming home.
3.4 How would this happen worldwide?
When one nation goes nationalist, and its population is able to enjoy actual self-determination, the illusion that ideological government is desirable is fractured and reveals that ideological government is not only unnatural but destructive. At that point, other nations will also seek nationalism out of a need to compete with the nationalist nation, which will enjoy a greater level of stability and thus be more productive and more competitive.
4.1 About this FAQ
This FAQ was written in January 2014 using fragments of text from the old Pan-Nationalism.org website and texts from Amerika.org.
4.2 About the Author
Brett Stevens is a paleoconservative and deep ecologist who writes about conservatism, environmental issues, nationalism and values. He blogs at Amerika.org.
To make comments or suggestions, please go to this page:
** Frequently Asked Questions about: **
** NATIONALISM **
** Nationalism FAQ **
** Revision 1.0 - January 20, 2013 **
** by Brett Stevens **
** http://www.amerika.org/ **
2013 was a wrecking ball for global warming. Avoiding the obvious symbolic incidents such as colder weather, as we look into the climate changer claims none of them seem to be working out. Further, the changers are revising their models.
As someone who formerly trusted media to tell me what was right and to tell me the truth, I’ve become a skeptic about global warming. It’s clear that it is a proxy for something else — or to avoid something else.
On the surface, global warming is a comforting theory. If we just get our carbon under control, life can go on. Further, we can use carbon credits to re-distribute wealth and raise the third world from poverty. It’s happier than Disneyland.
Those with more experience with human beings would take a look at the huge forces behind climate change: liberal billionaires, Western governments, big media and the usual chattering neurotics who call themselves “progressives.” Anything these people like is probably fatal to anything good.
But what could they be hiding?
The salient factor in climate change is that all the solutions are easy. Stop carbon; that’s it. Nothing else really needs change. And this is where we see the sleight-of-hand that accompanies all really good deceptions: they’ve distilled a complex problem down to a single factor.
In truth, the problem can’t be distilled, but history shows us its cause. As humans have expanded, we have taken over much of the globe and replaced its forests with farm fields, roads and dwellings. The result is a massive loss of forest, which in turn has a series of negative consequences.
First, loss of unbroken space means loss of species and reductions in many others as they lack enough space for individual creatures to hunt, live and raise young. Second, it limits the amount of absorption that these forests can do, not just of carbon dioxide but other pollutants and heat. Finally, it limits the amount of fresh oxygen and water that are produced by these forests.
What is the primary driver of deforestation? More humans. How do we know this? We’ve watched it happen over the last half-century. It’s irrefutable because it is history. Unlike climate change, it is not based on models; we have seen that the more people we add, the fewer forests we have. And there’s no way to add new land and plant forests there.
Overpopulation = deforestation. In turn, deforestation means more pollution, species extermination, and lack of general health to our natural world. If ecocide has a face, it is silhouetted in deforestation. And yet the climate changers don’t want to talk about this. Why?
First, it refutes their theories. Climate changers want you to believe that our problem is increased carbon output; in reality, our problem is decreased amounts of forests to offset this carbon. They don’t want to talk about that, because in order to stop deforestation, we have to stop population growth. This goes against the basic liberal method of gaining power, which is to give out freebies: everyone gets a place to live, everyone gets an income, everyone gets special rights against the majority.
Fighting deforestation doesn’t require we do anything. It requires we stop doing things: no welfare, no programs to stop people from dying out where the land can’t support them, stop allowing any immigration, no foreign aid, and even such extreme measures as fewer warning labels and safety features. Let Darwin, mother nature and the Hand of God (H.O.G.) do their work and thin the herd. All we have to do is get rid of our do-gooder deeds which we use to purchase votes for liberal parties.
And therein lies the secret. Global warming is a win for liberals. They get to keep living exactly as they have been, except the SUV gets swapped for a Prius and they use toxic fluorescents instead of incandescents. They will be able to transfer wealth from the first world to the third, buying support there. They can keep buying votes with immigration, even though it causes the source countries to have baby booms to replace their lost population. It’s business as usual, plus they can go to their base and say, “See, we stuck it to those obese bloated rich people using too much carbon.”
But… for those of us concerned with reality, namely that the effects of our actions match our intentions, climate change is a loser. We don’t stop the real problem, deforestation, which is a product of rising human population. And we dump more wealth into kleptocracies that will just continue their environmentally toxic practices in order to get more aid. We’re passing the buck to tomorrow, with a big helping of debt to match.
As satisfying as it is to see a man triumph by calculating his position, adapting to his surroundings and conquering it through logic, it is equally satisfying to see a fool miscalculate, over step his boundaries, and suffer the violent consequences of the untamed wild. This is cosmic justice. This is why it is better to be five steps behind your limit than even one step beyond it. This is why you err on the side of caution.
The notion of a boundary or limit is sort of a head scratcher. I can build a fence between my neighbor and myself. This now designates the boundary. Of course, my neighbor could just hop the fence. We see boundaries on maps, but not in physical reality. In the absolute sense of reality, nature, and the wild, there really is no such thing as a boundary. A boundary is simply a useful notion that we believe in, lest life would be unlivable. Therefore, it is not so much “unreal” or “imaginary,” as it is a creative solution.
Often, much of our intellectual enterprise is hostile to things that cannot be “proven.” It is also hostile to creative language. Things must be very neat and tidy and perfect so that everyone can potentially understand it. The rebellious spirit may say, “I do not see this boundary you speak of, you are just making up a word to keep me from total freedom.”
Similarly, a standard is just like a boundary. But rather than being a creative, useful idea, that allows people with different talents to coexist, it becomes an imaginary, authoritarian imposition.
In a certain sense, it must be admitted that a standard is “imaginary.” But this is only in the sense that it cannot be seen with the eye. The “proof” or usefulness of a standard, or boundary, or limit, is seen in the consequences of its observance or non-observance.
When the first band of cavemen lurked out of the primordial cave to slay a wooly mammoth, one of the more dim-witted cavemen was probably taken with the fuzzy mammoth and he went over to pet it. The next thing he knew, he was impaled on its tusk. The rest of the cavemen huddled together and agreed that the proper boundary between themselves and a wooly mammoth was about the length of a spear. Their comrade’s corpse was all the proof they needed.
So it must be admitted that a standard actually is an authoritarian imposition, if you consider death to be an authoritarian imposition. This is why it is silly to constantly question authority and the wisdom of the past. To do that, is to be like another caveman that goes up and pets the wooly mammoth. This is why trust and belief are more powerful than skepticism and knowledge. This is why specifics are more misleading than generalities. Dim-witted caveman #2 says, “Well that won’t happen to me!” as he is gored and flailing on the mammoth’s other tusk. Dim-witted caveman #2 decided to “think for himself.”
Some people like the cute animals at the zoo: penguins, otters, koala bears, and Toby the red panda. I always preferred the tiger, the rhinos, the lions, and the polar bear. Dolphins communicate with humans; great white sharks eat humans.
Apex predators are the living incarnation of the limit and the boundary. If you want empirical evidence there it is. I was too young to remember it, but there is a story at my local zoo. I have heard the tale many times. Some drunk, idiot bum, fell over into the polar bear exhibit and they had to shoot the polar bear to save the life of some vagrant with a death-wish. I always thought that was a shame. Maybe the Romans were onto something with the gladiatorial games.
I won’t deny that I felt a certain sense of glee when I heard Roy got mauled by his Bengal tiger. I seem to also remember a killer whale killing its handler at Sea World. It is a killer whale after all.
I have the utmost respect for Steve Irwin and I think that some of the guys that do this kind of thing really get it. I bet Steve Irwin has the utmost respect for that sting-ray, too, and I bet he forgives it. The cut worm forgives the plow. Steve Irwin knew how to “die at the right time.” It was a mythical death and very appropriate. There is no shame in this. To be killed by the wild is a kind of destiny and honor. Jane Goodall could learn a lesson here.
There was a terrifying story a few years ago from Connecticut about a pet chimp ripping a woman’s face off. It was captured on a 911 call and you can hear the chimp screaming in the background. I don’t think I’m the only one that laughed at hearing an elderly woman call the police to tell them her elderly woman friend was in the process of being disfigured by a monkey. All the while you could hear the monkey laughing in the background, jumping up and down in triumph. Curious George went bad and Curious Humans went stupid. Curious Human Visits the Emergency Room: the Revenge of Curious George!
Liberals want to fight on behalf of the environment and wildlife. Yet at the same time they want to fight on behalf of humans. This simply doesn’t compute. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have your own boundary respected and trample all over the boundaries that are imposed upon you as well.
As Robert Frost said, “Do not tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” The fence might be there for your own good.
If conservatives want to start a serious environmental movement, don’t cast nature and wildlife as the victim. Don’t play on people’s sympathies and pity. What will happen is people will identify too much with only the cute animals and the exceptions to the rule. At that point, the boundary is blurred, and it becomes a victim movement co-opting animals as symbols. It becomes completely “humanistic.”
The problem with a “preserve,” as in a wildlife preserve or nature preserve is that you are playing total defense and evasion. You are thinking backwards and counting backwards. Rather than counting from 1 to infinity, you are counting down from infinity to 0. It is a countdown unto destruction. You posit total defeat and destruction at the end, and you are simply staving off the inevitable. You are already dead.
Instead, play up the “authoritarianism” and consequentialism of nature red in tooth and claw. Work in a factor of reversibility showing the possibility of triumph. Have a sense of humor and “celebrate death.” Who do you want on your side in battle, Flipper or Jaws?
If you want humans and wildlife to coexist, then the best way to illustrate this is to show what happens when civilization crosses the boundary into the wild. Celebrate the mythical deaths of humans that get too close to nature. Otherwise, Toby the red panda just might rip your freaking face off!