Posts Tagged ‘deep ecology’

Deep Ecology And The Alt Right

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

It will take centuries for historians to recognize this, as they either sift through thirdworld ruins or chronicle the rise of the greatest power to ever grace the earth, but the Alt Right movement is a philosophical descendant of Deep Ecology.

During the 1960s, more people became aware that human impact on the environment was becoming a very negative thing. This caught the rising population and a cultural shift toward hippie ideals at a crossroad, but that in turn weakened the rising environmental movement. The hippies imported their Marxist-derived goals into those of the environmental movement, effectively weakening it.

This meant that every act to help the environment was also designed to foster “equality,” and since the latter was easier to understand, it became the focus and absorbed everything else into it. This meant that environmentalism could fight for the whales or against drilling in national parks, but not tackle the big issue: we have too many humans to avoid committing ecocide.

As a result, the saner thinkers in the environmental movement formed Deep Ecology, which states that in order to avoid ecocide we need a cultural shift that desires a different type of civilization entirely, one where we are not so out of control. Deep Ecology recognizes that the environmental problems we suffer now come from bad leadership in the past, and a society geared toward endless growth and consumption.

Such a society can only exist in the absence of cultural standards, values and purpose. It is in fact an artifact of the democratic era, in which there is no longer a dominant culture, with customs and lifestyle, by which people live that limits the damage they do and the growth of that civilization. Instead, democracy and consumerism have taken over because we have destroyed the ways of life they replace.

This is where the Deep Ecology movement and the Alt Right converge: we know that we need not different policies or laws, but an entirely different structure to civilization itself. The Deep Ecology mission statement shows the need for a redesign of human habitation entirely:

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, of the entire ecosphere in all its beauty and complexity including the natural processes that create and shape life’s diversity. It is the grave and growing threats to the health of the ecosphere that 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 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.

As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

The portion most relevant to the Alt Right has been marked in bold: “the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation.”

Like Deep Ecology, the Alt Right exists to create cultural change which changes our society to a different type of society. Where the last century favored liberal democracy with consumerism and social benefits, the future favors hierarchy, aristocracy, culture-driven standards and transcendental goals. Civilization itself has evolved.

That change was always the goal of Deep Ecology. From the environmental movement, Deep Ecologists realized that anything less that a re-orientation of society to include inbuilt environmental goals would fail and become another equality movement. They saw that government could not make the changes needed. Only a mass awakening, or at least an awakening among the 5% of people who are natural leaders, could reform the situation.

We stand on the edge of an abyss of ecocide. Overpopulation, pollution, land overuse and other problems are the result of the policies of liberal democracy, which refuses to say NO to any person who wants to buy, sell, consume, breed or otherwise impact the environment. Humanity is like yeast in a bowl of sugar, eating all of the food heedless of the fact that with no resources, it will die out unlamented.

The era of impossible solutions made possible

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016


All of us have grown up in a time dominated by the Leftist ideology and as a result, find it difficult to conceive of the world except on its terms. As part of that, we condition ourselves to believe that the obvious solutions we need are too extreme, and content ourselves with hybrid Leftist “solutions” that defeat our aims.

On a similar level, environmentalists struggle with this issue as well. Since the rise of the Deep Ecology movement, it has been clear that the only possible environmental salvation — from a fate worse than climate change, namely the destruction of our ecosystem and its replacement by a less functional one — is a redesign of society to incorporate living that does not have deleterious effects. Edward O. Wilson tells the plain truth on that one:

The Half-Earth solution does not mean dividing the planet into hemispheric halves or any other large pieces the size of continents or nation-states. Nor does it require changing ownership of any of the pieces, but instead only the stipulation that they be allowed to exist unharmed. It does, on the other hand, mean setting aside the largest reserves possible for nature, hence for the millions of other species still alive.

The key to saving one-half of the planet is the ecological footprint, defined as the amount of space required to meet all of the needs of an average person. It comprises the land used for habitation, fresh water, food production and delivery, personal transportation, communication, governance, other public functions, medical support, burial, and entertainment. In the same way the ecological footprint is scattered in pieces around the world, so are Earth’s surviving wildlands on the land and in the sea. The pieces range in size from the major desert and forest wildernesses to pockets of restored habitats as small as a few hectares.

His approach is similar to that of anyone who has had to balance a budget: if spending is excessive, cut it in half across the board. Instead of trying to target specific human activities, like washing your clothes in a dryer that is not energy saving rated, he suggests we should measure whole impact, and cut that. This in turn implies that humanity needs to have a discussion about its future, its population and the average load that people can exert on the environment. That in turn calls into question the design of our society itself.

Liberal democracy remains highly popular because it is a growth engine. It is essentially anarchy with a pretense of government that keeps business functional, since it requires institutions and courts, and for the early part of its reign liberal democracy seems like a good thing. As time passes, the hidden consequences of anarchy with grocery stores emerges: people, conditioned by the process of democratic thinking, become unrealistic and society goes crazy, then self-destructs.

For this reason, many ideas that were previously considered “too extreme” — like Wilson’s half earth — are now suddenly looking good. People make choices by comparing options, and if the default option is a further slide in Brazil 2.0 where your rape in the favelas will be televised, competing options which seemed too hardcore when we assumed liberal democracy was working now become viable. The same is true of other areas as well:

  • Ethnic nationalism. Diversity makes groups compete and hate each other, and its “success” would be the creation of a new brown race just like the one in most third world nations across the globe. There is no scenario for actual success with diversity. It seems unthinkable that we could deport everyone who lacks an unbroken Western European background, but that is what we must do in Europe and the USA to preserve ourselves.
  • Death of the welfare state. The bennies/freebies culture is very popular but it fails for two reasons. We cannot afford it, and it like democracy conditions our people to think like zombies. We cannot afford to, as happened in the last century, more than double our national budgets to pay for Great Society programs and their descendants; even worse, this massive increase in size of government makes a tyrannical Nanny State. Psychologically, welfare is also devastating. When reward comes before performance, performance becomes optional, and so everything declines in quality just as it did in the Soviet Union. In addition, the maze of rules and extra work required to pay for this makes jobs miserable and people into alienated little monsters.
  • Inequality is good. Inequality is how nature motivates some to rise above the rest, and is also how we grant special roles to certain groups. Women, for example, are happiest when not expected to work and thrust directly into the role of managing a family, in a chaste and traditional environment where marriage is forever and so they are always cared for. Caste systems give each person a job they can do well and a position that, barring absolute ludicrous incompetence, will always be there for them.
  • The death of the death of God. Atheism has failed, and many have noticed how it is a darling of the Left. That alone is reason to oppose it, as is the simple truth that non-Atheists seem happier. But even more, our understanding of the cosmos has changed. Our science has now reached the point where it is again, like the ancients, looking at patterns and information as a underlying structure to all reality, much like Plato did with his forms. Atheism died not of our ignorance, but its ignorance.
  • Existential importance returns. For the past century or more, we have seen ourselves as means to the end of ideology. No more: people are realizing that on both practical and personal levels, this approach is unworkable. People need to enjoy life and relax more, and even get nice and bored so they can figure themselves out in that void, so that they are more functional. But more than that, they need to be able to believe that life itself is pleasurable and good, not a grim task of implementing illogical and unrealistic rules against the resistance of the world. Our people are miserable and make bad decisions as a result, and that must change.

We have lived in despair for too long because of the Leftist indocrination that the family of theories and methods beginning with equality was the only path. Now we see differently, and as if by the turning of the world, new possibilities emerge. We are able to look at recent history as error and recognize what we must do to fix it, even if that denies everything we have known.

The Wump World by Bill Peet

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015


The Wump World (1970)
by Bill Peet
Houghton Mifflin, 44 pages. $9

On the surface, this serves as a parable for children about the environmental damage that humans can do. Underneath however as in most of Bill Peet’s work another agenda is at play, which is a confrontation between humanity and the doubt, emptiness and fear that makes the empty pursuit of status and material prestige seem a tempting option.

The Wump World features a planet inhabited by Wumps, who are friendly capybara-like animals who are not particularly exceptional. Like Hobbits, or most people, Wumps specialize in nothing in particular except existence itself. They munch the sweet green grass and frolic in the sun and probably think very little about the big questions of life. Like small children or other innocents, they are still somewhat in love with life itself and concern themselves with nothing greater.

A spaceship lands and discharges a new species, called — in the kind of dead-hand obvious imagery one can use in children’s books — the Pollutians. They have come from a “worn-out world” and are glad to have found a new one for their use. In short order, they tear down the trees and rip up the grass and replace them with concrete, on which they build giant cities complete with “hundred-story skyscrapers.” They are noisy, frenetic, and dump trash in the rivers and fill the skies with smoke.

The Wumps retreat to underground caves where they cower and await deliverance. In the meantime, the cities expand to cover the entire world. The Pollutians work hard at this transformation, but also bicker among themselves and generally seem aimless outside of their hard work in transforming the new world. In the meantime, their own pollution makes the world uninhabitable for them, so they declare it worn-out as well and seek another one. Spaceships explore and find a new place. Then the Pollutians leave.

The story is unexceptional and obvious, even manipulative at its core. To most of us, it seems a preachy parable of environmentalism and nothing more, about what we might expect from the late 1960s and the hippie era. But there is more to this than meets the initial eye. The story of the Pollutians is not so much the external effects of their actions, but the internal hollowness which propels them. These are people without purpose for whom consumption and destruction have become a life quest, even if a suicidal one.

Within the bright colors didacticism of this story lurks the story of emptiness in the soul. The Pollutians have no depth to them and no concern for anything but their own comforts and wealth. This void propels them forward into outer space as it sucks them into inner space, turning them into a type of yeast which consumes all resources and then either moves on or dies. They are their own self-destruction but, unable to suicide, they perpetrate that destruction on others.

For those of us who grew up in Generation X, both stories were familiar. We saw firsthand as our childhood play areas were consumed by an endless procession of condominiums, apartments, factories and skyscrapers. We were told by well-meaning but fatalistic adults that this was simply progress, or humanity advancing, and that all these new people needed places to sleep, work and live. But it also rang hollow, because we saw the haunted looks on the faces of adults going to work and the misery and rage they took out on us after another fun day at the office. Soon it became clear that the plan was no plan except more, more and more of everything to conceal our lack of direction and even more, our absence of a Wump-like innocence and enjoyment of life. It was as if the curse of Eden’s apple finally bit us back.

This book remains vivid in the imaginations of those who read it because it perfectly diagnoses our modern morass, which begins in the soul and not the fingertips. We have no purpose. Lacking any motivation for something larger than ourselves — something for which God is a surrogate, since to know God we must first love the process of life itself or we are simply projecting self-interest into the realm of the spirit — we have fallen into our inner voids and like Stockholm Syndrome victims, have embraced that dark emptiness and now wield it as a sword, consuming all that falls under our control and replacing it with literal garbage as if in the image of our discarded hopes. The innocents, children born into this age, have carried this burden for too long. Either we end it or it ends us, but not first before purging all goodness and innocence wherever we go.

Against the Fouad Boutros Highway in Lebanon

Thursday, February 20th, 2014


The Association for the Preservation of Lebanese Heritage opposes the proposed Fouad Boutros Highway that would divide and expose a corner of Lebanon known for its serenity.

Like most things modern, this project seems to exhibit a pathological need to disrupt anything that is not already blighted with the same noise, pollution, crowding and manic disorganization as everything else.

The APLH statement is below:

The proposed Fouad Boutros Highway will not reduce traffic. Instead, it will redirect the traffic from Karantina into the ABC tunnel.

This change will both overburden the ABC tunnel with more traffic than it can handle and choke Ashrafieh with more exhaust and noise pollution.

The civil coalition of which APLH is part promposes the Fouad Boutros Park as an alternative. This plan will avoid vandalizing Ashrafieh with noise and pollution, and instead will:

  1. Cost much less.
  2. Boost tourism in Ashrafieh heritage neighborhoods
  3. Keep traffic and pollution away from Ashrafieh
  4. Increase greenery in the heart of Ashrafieh
  5. Keep small businesses unharmed by the highway
  6. Preserve the last heritage buildings in Ashrafieh
  7. and allow their restoration with the budget surplus

If we keep fighting traffic with more highways, all of Lebanon will suffocate under asphalt. Already we see the consquences of too much asphalt: winter has not showed up for the first time in decades, perhaps centuries; there is not enough natural growth to provoke water evaporation, condensation and precipitation (rain).

The DESERT is only a few paces away, and the more asphalt we create, the faster we DESERTIFY Lebanon. Act now. Yes to nature and heritage, NO to useless highways which will pollute Lebanese neighborhoods.

Conservative realism

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

Who is this guy?
It doesn’t matter who he is.
It’s what he’s doing that matters.
He is observing.
Observing what?

He lives by observing what is there, and interacting with it. Smart guy! He gets my admiration, although what he is doing is – in itself – no big deal. Or rather, was no big deal, until quite recently.
These days, reality lies buried behind feelings, interpretations, judgments and politics.
What is there, really doesn’t matter any more. What matters is how you feel about it, and what it means to you. And how you can best use it to beat others about the head with.

Look again at the picture. What do you see?
I see an Indian. He is sitting on a rock. He carries weapons. He is alert.
But there are many, who would see all, or some, of this, take into account the text I have written, and come up with something like:
“I see a savage. This is a stereotype! This is something that offends Native Americans!”
“I see a Native American, but the writer refers to him as an Indian, therefore he must be racist, because he is using an outdated term which demeans Native Americans.”
“I see an armed menace. This association of Native Americans with violence is an offensive stereotype, and must be confronted.”
“I see a First Nations guy, (being Canadian) being misrepresented in some way that I am unable, as yet, to identify, but I will work on it until I can…”

So what is all this about? Where am I going with this? Good question: give me a moment to decide…

Reality. I have been pondering this concept for a while, now, and have observed several interesting phenomena connected with it.
Nobody sees it in quite the same way. Hence the current idea that reality is purely subjective, and so I have no need to accept yours. Along with the added extra, so characteristic of the left: that mine, however, is authentic, and so you are required to accept it as such.

Until recently, reality was a uniform thing subscribed to by almost all people, within a society. Everybody agreed upon many basic things, and so knew what was what, and where they stood.
The ones who didn’t, were looked upon as mad, and as long as you were not one of them, your life remained viable.
Now, however, nobody agrees upon much of anything, and while rightists generally shrug and accept that this is so, leftists generally throw a fit and demand that their own, special reality, is the only real one. And this is why rightists generally view leftists as mad. Because they do this absurd thing, and demand that everyone else does it too.
And this demanded acceptance of mass insanity, and the re-branding of it as ‘normal’, results, as you have noticed, in what we currently refer to as a socialist society.

Well there’s something wrong with that.
Centuries of subscribing to one, uniform reality, suddenly brushed aside and replaced with something that clearly can only end in disaster.
Yeah: that’s real smart.

Degradation of reality. Devaluation of reality. Denial of reality. The three ‘D’s.

Degradation: the removal of all live content from life, and somehow expecting nobody to notice its lifelessness.
Devaluation: Socialism devalues everything it comes into contact with. God. Religion. Marriage. Heterosexuality. Reason. Money. Real Estate. Everything!
Denial: in spite of the fact, now indisputable, that everything we have all depended upon for our lives and our futures, is now crumbling down around us, still we change everything around, every few days, and proclaim that anything other than socialism is evil.

Well there’s something wrong with that, too.
We had all better start understanding something about the left: everything they come into contact with, turns to dust.
Don’t take my word for it. Think about it. Research it. Test it and see.
Remembering that you, too, risk being turned into dust, merely by contact with this socially-transmitted disease.
So what to do?

Figure it out for yourself, if you’re able. That would be the best thing. Or consider these points:
If you’re reading this at all, you’re conservative already, or else a spoiler from the swamp.
If you plan on remaining what you are, then start defining Reality. For yourself. No hopes, no desires, no interpretations, no emotions. What do you see? What you see, without modifications, is Reality! Accept no substitutes!

You will discover, that the disease has made subtle changes to your perceptions of what reality is. Pressure from everywhere has done this. Conditioning. Dogma. Out and out brainwashing. You don’t notice the small things for a long time, but finally, they all add up to a big thing, and you’re on your way to becoming as lost as the rest.

I recently had a revelation, in the form of a flash of the totally obvious:
My whole existence revolves around spirituality. It’s the way I live. Nothing at all to do with the New-Age crap that the left took up and devalued merely by coming into contact with it.
No. I do nothing for show. And nothing that has no obvious purpose, or result. I balance.
And writing for this site, I sometimes get attacked, by a few warped types, intent only upon destruction. I make an especially juicy target, because ‘I try to appear to be spiritual…
Note the ‘try to appear’ bit. Because a leftist’s whole reality is based upon appearances, with a dose of equality added, for show. Thus whatever I am, and whatever I do, it must be fake. Because if it were them, or anyone like them, being it, or doing it, then of course, it would be.
Still with me?
The punchline is this:

Spiritual people dress up in white bed-sheets, smile vacuously all the time, do nothing but act nice, and be totally harmless!
And it suddenly occurred to me, that even I was thinking and behaving along these lines, albeit without the bed-sheets, the vacuous smile, and the acting nice.
Harmless I am not. Never have been. Never will be. A man should, under no circumstances, ever be harmless!
Some readers expect me to behave like a Hollywood Christian, because I speak of things spiritual. To them, I say:
Prepare to be disappointed. And surprised. I can be exceedingly not-nice, when I so choose, in ways most have never even imagined.

And this fits well with conservatism: a state of mind where reality is Reality, not subject to individual whim. Not subject to being re-defined with each new leader, idol, whim, or movement.
It is what it is. Life. Reality:
A dangerous place in which a man must sometimes be dangerous.
Armed with an unflinching gaze, and the courage to back it up.
Niceness doesn’t even enter into it.
Hard-ass first, and all things later.

Conservative Realism. For Conservative Realists. The Real Right!
No others need apply.

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.

Ted Kaczynski

Saturday, September 26th, 2009


Allegedly, Theodore Kaczynski, a noted mathematician at Berkeley during the 1960s, was the man the FBI codenamed “UNABOM” who killed three people and wounded 23 since 1978 using mail bombs and other handmade, untraceable explosive devices. He was only caught when his brother turned him in after the publication fo the “UNABOM/FC Manifesto” in major American papers; they only conceded to the deal when the unabomber offered to stop blowing people up if his words were published.

His first bombing was in 1978, at Northwestern University; it was unsuccessful. Many bombings followed, targetting engineering/math/science professors, logging company CEOs, airline executives, technological advocate writers and other propagandists for industry. The FBI declared him one of America’s most dangerous domestic terrorists.

Although the FBI profile did not fit the Ted Kaczynski, he remains the primary suspect. Growing up in suburban Chicago, he was a baby born during the last half of WWII. His abilities in mathematics and scholastic pursuits were visible early, and Ted graduated high school at age sixteen and packed off to Harvard University. From there he went to the University of Michigan, where he got his PhD in mathematics, and then took a job at the University of California, Berkeley, as an assistant professor of mathematics. Two years later, he suddenly dropped out and headed to a cabin in Montana, equally disgusted by industrial society as he was by the leftist political dogma that in his mind replaced effective action.

“Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF…”

“Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. .. [they hate] America and the West because they are strong and successful…”

“We use the term ‘surrogate activity’ to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. …”

“The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like ‘racism, ‘ ‘sexism, ‘ ‘homophobia, ‘ ‘capitalism,’ ‘imperialism,’ ‘neocolonialism ‘ ‘genocide,’ ‘social change,’ ‘social justice,’ ‘social responsibility.’ Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.”

Ted Kaczynski receives over 50 letters a day and takes
the time to respond personally to each.


Jacques Cousteau

Saturday, September 26th, 2009


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.