Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘conservation’

Conservationism Summary

Monday, June 12th, 2017

For many of us, the primary issue is the environment. Not environmentalism, that neutered hybrid of the Left that destroyed every naturalist movement it got its greasy hands upon, nor any of the other Left-infused variants on that topic. But conservationism, or the idea of setting aside natural land so it can do what it must, for no reason other than appreciation for its beauty, that is conservationism.

The Left attacks naturalist movements because it realizes that these inherently drift rightward. The Left has one idea, which is mandatory universal inclusion or “equality,” and that means that each individual does whatever he wants… and no one says NO. Conservatism, which is based in order that is larger than the individual, can say NO and the Left fears it.

Conservationism sets limits on humanity. Instead of trying to police our every day acts, like whether we used more than 1.8 gallons for that last flush, it simply sets aside huge chunks of land, ideally over 50%, for use by nature only. In the past, this was done by making this land “hunting preserves” of nobles who hunted in it a few times a year and left it wild for the rest.

You might say that conservationism is anti-human, or at least post-human. Instead of looking at the world through the desires and fears of human beings, it simply looks at the world as a whole. It sees how interconnected the parts of ecosystems are, and how unequal they are, and desires to preserve them because they are a finer design than humanity will ever manage.

For those of us who have gone to the conservation side, the wisdom of ancient religion becomes visible: the battle is within us. We must decide to be good, and then do it, which means giving up the temporary in favor of the eternal. And we must be morally vigilant and attentive at all times, because an evil whether for a penny or billions is still evil, and opens the door to more.

Those of us who stay with the deep ecology viewpoint tend toward wanting a simpler life, where people live in small towns and own businesses instead of having jobs. We want families to be the center of our society, and to have eternal values that are more sacred than life itself, including defense and nurturing of our environment.

We are informed by the deep ecology mission statement:

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

  • The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
  • The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of Nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological sustainability on a finite Earth.
  • Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology has wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
  • Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

This is the only way to avoid the core problem of humanity: Crowdism, or the tendency of individual needs to accumulate and overwhelm goals. These manifest in the tragedy of the commons:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

  1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
  2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

The only solution to this problem is purpose, which is the opposite of what democratic society offers. In a democracy, the purpose is the people, instead of the purpose being some goal on which those people unite and toward which they cooperate. As a result, they become selfish, and start to act for themselves alone at the expense of society and nature, leading to the runaway consumption we see.

Amerika has a long history of conservationist writing, most of which is politically incorrect but still accurate. Many of the best writings were lost with the demise of various BBSes, USENET servers and early websites, but many live on in their twenty-first century format:

What Do Conservatives “Conserve”?

Thursday, October 20th, 2016

lakeside_beauty

VDARE always cuts to the chase, which is why it makes good daily reading. A recent article looked into the question the Alt Right has raised: the possible that “the end of history” has ended and liberal democracy has been debunked just as thoroughly as Communism. This in turn brings startling implications:

Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve.

Growing up in a Leftist-dominated time, most of us on the Alt Right have never known any vocabulary for theory except what is drilled into us by the Left. This leads to the illusory thought that conservatives are here to conserve a previous age such as the 1950s or 1980s, either of which would be far superior to what we have now.

Conservatives aim to “conserve” not a specific time, but timeless principles and ways of life. The basis of the philosophy is consequentialism, or the idea of measuring our proposed acts by their likely consequences instead of the emotional feelings or sense of shared social communion that they give us. Conservatism upholds the triumph of reality over intent.

This way of life leads to a natural tendency to prefer optimums, or those principles and ways of life which lead consistently to the best outcomes, not merely acceptable (utilitarian) ones. This requires rejecting the idea of equality, because most people are naturally prone to think in the short term and groups always choose “committee think” style compromises instead of taking decisive action.

In this light, conservatives never approved of America and its Constitution. They like the founders saw the Constitution as a method of restraining democracy by limiting it to the upper echelons of society, mainly because democracy of some form was inevitable given the collapse of monarchies across Europe under the assault of The Enlightenment™ style thought.

Original conservatives recognized that sanity is a fleeting thing that is available to only a few exceptional individuals, and not to groups. For this reason, they opposed mass culture and its ideological arm, “Progress,” in every form. Progress means clear-cutting forests and displacing towns to make cities and industry producing pointless products for a clueless electorate oblivious to anything but its immediate personal impulses.

This explains the fundamental division of America into two states, the raw producers and those who make their money from reselling, cosmopolitanism and entertainment. This split has exploded in 2016 because with the lawlessness of the Obama-Clinton left, the conflict can no longer be masked.

This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the “Ephemeral Zone” concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.

The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the “New Heartland.” Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.

In conservative lexicon, this conflict is one of the oldest in humanity: cities versus countryside. Cities are anonymous and people make their living in them by convincing each other to do things; they are naturally prone to salesmanship, advertising, marketing, peer pressure and other anthropocentric vehicles which are inimicable to the localized, normal and healthy lifestyle of a network of villages, towns and small cities.

It is not surprising that America has divided this way; in fact, it is a verification of conservative ideas yet again. The two sides have become incompatible because they want different ways of life entirely. The cities are increasingly in trouble as their liberal policies become more expensive, and are choking the heartland with taxes.

We have seen this situation before. In the years before the Civil War, the Northern Cities relied heavily on Southern agricultural products. Taxes began rising, but not enough. To fix this situation, the cities provoked a war and invaded the South so that they could incorporate it into the federal system and have more control over the raw product, which is where all the profit — and future tax bonanza — was.

Civil War 2.0 is now on the table. As VDARE states:

The fundamental reason for this fear among the elites: their guilty conscience. They understand that in the last 50 years they have completely upended the old order in America. They have created a revolution that opposes the most fundamental interests of the historic white American nation. They understand that this election could confirm their revolution—but only if Hillary Clinton wins.

The question for conservatives is then what there is left to conserve, and the answer is that we conserve the way of living that has eternally nourished heartlands in all Indo-European civilizations. Heartlands like social order:

  • Communities where everyone knows each other.

  • Caste or its less formal cousin social class to put the most capable in charge as social and consumer decision-makers.

  • Leadership based not on popularity but competence.

  • Customs, calendars, cuisine, language, values, philosophy and religion which are in unison in understanding of the world and the purpose of the civilization.

  • Civil penalties or exile of those who transgress against the civilization instead of stewardship through prisons.

  • Homogeneity of the group in heritage, identity and worldview/culture.

  • Economies based not on growth but perpetuity, in service to culture.

  • Personal codes of honor, moral attention and maintenance of the good, beautiful and true.

  • A shared goal both specific to the group, and a driving force toward excellence through elitism.

Conservatives today have mostly forgotten these in their desire to “remain relevant” by appealing to mass culture and mass tastes, but this is a suicide mission because mass culture rewards the instant gratification life of the city and not the more contemplative, long-term joys of the heartland. This is why “original sin” appealed so much to our ancestors: it explained that people are limited by their abilities, and most tend toward the monkeylike, and among the intelligent, without self-discipline they become agents of evil.

In a long-term view, conservatism is experiencing a revival worldwide as liberal democracy collapses in a stinking cloud of problems created by its own pursuit of the illusion of equality. The Alt Right, Neoreaction, New Right and Traditionalist movements are inheritors of conservatism not so much in details, but in spirit and inclination. With these, we can reclaim and rebuild a world ruined by human pretense.

Why I am a conservative

Friday, February 5th, 2016

parthenon_in_winter

In the current day and age, claiming to be conservative evokes disbelief. Not only is conservatism the banished enemy of our dominant liberal ideology, but “conservatives” — these days — seem to be people without a plan. Many people have gone looking for another alternative to being the captive opposition.

However, questions of philosophy do not reduce to who claims to hold a view, but what that view is. Over the years, every view becomes adulterated to fit to its audience instead of its audience fitting into it, and so periodic renewals occur when someone points out that the original idea has decayed. A view that is correct will always be so, and if it has been misinterpreted, needs correction not abandonment.

Another way of viewing this is that someone who possesses a conservative philosophy will manifest it no matter what name they call it. Philosophies generally have two major prongs: how to know what is true, and how to know what to do about it. In liberalism, this could be summarized as:

  • True: Whatever is new — not the existing order — is true.
  • Do  : If it makes people feel happy to think it is true, do it.

In this we can see the utilitarian nature of liberalism: whatever most people think will make them happy is right. Also revealed is its nature as a rebellious philosophy, namely that it assumes whatever has existed in the past is a nightmare and any replacement is an improvement.

We can imagine situations where this approach would seem right. If someone is emerging from a truly abusive situation, such as a bad family dynamic, the best thing to do is discard all that they have known as normal and to select new methods. Without further data, they pick whatever the group thinks will be good.

Naturally, this leaves us with half of a philosophy. How do we verify what of our preferred methods turned out well and therefore should be kept? Liberalism assumes this will be handled by the preference of the group, but that assumes that people remember what has gone before and what the options are.

Conservatism updates this with a philosophy that more resembles the scientific method, but with an artistic twist. Here is the conservative outline:

  • True: Whatever works according to results in reality, is true.
  • Do  : If what works leads toward transcendental goals, do it.

The scientific basis the reality test: does this produce the results it claims to, when actually tested in the real world? If not, it may be “real” as a thought can seem to be, but not accurate and therefore not true. The artistic twist comes from the transcendental goals, which are absolutes which can never be fully realized: excellence, beauty, goodness and truthfulness.

Unlike most philosophies, conservatism does not try to translate reality into symbols. Terms like “true” and “good” are left as an exercise to the reader, with the knowledge that the smarter and more honest/noble among them will figure it out while the other 98.6% (approximately) will do what Simians always do, which is do whatever their egos want to do anyway and rationalize it as good or true after the fact. (Some see liberalism as being of this nature, since it requires only intent and feelings and has no reality-based test).

As a guiding force for actual living people, conservatism works under any circumstance. It encourages us to know our world, and then to act for the best results. This does not mean that we can deny how the world works and conjure up an image of how we wish it would work, and then enforce that on others with the consensus of the group. At its heart, conservatism opposes group consensus because that consensus is a lesser method than truth.

The term “conservative” comes from the idea of conservation itself, which means saving good and functional methods under the constant onslaught of human desires to do anything but those. When we look at humanity, we see a species capable of remarkable self-delusion and a tendency to indulge in wishful thinking which it mistakes for realism. Against this flood of chaotic nonsense conservatives attempt to hold on to what actually works, fully realizing they are the smallest minority in their society because everyone else wants the opposite.

Trying to divorce the idea of “conserve” from the notion of conserving what is good has cost modern conservatives plenty. I fully acknowledge that these people are misguided, but I see them more as a consumerist production version of a good thing, like soda replacing sassafras, McDonald’s replacing food, light cigarettes replacing cigars, and Budweiser replacing beer. There is always a market for a dumbed-down version of any idea because this flatters the egoism of those who partake in it. They no longer need to know quality from junk, but can indulge in something conveniently sugared and salty and cheap and pretend they have the real thing.

Conservatism took me to some surprising places. In contrast to mainstream conservatives, I see the importance of conservation in both nature and human beings. This means setting aside giant chunks of land for its natural purpose, and liberating people from pointless activities including make-work jobs and bureaucracy. It also showed me the importance of keeping the law away so people can enjoy pleasurable activities like drinking at the pub, smoking a cigar with friends, or even the “reckless” fun things the Nanny State tries to keep away from us.

Not many anti-work and pro-conservation conservatives exist anymore, but we used to be at the forefront of both of these movements, resisting “Progress” back when progress meant industry at any cost. Conservatives have always defended the quiet life and the wild life so long as it brings actual pleasure, and not merely grim conformity like drug use and promiscuity seem to. We conserve life itself, holding back the flood surge of illusions dreamed up by lonely people in their unrealistic minds.

As new movements — inevitably based on liberal ideas infused with some conservative leanings — come and go, conservatism remains a bulwark because it is not a policy, but a way of thinking. It encourages us to recognize life for what it is and make the best of it. It forms the starting point of our thought and a workable basis for discovering where we should go. Since most of human thought is entirely irrelevant, it stands out as the one right answer in a sea of distractions.

An actual crisis hides behind the fake issue of climate change

Monday, May 26th, 2014

climate_change-fake_issue

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.

White nationalism died because it dropped out

Monday, February 10th, 2014

ancient_war

“Tune in, turn on, and drop out,” were the words of the 1960s hippies.

They advocated such behavior because they realized they were a minority attacking an established society. Thus they adopted a method — passive-aggression — that involved them becoming an obstacle to this society.

Since then, this mentality of protest has been common among political groups. But it only works when your ideology is one that the mainstream is already primed for.

To put this another way, what the hippies advocated was not different in substance from what the Revolutionists in France wanted in 1789. The hippies just turned up the intensity.

In the same way, Communism is no different from what socialists and other egalitarians want. It’s just a higher degree. All leftist ideas are the same, separated only by degree.

For that reason, when the hippies came about after a war the US won by appealing to fundamental liberal reasons, it was guaranteed they would succeed.

Those of us who are on the right, or endorsing ideas typically associated with the right, do not have that advantage. This applies to white nationalism, an ideology that this site has called upon us to destroy.

As Hewitt E. Moore notes (or dare we say, “observes”) at The Occidental Observer, white nationalism has self-destructed by marginalizing itself:

White Nationalism is nearing the age of needing heart meds (literally and metaphorically). Excluding a handful of leafleteers and diversity dodgers, the only movement is that of fingers on a keyboard. The keyboards allow for just enough recycled thought to prevent total ideological stagnation. Through the years, numerous would-be White Nationalists have searched the realms of Cyberia in hopes of finding White camaraderie in their geographical region; only to eventually permanently “log out” after discovering the movement is primarily an internet based phenomenon.

…We need a face-to-face community of noisy, intelligent, attractive, committed White people marching in the street with signs opposed to immigration, multiculturalism and the strident ethnic politics of other groups; there is a need for a steady drumbeat of political advertising where pro-White themes, whether explicitly white or not, are repeated over and over to the point that they become part of the furniture of life even if winning elections remains a distant goal.

He sets up two counterpoints here: white nationalism is a drop-out ideology, and what we need instead is a vivid pro-white crowd. I both agree and disagree.

White Nationalism failed because it is racial Marxism. Its goal, the classless white mob, is based on liberal ideals and upholds liberal notions of egalitarianism. Its method is based on dropping out of mainstream political discourse, rejecting conservatism, and instead adhering to a Marxist-style militarized ideological regime.

Further, white nationalism is designed in such a way as to alienate the average white person. It conflates all whites as being the same, which offends people who have strong cultural heritage. It embraces violent non-solutions to paranoiac diagnoses of non-existent problems, such as The Jewish Question and its negative treatment of Africans. Finally, by being such a strong ideological force, it demands that people engage in unproductive behaviors to demonstrate that they are of a true enough ideological bent. This reminds me of the darkest days of the French revolution, when the guillotine turned on its masters and Revolutionaries were facing the blade for not being pure enough in their hatred of the aristocracy.

In other words, white nationalism drives away the people it needs to succeed in order to conserve the people it has, which is a group that has grown only as more people drop out and become alienated thanks to the disastrous regime of Barack Obama. But it hasn’t grown and it hasn’t had any political successes because of its alienation.

What works instead? Pat Buchanan continues to influence people with his conservative politics, Ann Coulter openly speaks of the failure of diversity in her conservative columns, and in Europe, Marine Le Pen is succeeding with what’s ultimately a moderate right-wing party that eschews hatred and Holocaust denial and instead opts for a pro-nationalist outlook.

Dropping out is the problem with white nationalism. Without a broader context, it shifts leftward because white nationalism is not anchored in a bigger philosophy. Leftism will never support white nationalism because leftism is inherently egalitarian and thus will always tend toward being more inclusive, not less. Thus we look toward rightism, the movement that opposed the French Revolution and defends tradition, heritage and culture. With that as an anchor, nationalism becomes plausible again and its defense is an extension of existing conservative beliefs.

The left will win as long as they can portray pro-nationalist movements as fanatical, and people are hell-bent on helping them:

A man has been charged after pages were allegedly torn from the Koran and thrown during a football match.

Mark Stephenson, 25, from Napoleon Drive, Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury, has been charged with causing racial or religiously-aggravated harassment.

The better solution is this: instead of dropping out, reclaim your society.

Join your mainstream conservative party and start swaying it toward discussion of real issues, which are not only limited to The National Question but include other disasters like the debt bomb, decaying infrastructure, and anything leftists admire. If we don’t control these parties, parasites and profiteers will step up and take over.

Join your local society. Do not drop out and become another alienated basement-dweller with no power. Go to school, get degrees, succeed and/or start a business, do well, succeed. Become someone that is respected. Do not commit hate crimes. Do not use drugs, drink too much, stockpile anything illegal. Be visible in doing constructive things for society.

If someone tells you that you’re not true enough for refusing to Name The Jew(tm) or beat up Africans, realize you are dealing with an ideological zombie. This person is lost and is secretly a leftist, which is the enemy. Get away and ignore them. Do not engage them — they are insane.

Do positive things for culture. Learn to love classical music. Learn about your heritage. Uphold traditional behaviors, even the surface stuff like cuisine, folk sayings, and architecture. Support anything that reveres the past and carries it forward.

Instead of dropping out, drop in. Join society and do everything that everyone else does but keep your ideals intact. When people ask, present your ideas logically and clearly without emotion.

White nationalism died because instead of engaging in the means to solve the problem, it retreated to its trailer and became an inbred camp of fanatics. Let it go, or better yet, kill it. We need something better and no amount of cheering will make a dead horse win a race.

Preservationism

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

A new type of political thinker is emerging into the shattered hulk of modernity.

While the modern time is powerful in technology and gilded in convenience, the dark inner core is a tendency to consume and deconstruct all things, and these new thinkers target that impulse. They tend to be less concerned with the political battles of the present than the enduring political question: What design produces the best civilization?

This immediately separates them from the issue-based activists. They are not concerned with a single society or direct responses to immediate problems; they recognize our problems come from failings at a design-level. Thus, time for a redesign.

Of those, the most realistic are the conservatives, because conservatives conserve as opposed to deconstruct. Conservatives do not throw up their hands and say, “Well, if that’s what people want to do, everybody do whatever they want, and it’ll turn out OK.”

Instead, conservatives learn from history and develop a reverence for the finer things in life, and by that I do not mean cigars and cognac (exclusively). Conservatives value good designs of civilizations past, good ideas wherever they can find them, and preservation of the gifts of nature and humanity.

At this blog, for example, we argue heavily for preservationism. We accept that civilization took a bad turn in 1789 with the French Revolution and the two centuries of manic liberalization (now called globalism) that followed. We intend to find designs that escape that type of bad thinking.

We recognize, for example, that liberalism does not create the lowest-common-denominator so much as it is a representative and advocate for it. With that in mind, it is clear that liberalism is not so much a political view as it is social symbolism, which is why it picks up anything popular like a dirty snowball.

Consumerism and socialism merge in the ultra-modern globalism regime because they are popular with that lowest common denominator, which occurs both on social role (rabble) and psychological (neurotic) levels. The people who like liberalism are either have-nots who want to blame others for the have-nots’ have-not status, or neurotic wealthy people who are seeking a purpose in life.

With that in mind, a thinker can see how the conservative desire for preservationism makes logical sense. We are not concerned with people using cognitive dissonance to explain away their social or psychological shortcomings; we care about results. That means: preserve good things before attempting flights-of-fancy ideological experiments.

This is not a popular view because it insults the ego. It does not claim that each of us is so important and valuable that we should stop all wars, stop all offensive things, stop social hierarchy and force equality just so that individual can feel happy in her $500/month dingy apartment, at her clerkish job, and in her single and neurotic state.

Preservationism, then, is not a human construct; it addresses things bigger than the individual human.

When one adopts the preservationist outlook, political conflict no longer becomes as simple as us-versus-them, or we want these people gone, etc. It is about finding an enduring and beautiful design for a civilization to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

It is not limited to the interests of any one group.

When we argue for nationalism at this blog, it is because we recognize that nationalism is a better design for civilization than liberalism. We recognize the two are opposites, not just historically, but because nationalism is a preservationist doctrine.

Nationalism applies to every ethnic-cultural group on the face of earth. This is not a movement “for white people” or “for black people”; it’s a movement for people. That we do not, in order to pander to the neurotic individual, think of all people as uniform and without race is part of our desire to preserve good things wrought by nature.

After all, science shows us that the divergence of evolutionary pathways exists for the benefit of the organism:

Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU’s Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that’s not the case.

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity.

Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context – an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology – as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.

“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction – in which only one parent is needed to procreate – leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex. – PhysOrg

Evolution is not a process of random activity. It is a feedback loop in which organisms observe/react to their world, and the quality of their reaction — how “realistic” it is — determines their success.

When a successful strategy is found, it must be prioritized over others. That means: a desire for uniformity. Sexual reproduction is a “winner take all” scenario. Those who invent the best ideas dominate.

In turn, this means that when a population arises, it is adapted to the particulars of its evolution, which may be geographic, climactic, and most of all, social. We are all adapted to the values of the civilizations that produced us as genetic designs.

If you want to know why people fear history and tribal identity, it is (a) they are forced to see that their “free will” is in fact limited and they are pre-wired for certain ideas and (b) they realize that evolution is ongoing, which means “it’s all cool man” is a social sentiment but not a biologically realistic one.

Consequently, the vast majority of people — people who have found no particular direction in life, succeeded at nothing in any personally fulfilling way, and people wracked by doubt and neurosis — are afraid of biology and evolution.

They construct illusions instead about how these things do not apply, and they try to convince you that they are not ongoing — a process conservatives call Social Darwinism.

Our civilization’s final age culminates in a manic jihad/crusade for “equality,” which is a denial of this genetic reality, and of preservationism and conservatism. The French Revolution of 1789 made an enemy of all hierarchy, including nature.

It is not surprising that our record, as a species, since has been one of unparalleled ecological destruction, including destruction of our own tribes.

And a conservative is always easy pickings, because he negates the new without ideas of his own; he represents stasis, ossification, museology—concepts linked to old age.

Against him the radical Leftist can easily cast himself as a force of innovation, as the voice of the future, because he does have an idea of his own: his is an act of affirmation. What he affirms may now be old, decrepit, orthodox; it may have been exhausted, it may be bankrupt, and, because of its inherently destructive nature, it may offer no way out; but an affirmation is always more appealing than a negation, and the Leftist’s affirmation, though of an old idea, is newer than the idea defended by the conservative, which is even older.

Worse still, conservatives seek to conserve the ideas of superseded radicals, so he is by implication a dealer in antiquated, second-hand goods. – The Occidental Quarterly

In this conflict — liberal/leftist humanism versus preservationism — we see the battle of our time. We either win it, or pass into oblivion as a civilization.

The reason it is not being won is simple: those who would be preservationists are trying to frame their ideas in a liberal context, as self-interest based concepts. This negates what makes preservationism different from the options they already have.

Preservationism should appeal to the moralist in all of us. It is not about self-interest; it is about doing what is right for everyone.

Self-interest is transitory. We barely know what it is until we have had families, watched our children grow up, and asked ourselves the shocking question: what kind of world am I injecting these little people into?

At that point, we start thinking about the design of our civilization. Is it stable? Will they find good people to befriend, work with and marry? Should they, like us, slave away for 10-12 hours a day in unfulfilling jobs?

Now preservationism makes sense. Maybe our grandkids would like to have forests — and maybe they’d like the confidence that comes from being part of a species that has the wisdom to preserve forests. Maybe they’d like ethnic identity, and culture instead of the post-totalitarian Nanny State, and feel better about their origins as a result.

The reason is that humans are rarely persuaded by facts and arguments. Rather they are impressed by their source.

In other words, the message is the messenger; and the messenger is the message.

This is why it’s said that in a society the bulk of individuals follow whomever is in charge. Even when those in charge are hostile.

They are awed by their masters not because they are reasonable, but because they are powerful and masterful, because they control their universe, because they control access to status and resources, because they are dangerous, or else because they represent an idea that is seductive, that somehow inspires them.

And they are not likely to oppose their masters because deep down they want to be like them, they want to be among them, they want to have what they have, or they want to be part of that idea, they want to be with the winning team. – Counter Currents

This corresponds to Wolfeian-Weberian status, for those who have been following that discussion on this blog.

The key to change is in our hands.

People emulate what succeeds; what succeeds is determined by consumers, who follow those they recognize as more alert than the others.

For a preservationist, the message is: find something, get good at it, and start acting in a preservationist context. Others will follow. It’s trickle-down memetics.

What we must do however is stop wasting time on the anti-preservationist cause, which is formed of special interests which naturally have special enemies.

Anders Behring Breivik may have helped silence xenophobia in Norway as voters shun the anti-immigration party he was a member of before he committed the July massacre that left 77 people dead.

Popular support for the Progress Party, the second biggest in Norway’s national parliament, fell by 6.1 percentage points to 11.4 percent in a Sept. 12 municipal vote, the group’s worst result in 16 years. The Labor Party of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, which Breivik targeted in the attacks, won 32 percent of the election, its best result in 24 years.

“The Progress Party largely built their base on spreading suspicion, especially against Islam and Muslims,” said Thomas Hylland Eriksen, an anthropologist at the University of Oslo, in an interview. – The National

This is not, of course, final judgment. Voters are normal people, and most of all groups of people are quiet conformists who use anonymous methods like voting to exact their revenge, hatred, insufficiency and misery on others.

But the point is, perhaps, that right-wing politics has been hijacked by left-wing ideals.

Our point is not to “spread suspicion, especially against” any ethnic group, culture or religion.

Our point is to show that the best life, the most moral life and the best design of civilization comes from a conservative one:

  • Culture. Culture, heritage/race/ethny, language, customs and values are inseparable. We need an intangible center to our civilization, and culture is the best option. These shared values help us police ourselves instead of needing a strong post-totalitarian Nanny State, which is our only other option.
  • Reverence. We revere nature, history, culture, religion, learning and morally superior conduct. These things make life not only better on a practical level, but beautiful. We need that beauty and that sense of innocence to make our lives meaningful.
  • Social Darwinism. Some are better at some things than others are. We must allow the best to rise, and do nothing to support the rest. If you want more incompetents, tolerate incompetents and give them welfare. If you want more geniuses, support them instead.
  • Consequentialism. What matters is what works. We focus on end results in the real world, not human feelings or arbitrary ideology. History is our laboratory and it shows us what the future will be. We only have to make the choice.
  • Preservationism. This is the essence of conservatism: we conserve. We conserve by setting things apart from the madding crowd and its lowest common denominator short-term impulses, its cognitive dissonance and its revenge/victimhood narrative.

Our message can be: if you want a truly great life, and not just a mediocre one in which you are socially cowed into tolerating the incompetent behavior of others, seek preservationism. Seek conservatism.

Right now, this message seems unpopular… but that’s through the eyes of the Unsilent Minority, a/k/a our media products, their pandering to what those with nothing better to do than watch TV “think” is a good idea, and their advertisers who want cultureless neurotic drones ready to buy products.

A new type of thinker is emerging. The old way was politics based on self-interest; the new way is politics based on avoiding the shattered hulk of modernity, 1789-2011, and its fatal flaw, which was reliance on what people wanted to think rather than what was real.

Preservationism seems aged and out of date, but in our dying society, the old is new again because the “new” is now old and has failed. Consumerism and democracy are joining communism in the junkyard of history. It’s time for something new, even if that is something ancient.

The only question left is: when do we begin?

How government destroys the environment

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Many of us are hoping right now that humanity recognizes its vast and ongoing destruction of its environment and decides to do something about it. Most expect government to be the method.

However, the record of governments helping the environment has been a spotty one — with one exception, which we’ll cover later. Generally, government makes a big noise but little impact.

Despite the fact that the government routinely refers to “deregulation” — the reduction of its control over businesses — as a guaranteed hazard to the economy, the government’s own impact on the environment is both large and disturbing:

  • Civil liability caps for oil spills and other industrial disasters, which reduce the willingness of large oil corporations to protect against such incidents.
  • The subsidization of oil, coal, refining, “bad nuclear,” even wasteful “green” energy encourages the disruption of ecosystems and increases the net rate of harmful pollution.
  • The displacement of consumer responsibility through the introduction of a ‘regulatory framework’ – where citizens assume that the government is responsible for the environment, and that they play no role in safeguarding it – ensures that nobody ever truly takes accountability for their environmental impact.
  • The subsidization of farming organizations that use wasteful methods – the use of phosphorous-based fertilizer instead of organic agriculture, and the use of irrigation instead of environment-based agriculture – growing crops that occur naturally in a region – leads to nutrient depletion, increased deforestation, decreased crop yields, increased monopolization of farming, increased desertification, depletion of water aquifers, and malnutrition for affected populations. It is fundamentally a sign of social maladaptation, when humans attempt to irrigate an infertile area, and has a dramatically negative environmental impact.
  • The military uses more oil than any organization on the planet. I don’t believe in human-caused global warming, but if you’re still buying the government’s line on that one, that likely also makes them the organization responsible for emitting more CO2 than any other, largely due to the government’s addiction to endless war. In terms of actual environmental impact, back in reality, their large consumption of oil results in an increased rate of oil spills, negatively affecting local ecosystems and possibly entire species-wide extinctions. Also, the use of chemical warfare agents, radioactive munitions, and even traditional munitions tend to produce negative effects on wildlife, including multigenerational birth defects and the rendering of large segments of land as uninhabitable, such as in the Chernobyl disaster.
  • Displacement of consumer responsibility in terms of ‘maintaining harmony with the nature’ by the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses, allows unscientific hunting yields to be instituted, and results more often than not in overfishing/overhunting and the associated extinction of animal populations.
  • The government is known to sponsor and protect “hydrofracking” companies, including a now well-publicized relationship between Dick Cheney and the “hydrofracking” industry, designed to use hydraulic techniques to release natural gas from the earth. This results in a high degree of pollution, and the court system has paid little attention to lawsuits regarding it.
  • The employment of millions of bureaucrats imposes a large requirement for oil at present, in terms of transportation alone, and the associated power resources for their offices. Many of these organizations have no positive impact on society at all, others have less positive impact than the money that’s used to fund them would be used towards in the private market.
  • Agricultural subsidization also encourages meat consumption, which reduces nutrient efficiency by imposing such a large toll on plant populations by overgrazing, with all the associated effects, including desertification. All high surpluses of high calorie foods in general also produce obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and other associated diseases, in a population unable to restrain itself from food consumption, although this is not an “environmental” effect.
  • The construction of dams leads to aquifer depletion and the disruption of local ecosystems, and the government loves building dams.
  • Non-market based road construction leads to miscalculation resulting in an increased rate of ecosystem/migration disruption, roadkill, animal population depletion, etc.
  • The employment of an air force, police helicopters, highways, and also imposes stress on animals via noise alone, which is related to decreased health and lower reproduction rates for wildlife.
  • Any subsidization of a chemical company with an environmental impact, that would otherwise have not received funding, is the government’s fault (think Dow Chemical, DuPont, etc.).
  • The government’s response to the “Deepwater Horizon” oil spill also involved the widespread deployment of highly toxic “Corexit” dispersant, which:
    1. Is known to cause mutation, birth defects, etc.
    2. Has over 200 chemicals, most of which are treated as “proprietary” and not described to the public. Many of these chemicals are non-polar hydrocarbon solvents, which have the ability to actually dissolve cell membranes.
    3. Wildlife in the region has been devastated by this response, and most workers in the area have reported serious health issues, while several described it publicly have died under mysterious circumstances.
  • The use and deployment of nuclear weapons is the single largest threat to the environment in existence, a threat that is made entirely by governments.

Far from being a savior of the environment, government represents a difficult proposition: creating a monster in order to wage war against the abuses of others.

Even more troubling is the idea that since government constitutes a single response that occurs across the board, if it fails, it fails in huge and destructive ways.

I mentioned earlier that there is one thing government can do and do well. That is conservation, or setting aside land for natural use only. That requires no additional bureaucrats or toxic chemicals.

But in the meantime, we should be wary of assuming that government is any kind of solution to our environmental woes.

Stop the tragedy

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

The popular illusion tells us that media “informs” us as voters. In our hearts, we know it does little more than titillate and raise outrage.

If you look hard enough, there’s real information — or part of it, anyway — and it can be found and talked about. But 400,000 people talking about Miley Cyrus just dominated the airwaves and squeezed that real information out.

This means that the majority of voters are being “informed” of nothing more than celebrity news, sex gossip, crypto-advertising, public drama, lurid murders and human interest stories. There is no information there.

To compensate, those who have a strong ideological position — like environmentalists — retaliate by turning up the intensity. They don’t mention, they scream. In blood red all caps full bold headlines.

The enormous decline of large, apex predators and “consumers” ranging from wolves to lions, sharks and sea otters may represent the most powerful impacts humans have ever had on Earth’s ecosystems, a group of 24 researchers concluded today in a new report in the journal Science.

The decline of such species around the world is much greater than previously understood and now affects many other ecological processes through what scientists call “trophic cascades,” in which the loss of “top down” predation severely disrupts many other plant and animal species.

Such disruption is sufficiently severe that it now affects everything from habitat loss to pollution, carbon sequestration, wildfire, climate, invasive species and spread of disease, the scientists said. It is also a driving force in the sixth mass extinction in Earth history, which the researchers said is now under way. – American Thinker

The left doesn’t care about environmentalism.

The left doesn’t care about civil rights.

What it does care about is class warfare, or using guilt to demand wealth and power from those who have earned it.

Race, nature, peace, drugs, homosexuality, multiculturalism, etc. are all a means to this end: smash the majority culture, destroy its leaders, and replace it with a non-culture so everyone is accepted and we can destroy the social order and take the wealth.

Pompous parades will today celebrate the event that triggered the French Revolution, that is to say, the most appalling bloodbath anterior to the Russian Revolution. Seven prisoners were released from the Bastille – four counterfeiters, an accomplice to murder and two lunatics – whose return to the community was hardly beneficial. The attack on the prison, reserved for the well-off, was orchestrated by the Marquis de Sade and Camille Desmoulins on behalf of the Nine Sisters masonic lodge.

There followed the September massacres, the marriages republicains in which people of opposite sexes were stripped naked and lashed together in obscene postures before being drowned, mothers forced to watch their children being guillotined and the massacre of 400,000 Catholic royalists – the majority of them women and children – in La Vendee. Sounds like the perfect excuse for a celebratory knees-up.

There are two countries called France. One is the sluttish Republic – “Marianne” – the other is the timeless, civilised doyen of Christendom, the nation of Clovis and St Louis, of the Valois and Bourbon kings, the Catholic and monarchic civilisation that fell with Charles X in 1830 but still defiantly survives in many enclaves. That pulse will beat quietly today while the heirs of the sans-culottes strut their stuff, proclaiming French nationalism under the figurehead of a Hungarian president and his Italian wife.

{…}

God send, at some time in the future – however distant – the restoration of the glittering monarchy whose downfall in blood is so vulgarly celebrated today. Long live the present-day heir of the Bourbons, the Duc d’Anjou, rightful King of France. Vive Louis XX.The Telegraph

Leftists have like their Stalinist idols erased memory and changed history.

Most people think the aristocracy were put on the throne by their wealth. The opposite is true: they were wealthy because they were put on the throne, because they were the descendants of those who forced a social order onto the unruly human beast and made a prosperous civilization out of a once-starving ragged band of barbarians.

Conservatism is a spectrum from moderate Republican beliefs through monarchism, complete with its caste system and ethno-nationalist persuasion. A true nation is consanguinous, united by values, and works together to conserve those. In that view, we are all means to an end: culture, land and heritage.

That’s too much for liberals. They want “culture” from television and fast food from exotic places. They want to destroy anything wholesome like true culture, heritage and even the land. When the land is covered by cities, they think, the inner part of the human soul that knows we are not all equal — that can be smashed, and we will live in paradise.

True, it will be a paradise-wasteland, but they are so motivated by hatred they want that more than they care about conserving wildlife.

This is why “environmentalism” is a failure. Like multiculturalism, in the hands of the left it is a weapon of class warfare and nothing more.

We face a great tragedy in our time. Ecocide is a crime that should not be forgiven. We all agree on this. We just argue over the methods. Leftists accept nothing that does not include their class warfare impetus.

It makes sense instead to look at the severity of the problem, and ask not what universals we “should” apply to everything we do, but how to solve this problem. Consequences trump methods.

But that’s a conservative value, and they will oppose it, even though it is the only way to stop the tragedy.

Overpopulation is ecocide

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

As conservation conservatives, we have at this blog taken a single viewpoint on the environmental crisis: it has a singular cause, which is land overuse, driven by another singular cause, which is a rise in human population.

We further note how many societies, including Easter Island and pre-Revolutionary France, doomed themselves by increasing their population past the carrying capacity of the land, specifically among the peasants who then initiated class warfare and killed off the capable leaders.

Even more, we’re painfully aware that all of the liberal “solutions” to the environmental crisis are bunk. The liberal solution is to make more peasants by giving peasants subsidies — in other words, class warfare, which is the liberal solution to everything.

But now as we watch more data roll in, it becomes clear that what’s killing off our plants and animals is that humans are expanding and using up all the land:

According to the latest report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published at the end of 2010, Guatemala has experienced the most rapid deforestation of any country over the last five years.

In 2010, primary forest accounted for 1.6m hectares, compared with 2.4m 20 years earlier. Guatemala, which, after Brazil, has South America’s second-largest rainforest cover, lost an average of 27,000 hectares a year between 2000 and 2005 (a rate of 1.32% per year), increasing to 68,000 hectares a year between 2005 and 2010 (3.72% per year), meaning that the rate of deforestation has almost trebled in the course of a decade.

{…}

It is driven by two factors, explains geographer Gilles Selleron: “Thanks to satellite imagery we can distinguish between the cattle rearing, which is mainly carried by the Ladino population, people of Hispanic origin, and the traditional subsistence farming of corn, marrow and beans by the indigenous Q’eqchi, a Maya people.” Selleron, who is based at the French national research institute and the environmental geography unit at Toulouse University, is a specialist in forest dynamics.

{…}

According to Cerezo, recent trade negotiations have allowed Guatemala to increase sugar exports, so sugar cane plantations have expanded. This competition for the land in a country that has never implemented agricultural reforms is occurring at the expense of local communities, which are being forced to search for new land.

But that’s not all. “In the last five years, the biggest contribution to the rapid deforestation has been the massive increase in demand for palm oil and the narcofincas or narco-farms,” said Cerezo. – The Guardian

Notice how carefully they conceal the truth: the population has not greatly expanded, but its appetites have. (The article says “Demographic pressure does not explain the speed with which the agricultural and grazing frontier has advanced” and then promptly contradicts itself.)

Who is expanding? People who want to earn money: subsistence farmers, drug growers, palm growers and cattle rearers.

Were there not a worldwide population explosion, these people would not be there. They would not be trying to each earn money to use more of the forest. Subsistence farming would give them enough to survive and there would not be a financial incentive to do more.

Instead, as the human population expands, the forest dies.

One in 10 species could face extinction by the year 2100 if current climate change impacts continue. This is the result of University of Exeter research, examining studies on the effects of recent climate change on plant and animal species and comparing this with predictions of future declines.

{…}

“We need to act now to prevent threatened species from becoming extinct. This means cutting carbon emissions and protecting species from the other threats they face, such as habitat loss and pollution.” – Science Daily

The press are born liars who never buck a trend. They manage to bury the truth deep in the article: global warming is accelerating the process of extinction caused by habitat loss (land overuse by humans) and pollution (too many humans).

Liberals like to ignore this data because it does not confirm their bias, which is that the rich — who make products for all of humanity — are somehow being irresponsible by deciding to make money off the masses, instead of refusing and letting some other guy do it.

The reality is that a huge number of humans means a huge audience for beef, drugs, palm oil and subsistence farms. Humans expand; nature shrinks.

Our environmental problem is a small one, actually, and easily fixed. We need to recognize that overpopulation is the problem, and stop subsidizing people with foreign aid, welfare and other helpful programs. Let nature adjust the carrying capacity, because humans always screw it up.

Even more, the West needs to become self-sufficient. If we need drugs or palm oil, we need to figure out how to grow that here. We’ve beat bigger technological problems before.

The only thing holding back this type of real progress is the false “progress” that’s popular in the media and liberal circles. As long as we follow that, we’ll never fix the real problem.

Futurist Traditionalism

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

Futurist Traditionalism begins in Guillaume Faye’s concept of metapolitics, or the notion that cultural change is spurred on by ideas, and this leads political change.

None of the parties available in politics today represent anything other than established demographics with their voting standards already set and defined by social forces; for example, most people vote liberal in an attempt to appear educated, intelligent and gregarious.

What remains is to analyze the ideas behind political orientations, and choose which one could form the basis of a culture which is not moribund as year 2011 “the West” is.

Conservatism is about learning from the past, and from nature; it is the natural law and natural selection viewpoint, and because it embraces those sometimes scary things, it is the outlook of transcendental wisdom or finding reasons why bad and good are both needed to produce the “meta-good” that is life itself.

Liberalism is a rebellion against natural law and a desire to supplant it with humanism, or the idea that human moral choices — preferences that respect the equality of all human beings — before the literal world of cause/effect logic. In other words, exercise choice, not study of reality.

As conservatives note, however, the order of reality is within. It is within us, and it is within the world around us. The mathematics of it pervade our thinking. Trying to outwit it is a short-term game, because even as we crow in victory, we find that what we thought were details conspire to defeat us.

Traditionalism is a form of conservatism that acknowledges that our one world succumbs to study, and successful strategies are those time-honored and eternal methods that adapt successfully to this world. In addition, traditionalism points to a parent state to the transcendental state, where mind and matter are joined by patterns and organization.

In other words, beyond time and space, energy and matter, there is a precursor state which encloses all we know; we can derive this knowledge through relativity (time and space create each other, and matter and energy create each other — energy is change in matter, matter is storage of energy — which suggests that a larger enclosing state exists).

As such, Traditionalism is a philosophical concept which dovetails with conservatism, transcendental and monistic mysticism, and the doctrine of realism which suggests the external world is “mind correlative” or works like a thinking process.

This returns us to the oldest value and voice for conservatism, Plato:

Plato’s view is also sometimes called the “Theory of Forms,” and “form” rather than “idea” better conveys what he meant.

Take the example of a triangle, which has a form that distinguishes it from a square or a circle. In Plato’s usage, this “form” includes not only its shape, but all the properties that make it the thing it is: the length of its sides, its area, the fact that its angles add up to 180 degrees, and so forth. Now any particular material triangle (such as the ones drawn in geometry textbooks) is going to have certain properties that are not part of “triangularity” as such, and will also lack certain properties that are part of triangularity as such.

For example, it will have a specific color — green, say — and lack perfectly straight sides, even though greenness is not part of triangularity and having straight sides is part of it. So in Plato’s view, when the intellect grasps the form of triangularity, it is not grasping something material, since nothing material manifests triangularity in the strictest sense. But neither is it grasping something mental. For there are certain facts about triangles — the Pythagorean theorem, for example — that are entirely objective, and discovered by the human mind rather than invented by it. Moreover, these facts are necessary and unchanging rather than contingent and alterable: the Pythagorean theorem is true eternally, whether or not any human mind thinks otherwise or would like it to be otherwise. “Triangularity” is therefore something that exists apart from either mind or matter, in a third realm of its own: the realm of Forms. And the same thing is true, according to Plato, of the Forms of everything else — squares and circles, plants and animals, human beings, beauty, truth, and goodness.

It is important to understand that talk about the Forms existing “in” a “realm,” and so forth, is purely metaphorical. Literally they don’t exist “in” anything, since “in” is a spatial term and the Forms, being immaterial, are outside time and space.

{…}

“Realist Conservatism,” as we might call it, affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature, and what it seeks to conserve are just those institutions reflecting a recognition and respect for this objective order. Since human nature is, on this view, objective and universal, long-standing moral and cultural traditions are bound to reflect it and thus have a presumption in their favor. – Ideas in Action

Realism is the study of reality, which does not limit itself to the study of material.

In mind, matter and energy, we find similar patterns. These patterns arise from the interaction of objects over time. However, their consistency makes them inherent to the nature of existence itself, which is why we call them natural law. Like rules of gravity, or even the shape of water droplets, this order pervades all invisibly and does not “exist” in time and space; it either exists objectively, even if only as an emergent order, or it exists solely in the minds of human beings.

It is from the latter that liberalism is born. If our thought-impressions of the world are the only place that patterns exist, we think, we can change those thought-impressions arbitrarily because they are arbitrary.

However, it is the repeated instantiation of form that suggests its existence is more pervasive, more like a boundary to reality itself, than mere human thought:

Shunyata is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, more specifically in the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism: ”Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.” This is the paradox of the concept .

Emptiness is not to be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is non-existence but not nothingness. Also, it is not non-reality. Emptiness means that an object, animate or inanimate, does not have its own existence independently. It has its meaning and existence only when all the elements or components it is made of come into play and we can understand and impute its existence clearly.

{…}

Plato held the view that there is an ideal essence in everything that we have around us, whether animate or inanimate. After all, ”the essence of the cup ultimately exists in the realm of the mind.” The Dalai Lama says that Shunyata is the absence of an absolute essence or independent existence. If a thing exists, it is because of several other factors. – Times of India

Plato’s argument does not campaign for the idea that forms exist in and of themselves, but that they are emergent patterns based on the interaction of objects and events, which means that they exist in some form although not perhaps their final form. A triangle, as used as example in the article above, exists because of the logical concept of a three-sided two dimensional figure.

The point of Plato’s argument is that our reality is consistent, over the years, and that we adapt to consistent phenomena. Whether they exist in a independent of time and space (in an enclosing space, not a dualistic fantasy world) or merely emerge from the coincidence of events, natural laws and objects, the fact is that they “exist” in that they repeat over time and similar circumstance.

In turn, that knowledge implies two vital things: first, their consistency means we can design optimal responses to them that will be as eternally successful as coping strategies as the patterns/forms themselves are eternally re-appearing; second, that as we study cause->effect logic, we should start with the pattern and not the material form it takes.

From this awareness, we derive a passage of consciousness: if there is a single reality that all must face, and a single set of natural laws that determine which actions succeed or fail, and this consistency in turn brings us life and choice, we must be reverent toward it; this means, in turn, that we become consequentialists or those who are concerned with end results, causes and goals more than whether their methods are moral, appear compassionate, are socially popular or fiscally rewarded.

While most people think of conservatism as backward-looking, what this affirms is that conservatism is forward-looking, but unlike the mental health cases out there, conservatives choose their forward direction based on their knowledge of the consistent laws of the universe. Conservatives think from cause->effect, and replicating that in their own thought process, from method->goal; liberals think from effect->self.

The reversed logic of the modern time relies on this sleight-of-hand: instead of looking at reality as something we must adapt to, we look at ourselves and figure we will act as we feel or desire, and we ignore the consequences in reality. We make a model of the world in our minds and we manipulate those thought-objects instead of changing reality so that causes lead to effects.

Since we started the chain of logic with ourselves, we have cut out any notion of cause->effect logic; we assume we and others in our social group are the cause of all things, and try to manipulate words, symbols and social events to make that happen.

Naturally, this is a path to entropy. The context and details we cut out of the picture by creating isolated thought-objects in our minds, because they are integral to understanding how events will transpire, come back to strike us with “unexpected” consequences. Over time, these build a foundation of instability under all that we do, and we become schizoid shuttling between our mental image and dealing with the reality we cannot anticipate.

The furthest manifestation of this mental error is ideology and dogma. These are political concepts which supplant the study of reality; instead of trying to figure out how nature works, and then formulate a plan to fit in with that process, we project a moral or social “truth” and force others to obey it, thus making it “real” at least temporarily.

Eventually, it leads to a state of total neurosis, in which the person decides reality is optional, values are pointless, there is no culture, religion or cause worth supporting. This state is mis-identified as nihilism (a rejection of human-imposed meaning) but is more correctly called fatalism: a belief that no activity has efficacy, so why not act for oneself? The ultimate extreme of individualism, narcissism, results:

If narcissists were just jerks, they would be easy to avoid. The fact that they are entertaining and exciting as well as aggressive and manipulative makes them compelling in the real world and as subjects of psychological scrutiny.

A cross section of the narcissist’s ego will reveal high levels of self-esteem, grandiosity, self-focus, and self-importance. They think they are more physically attractive and intelligent than just about everyone, and would rather be admired than liked. They are enraged when told they aren’t beautiful or brilliant but aren’t affected much if told they are jerks.

{…}

Narcissists thrive in big, anonymous cities, entertainment-related fields (think reality TV), and leadership situations where they can dazzle and dominate others without having to cooperate or suffer the consequences of a bad reputation.

{…}

Narcissists’ language and demeanor is often geared toward one objective: to maintain power in an interaction.

{…}

In the sexual realm, promiscuity is a key strategy that allows narcissists to maintain control. Think the “principle of least interest,” in which the partner with the least interest in a relationship has the greatest power.

{…}

It appears that narcissists seek out people who maintain their high positive self-image, at the same time intentionally avoiding and putting down people who may give them a harsh dose of realism. “Seeking admiration is like a drug for narcissists,” notes Back. – Psychology Today

The furthest extreme of liberalism is this type of obsessive individualism.

People of this nature tend to form groups around themselves in which people reinforce each other’s elevated self-esteem, which is in itself a compensation for a lack of purpose in life.

When those groups are challenged, or break down, vindictive and insane behavior results.

Mr. Rea is suffering from what one might call Too Much Positive Reinforcement: The belief, against all available evidence, that one is meant for Special Things.

TMPR has now officially reached epidemic proportions. How else to explain the legions of the talent-free who wait in line for days for a chance to show their stuff to Mr. Cowell and company-then are stunned to be told they don’t make the grade? After decades of upper-middle-class parenting designed to shield Junior from all possible failure, and from any honest judgement of his talents, it’s no wonder we need television shows like American Idol and its fellow showcase for TMPR victims, The Apprentice . These shows are delivering the spanking-sorry, the time-out -that our culture of bloated self-evaluation is subconsciously craving. Their success signals that we may be reaching the end of a long national delusion. There is simply not room enough at the top these days for everyone raised to believe they belong there-and, deep down, we all know it. – New York Observer

The end result of reversed logic is that individual humans believe they are more important than anything else, and that everything else should be a means to an end.

This is the phenomenon underlying modern society, liberalism and consumerism. We call it Crowdism around here, because it is a paradoxical condition by which narcissistic individuals form Crowds out of cognitive dissonance, and then force their dogma of equality and self-importance upon the rest of us.

Crowdism is inherently unstable because it is a false reality, and whenever a collision with the “real” reality occurs, the individual doubts the Crowd. For this reason, Crowds tend to compel their members to constantly seek out false enemies and crush them.

The Solution: Futurist Traditionalism

Futurist Traditionalism reverses reversed logic:

  • Eternalism. We live in one world, pervaded by a mathematical order which is intangible, and understanding that order is how we succeed. While we can use force to create a temporary alternative to that order, and use social pressures to make many people agree and do its bidding, ultimately that clashes with reality and causes problems. Instead we choose an abstract consensus of values that helps us adapt to the challenges of life for time immemorial, and let this guide us past the trends, desires, feelings, impulses and flights of fancy of the passing years. The eternal trumps the contemporary.
  • Goal/Cause. If we find an effect in life, we can with effort trace it back to its cause. We can then match our goals to possible causes, and use those causes to make our goals appear on earth in a self-renewing form, or process. A philosophical goal will unify culture, religion and society; all of these must be in accord, and society must lead not follow by stating its goal, and using all else as a means to the end that is that goal. Individuals are understood as important by their roles and responsibilities in this quest, which allows them to be praised, accepted and adored for their ability to make this shared values system happen.
  • Leadership. Where democratic leaders read polls and then adjust their opinions to match, and marketers look at what people are buying and make products to match, and even in social circumstances we see what is popular and then chase the trend, Futurist Traditionalism operates from finding a clear purpose and acting toward that end. It does not chase its own tail. For this reason, it is stable and also fosters growth, because every citizen knows what behaviors will be rewarded, which will be censured, and which will be ignored.

These traits fix the reversed logic which grips our modern world.

Futurist Traditionalism arises from paleoconservatism, or pre-1945 conservatism, as hybridized with modern movements like deep ecology:

We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.

We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

  • The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
  • The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.
  • Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
  • Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

Foundation for Deep Ecology

What separates deep ecologists from environmentalists is that (a) deep ecologists are conservationists, or people who believe we should set aside nature rather than try to limit our own impact through products, and (b) deep ecologists recognize that for conservation to become a priority in our society, our civilization must re-orient its values and imagination toward reverence for nature, tradition, culture and the eternal.

Unlike modern politics, which is based in ideology, Futurist Traditionalism recognizes that the human problem is eternal — selfishness, oblivion, deception and criminality based in narcissism — and that the solution is to sort the good people from the bad, and avoid situations where the individual chooses what is convenient for them and then forces that result onto society and nature.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. – Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”

In other words, where modern society is about individual rights to individual behavior, Futurist Traditionalism is about the right of the individual to choose a social standard, and thus have a more stable and less delusional experience in which, unlike in modern society, they are rewarded for doing good deeds and shunned for doing bad.

A rough outline of Futurist Traditionalism beliefs:

  • Futurism. We should devote our time and energy to pushing barriers in technology and exploration. We need to explore the stars, develop faster computers, make even more discoveries in science. We must push back against the forces, both religious and humanistic, that want to limit science. We need smart, moral and far-thinking people in charge of our science.
  • Conservation. We should stop development of new land and return as much land as possible to its previous natural state, undivided by fences and roads. Instead, we should re-develop our inner cities and instead of relegating criminals to bad neighborhoods, simply eject them from our society. They are parasites. We also can cut down on the number of random stores we have through the use of shopping districts.
  • Nationalism. Throughout history, diversity has been a failure; in the longer view, nationalism or the unity of a civilization based on shared ethnic heritage, language, values, customs and culture has been a success. We switched from nationalism in 1789, with the French Revolution, and turned to the “nation-state,” or an ideological state unified by political and economic system. This has brought an unending series of large-scale wars, in contrast to the limited wars of nationalists.
  • Monarchism. The point of a meritocracy is to pick the best people, and then over time, to encourage them to produce offspring with each other, because most (80%) of our abilities are derived from our genetics, not our education or upbringing. In short, we should treat ourselves like the plants and animals we domesticate, and breed ourselves upward for greater intelligence, beauty and moral character. As a wise man says:

    Schopenhauer believed that a person inherits one’s level of intellect through one’s mother, and personal character through one’s father.[37] Schopenhauer quotes Horace’s saying, “From the brave and good are the brave descended” (Odes, iv, 4, 29) and Shakespeare’s line from Cymbeline, “Cowards father cowards, and base things sire base” (IV, 2) to reinforce his hereditarian argument.[38] On the question of eugenics, Schopenhauer wrote:

    With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles.[39]

    Or more kindly – “The final aim of all love intrigues, be they comic or tragic, is really of more importance than all other ends in human life. What it all turns upon is nothing less than the composition of the next generation.… It is not the weal or woe of any one individual, but that of the human race to come, which is here at stake.”

    In another context, Schopenhauer reiterated his antidemocratic-eugenic thesis: “If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic”. – Wikipedia

  • Libertarianism. Wherever possible, free markets should be allowed to regulate themselves instead of letting government do it. While the market may need to be restrained from destructive behaviors, and kept it check from its excesses, for day-to-day processes it is a more efficient model than having bureaucrats try to command it.
  • Paleoconservatism. If we are to adapt to nature, and do it with grace, the oldest school of conservatism is important. We need to be family-oriented, meaning supportive of chastity, different gender roles, and helping parents pass wealth on to their children. We need a public standard of behavior that encourages us to rise above the venal mediocrity of the lowest common denominator. We need to emphasize solid principles like hard work, analytical and critical thinking, love for nature, chivalry and aggressive attention to problems both future and present. Finally, we need shame and ostracization for those who violate community standards.
  • Elitism. The point of our civilization is that we constantly get better, not that “I’m OK, you’re OK” without having proven ourselves. We subsidize no one. We encourage people to rise by achievement, and then reward them, but not before. At all times, we keep competition at a lazy pace, where most can get by doing a little better than the norm, but to shoot ahead, one must be exceptional. Whether we like it or not, Darwinism or Social Darwinism is in effect at all times, so we might as well make it work to make us smarter instead of dumber, as leveling-subsidy systems like Socialism do.

Futurist Traditionalism offers a better future than modernity.

Modernity offers a union of leftist beliefs and commerce, a type of anarcho-totalitarianism where the reckless pursuit of individualism incurs huge socialized costs, which then require a massive Nanny State to enforce laws and keep self-destruction away. It is soft tyranny, enforced as much by status-climbing individuals who want the “right” opinions as by big media broadcasting constant propaganda, and commerce offering further degrees of venality to increase the anarchic component. Modernity ends in slow decay, and third world status for those formerly rich first world nations, while commerce goes international and finds new hosts to parasitize. In the name of individualism and personal choice, we empower the marketers, merchants and demagogues. The worst part is that the individual has to guess at what will be rewarded behavior; they know what is accepted, and that money is seen as success, but beyond that they must pander to the Crowd opinion and yet, find it hard to distinguish themselves by truly good deeds as so much false image-making exists.

Futurist Traditionalism offers a clear sense of order because it is goal-oriented. It establishes values held in common, and uses those to emphasize role, responsibility, reverence, virtue and purpose. As such it is in any age the right way for us as a species to adapt to our environment, and not only survive, but thrive by choosing more elegant and graceful behaviors over the lowest common denominator. Where modernity values inclusiveness, Futurist Traditionalism values transcending ourselves and becoming better people. As a result it offers a rising social order, a greater stability, and a chance to be rewarded for what we do right, instead of being subsidized for being human. In addition, by granting society purpose, it streamlines our activities and removes our most destructive tendencies.

Recommended Reading