Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘conservationism’

Living with Wolves (2005)

Monday, January 15th, 2018

Living with Wolves follows how Jim and Jamie Dutcher actually lived with wolves; the wolves were in charge of the relationship. This attempts to present the real nature of wolves instead of a stereotype based either on the Disney-esque pacifism of nature or the human fear of animals that can still be our predators.

The main focus of the documentary, relevant to us deep ecologists, centers on how wolves form an indissoluble relationship with the biodiversity and ecology of their territory. The cameramen-naturalists Jamie and Jim Dutcher lived six years in a tent camp in the wilderness of Idaho with a covey of wolves, listening to them and earning their trust.

During centuries past, wolves were characterized as blood-thirsty beasts, enemies of owners of ranch and killer of helpless live-stock. This arises from the individualist tendency to categorize personal fears as universal truths, and then to use the power of the herd to remove the threat. When humans are united against wolves, wolves disappear from the environment.

However we find that much as life requires both good and evil to constantly balance itself, nature — and by extension, ourselves — require wolves as part of a balanced ecosystem. Without predators, the prey take over; once they do, they become weak; when they become weak, they die out. If you love bunnies and mice, you must also love wolves.

Today when we are striving to save what’s left of western civilization and redesign it, to create a better version of it we will include deep ecology because we realize that the fundamental idea of deep ecology — redesigning our civilization to include the reality outside human minds — also applies to preserving civilization. Protecting the wilderness is on par with protecting our races, ethnic groups, cultures, religious faiths, and values. And the symbol of the wilderness is the wolf.

This documentary is completely different from others. It is not based on entertainment where some idiot is wrestling with crocodiles or another idiot is exploiting animals. Those documentaries seem not far removed, in some cases, from harassment of these animals by using their elemental urges against them. As such, Living with Wolves is not usual Discovery Channel fare.

Instead, expect to find an informative documentary not so much about wolves, but about the environment itself, and how ecosystems work. From that, we can see how the universe around us which is based on conflict is in fact a superior design to our human orders based on safety. We instinctively fear the wolves, but what we really should fear is our tendency to self-destruct without them.

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:

Conservation conservatism

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

Every civilization ever created has faced an environmental problem: a healthy civilization grows, which means that it produces more people than the land can carry.

A number of pitfalls, or fake solutions, present themselves: growing upward in the cities, which essentially renders people sociopathic by cramming them into too tight a proximity, and licensing “green” lightbulbs, trash bags and SUVs, which makes a ton of profit for someone but doesn’t solve the problem.

The only solution is to at some point shut the floodgates and stop growing outward, and instead grow inward. Improve in quality, not quantity; be more efficient, and be more conscientious.

Which group do you think will accomplish this:

  • The party of permissiveness. In the liberal worldview, there is no social standard or hierarchy. Any person can do any thing they want at any time, anywhere.
  • The party of standards. Conservatives do not like centralized power, but they do like standards held in common and hierarchies that solve problems.

Obviously, that was a rhetorical question; it answers itself: no party of permissiveness is going to do anything effective about limiting growth and waste.

They will step right into those pitfalls by making “symbolic” public gestures, like licensing green lightbulbs, recycling condoms, and banning full-fat hot dogs. But they’re not going to fix the problem.

Real environmental problems boil down to one thing. We’re using too much land. If we use less land, there are fewer of us, less waste, and more natural spaces to clean it up.

More importantly, there are open spaces without fences or roads where the plants and animals that create our natural ecosystems can thrive.

Every animal requires a certain number of acres not just to live in, but to roam in. Each plant requires some space, and some animals, to survive. It’s not like a zoo, or apartment, where you put each animal in a 10′ x 12′ space and break for lunch.

We can also do a better job of not polluting. Cleaner energy, cradle-to-grave recycling in the country where products are purchased, and better enforcement of toxic waste dumping — all are important.

But without us setting aside huge tracts of land for our species, they die out.

Adult male Panthers defend territories of around 200 sq. miles while female Panthers have territories of around 75 sq. miles.

[…]

Historically Florida Panthers lived in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee and some think they reached into Texas. Today they only live in parts of Southern Florida including the Everglades and the Big Cypress Swamp. The Florida Panther is threatened by the destruction of their habitat, collisions with automobiles, and genetic defects caused by extensive inbreeding. – Florida Panther FAQ

Too little land, and the population drops to too few individuals to avoid damaging inbreeding.

Too many fences, and they can’t roam that 200 mile range. Imagine being confined to your apartment or home for the rest of your life. That 1k-2k square feet isn’t looking so big anymore.

Without us setting aside vast amounts of land that humans do not touch, our forests die and the ecosystems of which they are part collapse.

Maybe we can learn from the past:

Poor agricultural practices and years of sustained drought caused the Dust Bowl. Plains grasslands had been deeply plowed and planted to wheat. During the years when there was adequate rainfall, the land produced bountiful crops. But as the droughts of the early 1930s deepened, the farmers kept plowing and planting and nothing would grow. The ground cover that held the soil in place was gone. The Plains winds whipped across the fields raising billowing clouds of dust to the skys. The skys could darken for days, and even the most well sealed homes could have a thick layer of dust on furniture. In some places the dust would drift like snow, covering farmsteads. – The Great Depression, Cary Nelson, Illinois University

When we shatter ecosystems, we lose what makes the land as it appears. We see rolling hills and flat prairies and think that maybe the land was made that way.

In reality, however, we cannot separate the land from the species that live on it. Those rolling hills and flat prairies are there only because of the grasses holding the dirt together, and the species that maintain it.

For a healthy prairie, you need animals to eat grass seed and in so doing, scatter it widely; you need larger animals to deposit nutrients through waste and decomposition; also needed are a host of bugs, worms and smaller creatures that condition the soil.

When all of that disappears, the whole thing falls apart. A prairie can resist a few years of drought; farmland cannot.

This is why many are pushing for us to conserve forests:

Preventing deforestation, through which an area of forest equivalent in size to the UK is cut down every two years, is not desirable, but essential for maintaining the earth’s natural capital upon which the global economy relies.

In fact, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has calculated the current rate of deforestation needs to be halved by 2020 to prevent global temperatures rising to dangerous levels. – BBC

For a moment, ignore the pious palaver about climate change. This issue is much bigger than climate change. We all wish our impact was limited to climate change, but it is not.

Forests are the lungs of the world. They regenerate its air. They also house its species and condition its rivers and soil.

Like prairies, forests are a self-maintaining ecosystem that can survive many stresses. That is, if it’s left alone.

Turning it into a public park ensures that soon people will want paved paths, will scatter litter throughout it, and will drive away natural species through constant traffic. You’ll have squirrels and raccoons left, neither of which are endangered.

We need to conserve the land, and to set it aside.

Before conservatives started fighting a rearguard action against liberalism, they were known as those who conserved. They conserved culture by keeping it alive and funding its outpourings; they conserved society by standing against harmful habits and bad laws; finally, they conserved nature by setting aside as much land as they could.

None of this is as exciting as what our modern crusaders do, inventing “green” products and talking about wealth re-distribution through carbon cap and trade. But think for a moment: even if our modern crusaders get everything they want, our environmental problem will remain.

Only conservation conservatism can stop it. Conservatives are not permissive; they know reality exists not as a zero-sum game, per se, but as a system with clear rules of order. They know that if we don’t adapt sensibly, nature’s response will not be what we hoped for. And nature does not care what we hope.

While many people will offer environmental policies that amount to expensive band-aids, none are wholly effective. Conservation is, which is why many people are afraid to discuss it; too much is at stake, and they fear change.

But if we really desire to fix our environmental problem, it is a necessary option that will succeed where our band-aids fail.

Jacques Cousteau

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

jacques_cousteau

Among advocates for nature, underwater explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau remains a perpetual favorite for his embrace of natural species without moralizing their predatory and often dangerous ways. He steered people past fear to appreciation for the world beneath the waves.

He also made a number of statements which left and right alike recoil from in horror. The foremost is reproduced here:

Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer . . . . Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species.

This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. – Interview with Jacques Cousteau in a 1991 UNESCO Courier

Like other ecologists of note, he sees past the convenient lie which is that by buying “energy-efficient” dishwashers, we in the West can solve the crisis of ongoing human ecocide of our environment. Instead, he points the finger toward the likely culprit: overpopulation.

With enough untouched natural land around us, our impact is minimal. But with each human we add, we need more land for human use only. This land comprises not only habitations, but farming, roads, factories, hospitals, schools and other things we traditionally consider “good” but ignore how they displace natural ecosystems that renew our air, water and food resources.

Like bacteria in a petri dish, humans on their current course will absorb all nutrients and use up all space, then begin a die-off as they run out of resources and are poisoned by their own waste. This pattern is consistent with many species who self-destruct, and those who explore nature have seen it many times.

Cousteau claims he is “an ecologist for the people” in the “Obituary of Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” New York Times A p. 1 (June 26, 1997). He is thus both an advocate for nature and humanity, who only by linguistic convenience exclude themselves from nature, as both will be doomed by the same process.

This gentle, thoughtful and fearless man showed us with passion the intricacy of the world’s oceans as a form of wonder and reverence. His attempts to do the same for human population control have met with mystification, but his same insight propels both observations.

Pentti Linkola

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

“We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost.”

Pentti Linkola writes about the apocalyptic climactic changes that will soon effect us here in humanityland, but he doesn’t take the easy way out that most authors do.

Most “environmentalists” (greens, conservationists) emphasize a strategy of limiting first-world consumption and reproduction. This ignores the vaster problem underlying our environmental dilemma, which is that every human requires a certain amount of land which displaces the natural systems that replenish air, water and food sources.

Instead, Linkola chooses to be brutally honest and suggests that we’ve already missed our chance to curb our damage of the world, so what we must do is to begin the elimination of human and technological excesses now by limiting population and opulence worldwide.

This naturally clashes with the ideology that has assimilated the environmental movement, liberalism. Instead of shying away from this conflict, Linkola styles himself as an ecofascist, or one who would impose unpopular truths on a population addicted to pursuing popular illusions and deferring consequences until later.

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.”

“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.”

“The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.”

“That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.”

Linkola adopts a number of controversial views for how to save our environment — and ultimately our own future as a species — such as:

If the present number of Earths population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth controll, then:

  • Birthgiving is licenced. To enhance quality of population , genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring. So that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
  • Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
  • Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals.
  • Government: There would not be any democracy anymore. More power to government would allow it to restrain the population, and laws would reflect need and not want. Individuals would not be allowed to make some of their decisions for themselves.
  • Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.
  • Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
  • Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.
  • Business will mostly end . Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.
  • Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.
  • Mass immigration is terminated.

“The biggest threat to life is too much life,” Linkola has famously said. Expressing sentiments similar to those from Ted Kaczinski, Linkola says that industrialization has been a disaster for planet Earth and its inhabitants. “The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness — even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks,” he writes.

“Employment isn’t a good reason enough to explain some projects that are going on. We could employ all the people in Finland and over the world to dig a tunnel under the ground to China. The problem isn’t about employment and unemployment, the question is, is it mindless, unnecessary or harmful. Unemployment is always better than doing harmful work.”

Not a fan of the inclusive society, which he sees as conducive to both growth and lowered quality of humankind, Linkola dislikes liberal democracy. “The US symbolizes the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom,” he writes.

Nordicism vs Pan-Aryanism, and Preservationism

Wednesday, June 29th, 2005

There’s no question that Indo-European self-interest is gaining momentum. Thanks to multiculturalism, Indo-Europeans (Caucasians, “whites,” Euripids) now realize they are a minority targetted by other groups who desire the perceived greater wealth and ability of people of European descent. That a change will happen in this direction is not a question, to a broader observer of history. No one who has read a meaningful breadth of history is surprised at the authoritarian moves of the Bush administration; authoritarianism is how one deals with a divided society at the end of its cycle, like our own spoiled and fat and directionless one – whether it’s Bush or not is a different question. Similarly, since we know a resurgence of nationalism is going to inevitably occur, it’s time to pick the most sensible form of nationalism possible.

In many ways, this issue is similar to the different approaches of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Hitler to Christianity. Nietzsche said, in effect, “Christianity is sick and Jewish; let us destroy it.” The more contemplative and pessimistic Schopenhauer said simply, let us pick the best form of Christianity – and, as astute philologicians know, he was thinking of his early influence Meister Eckhardt. Hitler, being of exclusively a practical mind, essentially took Schopenhauer a step further: let us decide what is a sensible religion, and make Christianity into it. These three thinkers all knew the problems with Christianity, and took different paths to a solution, but the end result of these paths – which are but a means to an end – would be the same, whether it were labelled Christianity, Hinduism, Nazism or New Age. It isn’t the label on it that matters, but the structure of the thoughts (philosophy) inside of it.

When we look at Nationalism today, the people who watch too much TV, buy too many movies and download too much mainstream music from SoulSeek will recoil in horror and say, “Nationalism is fascist and racist; let us destroy it.” The hardcore clubhouse neo-Nazi types will harrumph and proclaim it “not extreme enough.” The level-headed thinkers, whether we are inclined toward nationalism or not, will decide that regardless of label, this could be a way to adopt sensible values into an insensible society, and thus move ourselves from a diseased time forward. At that level of thought, whether or not our future is nationalist does not matter – outside of the primary statement of nationalism, which is grouping of peoples into political entities by both ethnicity and culture (and not politics, as is the case in patriotism), there are many more issues which fit together to form a philosophy. The question incumbent upon us is what that philosophy might be, and how to pick the best one so that our reform extends beyond questions of nationality alone.

To those who observe dying civilizations, it is clear that the primary trait is a loss of goal, or shared values, and when that occurs, money and personal pretense (“rights” and “freedoms” to do whatever freaky, self-destructive, or cancerously degenerate thing one desires) fill in the void. Replacing a monetarist civilization, or one in which the primary goal is economic competition as a means of giving the individual power, requires we find a higher value than money – that we return to a healthier stage of society, when there was a bigger motivation than personal wealth. For this reason, there should be reason for all to take heart at the adoption of nationalism; it means we are ever-so-slowly moving on from the low point in human history where “it’s profitable” was the only justification we sought or needed. Yet as mentioned above, the concept “nationalism” is only one aspect of complete political worldview, although nationalism has been throughout history associated with other values as well.

The broader historical view suggests that we view this not as much as a political change, but a philosophical one: we’re moving on from issue-based politics, materialism and individualism, and we’re heading toward organic collectivism. The remaining question for a nationalist society involves how it designates ethnic-cultural groups, and how then it decides to structure society to support them.

In current politics, Nationalism is roughly divided into several camps. One of the most prominent are the Nordicists, who argue that the Nordic (and some will say, as Hitler did, the “Nordic-Germanic”) strain is the closest we have to the original ethnic-cultural group that emerged from Northern Europe to establish the societies of Greece, India, Rome, Egypt, and so forth. Most historical data supports this assumption, although it’s fair to note that, at least according to linguistic derivation, that original group fragmented and diversified rapidly, although retained its core values and beliefs. Nordicists argue that Nordics must be preserved from admixture by (a) other races and (b) other Indo-European ethnic-cultural groups. They do not harbor ill-will toward those other groups, but wish them to each exist as their own nationality, refining themselves through positive breeding as best they can. This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must rule itself.

Radically contrasted to the Nordicists are the “Pan-Aryanists” or “White Nationalists,” who believe that all things white should exist on the same stratum, and thus we should combine white races and tribes to produce a universal “white culture” which we can then breed toward a higher level. This belief is the most modern form of nationalism, and comes almost exclusively from countries in which a high degree of inter-tribal mixing has already occurred, such as in the United States, Canada, Russia and the UK. The Pan-Aryanists think that anyone of partial Nordic-Germanic-“Aryan” heritage should be included in one giant tribe, and that tribe can approximate its culture from that mix. Admittedly, this is the most pragmatic view in mixed cultures, because to divide the United States, for example, into tribal groups would be easy in some areas (mainly the South) but impossible in others (such as New York, where almost every “white” person is Irish-English-German-Slavic-Italian or some variant thereof). For this reason, American and English neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups almost exclusively adhere to this belief.

For the sake of convenience, I will call these views Tribalism and Demographicism, respectively. The first is called tribal because it believes in the division of tribes, and the second demographic, as it looks practically at how people self-identify in mixed cultures. It’s important to note that both are nationalism, although tribalism divides on the basis of race and tribe, where demographicism divides only on the basis of the largest part of ethnic heritage. Tribalists tend to shy away from the idea of mixing relatively pure tribes (Germans, Scandinavians) with tribes already displaying admixture, and there’s a good amount of historical data to suggest that their point is valid: once mixed, always mixed, or so history dictates; mixing creates a local culture that cannot return to its original state. Where demographicists have the advantage, of course, is in a modern democracy; if you can unite people by the fact of being “white,” it’s easier than trying to address individual tribes and then getting them to cooperate.

Also, as is impossible to miss, it’s essential that some form of demographicist nationalism exist for those Polish-French-Irish-German-Spanish hybrids in America, the UK, and Canada (as well as the corresponding Germanic-Baltid-Slavic-Mongol hybrids in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Semitic hybrids of the Mediterranean and UK). Without this demographicism, they have the unsteady participation in nationalism of being identified as new mixes, such as “American” or “English,” that do not directly describe a single bloodline. But for those who are mostly unmixed, does it make sense to blend their bloodline, especially with hybrids that include non-Indo-European races?

Clearly this is where the Nordicists make the most sense: if you’re going to preserve a race, do so by starting with that which is less mixed and work outward toward other strata. For this reason, I’d like to propose a new vision of nationalism, called “Preservationism.”

Preservationism not only formulates a more sensible grouping of Nationalists, but also, associates with nationalism a general agenda that not only supports the political needs of nationalism, but the philosophy that allows people to appreciate it. Preservationism includes a form of nationalism, but is not limited to it; however, for practical political purposes, we can call it a type of nationalism. Where Preservation differs from Nordicism is that it is willing to create a Pan-Indo-European group and call it, for lack of a better term, “English”; this applies to all mixed-tribal white people, and separates them from those of relatively pure (3/4 or more) tribal heritage. It differs from Pan-Aryanism/White Nationalism in that it believes in preservation of those relatively unmixed Indo-European groups, and their separation from others.

The reason for this is inherent in the name: unlike most neo-Nazi or White Nationalist groups, Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit. They seek instead to assert that their own group needs to be preserved, and the only way to preserve it is through nationalism, including exclusion of all other races and tribes. Further, Preservationists seek to, in the same way the Nazis championed “Blood and Soil,” establish a communitarian principle of government; this means, for you who are familiar with leftist language, an impulse toward localization and permanent association of ethnic groups with ancestral land. The reason for this is also derived from the name: Preservationists seek to continue what nature started, and to act in concert with both natural order and Tradition, in the Julius Evola-Rene Guenon-F.W. Nietzsche sense. They recognize that the “progressive” vision of society is Utopian delusion, and seek to restore the only working form of society that has existed, and that is one where humans see themselves and nature as participants in a cosmic order, and thus work toward “ideals,” or designs of a higher evolutionary nature – not “new” and “empowering” ideas in government, or politics, or art, but better versions of the eternal philosophical concept that unifies them all.

Preservationists are simultaneously Green, Nationalist, and Localist – this is the essence of communitarian, or community-based, government. A local community defines itself by its land, its culture, and its heritage, in this view. Unlike Pan-Aryanist/White Nationalist views, Preservationism is detached from the implement of modern society – large centralized bureaucracies – and returns to an order by which civilizations develop independently with allegiances only against common enemies. In this, it allows a return of Traditionalist values to Indo-European culture, with these including, among other things, a reverence for cosmic order including the system of karma, by which one moves from a least-evolved state to a highest state of evolution. As karma is conveyed through the vehicle of evolutionary breeding, it is not only a racial hierarchy, but one of castes and individual abilities as well. Unlike Judeo-Christian morality, karma does not posit good or evil, but says that if one lives according to higher ideals, one steadily moves up through the caste system from lowest to highest. This happens over many lives, and could as easily describe the process of selective breeding as some kind of reincarnation. For those who believe that the design of their bodies, including minds, creates their consciousness, the two are roughly convertible concepts.

We cannot undo history. The division of the Indo-European peoples has happened; our technology running roughshod over the world and destroying much has happened; our political failures have occurred and cannot be taken back. What we can do is to start working on what we have now, and to take it to a Traditional state, including caste systems. This requires we take a clue from the Nordicists and, for unmixed tribes of whites, breed them into better versions of what they are: Germans, Scandinavians, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Irish. Mixing the unmixed is destructive, and will accomplish the same destruction of heritage toward which modern society aims. As each group carries in its collective genetic memory the recollection of events and decisions made in the karmic cycle to reach its current position, mixing would obliterate that past and start the entire race of white people off at a lower level. However, for those who are already mixed, giving them a cultural identity – English – and encouraging through selective breeding the refinement of that ideal, will produce – much as it has in Slavs, Irish, Italians – a local culture which will steadily move upward toward greatness.

Furthermore, by associating each group to a local community, we remove the braindead system of centralized bureaucracy and replace it with localization, including environmental protection, as who would poison the land of their ancestors which their children will inherit? This also allows diversification, and the rise of those who are more capable and of better moral character, without lumping us all together and standardizing us to a single level in the same way modernity accomplishes all of its political aims. Pan-Aryanism is modernity; Nordicism is too limited; Preservationism is right. As democracy collapses, and individualism reveals itself to be unfettered selfishness, fascism and nationalism are coming – if we inform ourselves to the degree that we can understand why Preservationism makes sense, we can make nationalism an enduring success instead of another stage in a lugubrious decline.

Oh, Global Warming

Wednesday, January 5th, 2005

earth_horizon

In a time when people build their self-image around what they believe, in order to “morally” justify their modes of living, any issue of importance is immediately polarized between the identifications of opposing camps, and thus debate moves from the issue itself to the reasons for its condemnation or approval. Such is the case with global warming, an issue that one might think would receive direct attention, but instead is a source of ongoing verbal combat and, not surprisingly, no resolution to action.

There are plenty of reasons to believe “global warming,” as a phenomenon, does not exist, at least in the sense of the earth being heated by human-produced carbon emissions. Although it would be hard to come up with any definitive proof either way, there’s a lack of evidence for a direct causal link between human activity and the heating of the earth. Further, there’s a smattering of clues that provide the suggestion that the observable increase in temperatures worldwide is a naturally-occurring, predetermined tendency.

The debate over proof for global warming almost overshadows the finger-pointing and name-calling between two opposing “sides,” which we’ll call left and right following the nomenclature of our modern politics, with the left believing global warming is real, and thinking we should put insignificant caps on industry to limit pollution, and the right denying that global warming exists and thus mandating business as usual. In the midst of this busy and resultless activity, a fundamental factor of the argument has been lost: global warming is one symptom of many of human overconsumption of our environment.

Suppose we, “scientific”- and linear-minded moderns that we are, were to formulate an equation for human takeover of the earth. It might look like this:

n = n – (x + y)

Where n is the amount of space and resources on earth, x is the amount of space used so far, and y is the amount used in a given time interval, for example, this year. When we look at this equation for one year only, its significance is lost; after all, it’s a foregone assumption that humans will use resources this year. However, if we are able to see this equation on a graph, or over time, it becomes clear that every year x gets bigger, and thus n gets smaller.

In this light, the thought that n is of a huge size, almost inconceivable to our individual viewpoints, is eroded, because no matter how big n is, after enough years x will consume it, since x keeps growing where n stays the same. Therefore, eventually, humanity will consume earth unless there are limiting forces put into place, and with our industrial society having conquered disease and premature death to the point where only very few of us die each year outside of the parameters of our natural lifespan, it is certain that eventually n will approach zero.

This gives us pause on the global warming debate. Setting aside for a moment the question of “proof” for global warming, we have to think that no matter whether or not global warming is real, something will screw up if this equation reflects reality, because nature is composed of ecosystems, which are complex machines of interlocking species and climatic cycles such that a balance is maintained. Earth is a self-sustaining mechanism, or at least is without human intervention. Yet this mechanism requires a certain amount of land and resources, part of n, with which to operate, and n is decreasing yearly.

On this front global warming seems plausible if we assume that for each decrement of n, z, or the amount of carbon waste produced by the growth that occupies the space and resources consumed by x, increases. It’s not my goal here to get into preaching about global warming, however. You could prove to me tomorrow that it’s a “natural” effect, and suggest I don’t worry, to which I’ll reply: I’m not worried about global warming specifically as much as I am concerned about the inexorable decrease of n, which in turn results in an inevitable decline in natural ecosystems, eventually culminated in species extinction, the death of ecosystems and destruction of things that took aeons to evolve.

The very fact that we debate global warming endlessly while ignoring this ongoing process of decline shows that we, as a species, are in denial about our effects on our natural world. As products of our modern era, we’re accustomed to using a process:

  1. Isolate a factor.
  2. Norm to some iterative constant.
  3. Reduce to cause-effect logic, exploit.

Despite its effectiveness for producing internal combustion engines and digital computers, this process is useless for understanding architectonic systems, or systems where the parts interact to form a self-supporting whole, meaning that no part functions as a pivot but all parts are in some way pivotal. Dragonflies eat mosquitoes, and bluejays eat dragonflies; bluejay excretory waste feeds yeast, which grows enough yeast to break down organic products and attract more advanced creatures, and these return nutrients to the earth to grow plants which in turn feed male and immature mosquitoes. It’s a giant cycle composed of many counter-dependent internal cycles.

However, to get too far into why our logical systems don’t perceive these realities is to escape laying the responsibility at our own feet for noticing, outside of whatever logical systems are in vogue this ten thousand years, that we are steadily consuming our environment and its resources and, unlike mosquitoes, we’re not returning diddly-squat in return, unless you count mountains of plastic and paper landfill waste. As reasonably perceptive creatures we should be noticing this overconsumption, and we’re not; in fact, it doesn’t even require a genius-level intelligence to see this. Why, then, is it an unmentioned secret in our society like child molestation?

Definitely it has its proponents. There are some who speak loudly and clearly about this destruction, first and foremost being Pentti Linkola and Ted Kaczynski. Their voices however are a whisper in the roar of a crowd watching a baseball game, or political rally, or a race to assemble machines. It’s not that they don’t get their information out there; it’s that the audience is unreceptive. How can a species of so many intelligent people be so blind?

Philosophers, despite their lengthy and complex explanations of simple phenomena, have a saying among them that often, but not always, the simplest route to the truth is the answer to any given question. Some call it Occam’s razor; others call it common sense. But if we set aside all the Wittgenstein-esque theories about how we cannot be sure of knowledge, thus do not act, and the Hegel-esque theories about how progress will eventually overcome fundamental paradoxes like having consumed the system that sustains us, it becomes clear that we’re in denial because our values are elsewhere.

Our values, in fact, have nothing to do with reality, and we seem to as a group love best the philosophers who come up with excuses – I mean “reasons” – why we cannot be sure of what we know, or why we must focus on human issues to the exclusion of all others, because they give us a logical, “proof”-oriented reason for missing the obvious. For this reason, you can have a society of people who feel not only justified but proud of themselves for stamping their feet and demanding “proof” for global warming, as if that issue alone decided the question of whether or not we’re committing ecocide, while thinking that “proof” is a higher form of reality than simply recognizing the obvious.

Do we even really need the silly little equation I’ve put above to realize that, in a space of fixed size, an human population increasing in size and using more machines each year will eventually take up the entire space?

There are wonderful contra-philosophies of course, such as the idea of the “invisible hand” by Adam Smith, which suggests that economies based on opportunity are self-regulating. In his view, businesses do what is logical because they wish to be good members of the community, because this is good business; the rest is handled by companies that see opportunities in the errors of others, and exploit them with countervailing goods and services (presumably in flying people to other planets, so they can consume them also). But none of these make sense when one considers that very few are aware of anything more than their immediate surroundings, tasks and fortune.

We can even blame God’s people, whoever they are this millennia, for creating fantasy worlds in the sky that, like the “scientific” world of “proof,” distract us from what’s going on in actual, living, right-here-now reality. Yet this too rings hollow, although it’s clear that dualistic and moralizing religions such as Judaism and Christianity are batshit insane, because even without these our society would ramble onward, eating all that it can and leaving behind it a trail of petrochemical ordure. So what is our cause?

To find out, work backward. A sensible society would at some point have the power to limit citizen growth, either by murdering a certain number of its people in a blessed reduction of latently useless traits (do we really need people under 125 IQ points? if so, for what?) or by restricting food supplies so that natural die-off culls the herd and restrains its breeding. A sensible society might even, at some point well in advance of the danger zone, set out a formula for how much land and resources are needed for nature.

But you can’t do that! No, because you’ll be violating someone’s rights. Everyone has the “right” to be born, live, consume and reproduce before dying, and in order to limit population, we have to shatter someone’s world and either prevent them from having children, or dispense with pretense and dispatch them with a well-placed 5.56mm round. Our modern society is based on the idea that you can’t violate the individual, because individuals together in crowds find only what is common between them, which is fear for their lives. So how to band people together to protect lives, above all else? Make it illegal and immoral to kill anyone, and everyone can survive without fear of being judged as unfit.

This is how individualistic, “unique,” autonomous beings become a single organism with no desire except to preserve itself. They don’t necessary actually believe in their doctrine of not killing; crowds are notorious for murdering dissidents, for example. But they do believe in asserting some iron law that says you can’t kill any member of the crowd for following the generic order imposed on all, an order derived from what they have in common, which is only the most basic desires of life, since a crowd of individuals actually have very little of more complex desires in common. They will agree they don’t want to die, that they want to eat and they want entertainment, but beyond that, a crowd cannot decide an issue and will lapse into endless partisan debate like that on global warming.

And why is the crowdthink perpetuated? It benefits individuals. They want an iron law saying you will be able to survive and breed and gain wealth if you just follow a few rules, and they don’t want any kind of judgment limiting their wealth and power because, for example, they’re functionally intelligent but defective in any kind of moral reasoning or thought of larger entities than the individual. Even further, individuals like crowdthink because it gives them a straight path to profit: find something that appeals to that lowest common denominator that unites the crowd, and by golly, it’ll sell. Circuses, junk food, soft drinks, deodorant, home security systems, divorces and video game systems are all popular with the mob.

I am not saying that money is the root of all evil. What is conveyed here is closer to the ancient saw that the love of money is the root of all evil; money may well be necessary, but those who are so fearful that they care for money more than for reverence of nature, care for their society as a whole, etc. are mental defectives who need that well-placed high velocity round. And would we miss them? The kind of people who have been great leaders, inventors, artists and forces of social stability certainly wouldn’t, because those who do not succumb to that weakness are the kind who would plan in advance before advancing an environmental holocaust upon their planet.

The love of money is the fear of being unequal to such people, and if leaders separate from followers, followers form a crowd sheerly on the basis of having not been leaders. Then they attempt to create a power structure which “evens up” the gap between leaders and followers, such that followers can have power they didn’t earn in civilizations they don’t have the talent to create. Interestingly, this disease of populism – for that’s the only word which accurately describes the utilitarian nature of governing by crowd-pleasing – afflicts only older civilizations, where the deeds required to create them are forgotten.

Before we get wrapped up in any of our other little political polarities, such as whether global warming can be “proved” or whether abortion should be legal or how to “empower” women such that they have the same “rights” as men, we should remember that n is decreasing with each moment of our unchecked expansion, and that the end result is destruction of our natural environment by consuming it. There is no way to “prove” its value, for someone will suppose that someday we will have machines to take the place of plants and animals, and media machines to simulate the experience of open ground. Instead, I appeal to a more fundamental force here.

Humans are creatures of play. We find things appealing because they are interesting, or have fundamental tendencies that amuse or challenge us, and thus without having a serious goal, we toss them around and play with them and, in the process, make our lives better; we bring laughter and skill and joy together in one act. But what really is more rewarding than nature? We’ve been unable to design a machine as efficient as a tree, and our science has no idea how to even quantify the joy of sitting under one on a quiet afternoon, or breathing the fresh oxygen of a healthy forest, or watching squirrels wrestle over plump acorns on spring ground.

Our natural environment is the ultimate playground, and something healthy people find inherently cool. But without trees, there are no forests; without forests, no animals, nor any of the uncountable species of plants, nor the vast diversity of ecosystems that remain starkly different yet self-contained in function. Some might say this is not “proof” of why nature is worth saving, but for those who have souls left, it is incentive to not destroy it, for the experience of nature is incomparable in contrast to the mechanistic drudgery of sitting in a committee room discussing profits, or even, engaging in endless and inconclusive debate about global warming.

Recommended Reading