Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘greenism’

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Fourteen: Permaculture

Friday, December 22nd, 2017

Nationalist Public Radio tackles deep ecology through an interview with Harvey Wieverstein, an entrepreneur who is interested in the greater social benefits — and higher profits — from permaculture as opposed to monoculture. James Price and Brett Stevens investigate the nature of modern agriculture and how it reflects our dying time, and how it can be rebooted with a different outlook.


Download (92mb, 39 minutes)

 

 

The Alternative Of Real Ecology by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson (2016)

Monday, December 11th, 2017


The Alternative of Real Ecology
by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson
Solitude Books, 274 pages, 2016. $16

When contemplating the environmental crisis dawning over our world, the thinking individual faces a grim choice: to admit the truth is to call for the taboo, such as fewer people, but to fail to admit the truth is to dedicate oneself to endless compensatory behaviors that will never fix the problem. This is why nothing has been done despite most in the West wanting a solution for decades.

The Alternative of Real Ecology offers a solution in the form of descending into the fullness of admitting the truth about the collision between humanity and our environment. Human needs are in conflict with the needs of natural ecosystems, and this is a zero-sum game, which means that anything we give to humans, we take from nature. At this point the debate takes on a mature outlook: we must talk about the appropriate number of humans on the planet in order for enough of nature to thrive that our planetary ecosystem can function without losing species.

That recognition admits two types of response. Either we as a species change what we are doing, which is impossible under liberal democratic political systems, or individuals are left with the question of how to address the environmental crisis through individual choices, knowing that the vast majority of humans will not do the same. This book uses a discussion of the latter to explore the changes that would have to be made in the former scenario.

Uncontrolled human breeding demands more space for growing food, housing, and recreation; unless the population growth is controlled the loss of habitat will increase. “Humans have the right to breed and grow food.” Yes they do, and therefore the biodiversity will be exterminated. They can breed as much as they want and eat/throw away a much food as they want. In other words: “Humans can take away as much natural habitat as they see fit.” (231)

In noting this, this book follows up on the ideas of Pentti Linkola and Theodore Kacyznski, who noted that only non-democratic solutions are serious. If we want to preserve nature, we have to limit the amount of land used by humanity, probably to a quarter or third of the available land, and to do that, we need a political system that is not based on individual rights which cause a tragedy of the commons as each person exploits the maximum amount of resources (which increased land use) possible.

The style of The Alternative of Real Ecology might put people off at first, but win them over as the pages turn. Somewhere between a Socratic dialogue and a notebook of ideas, the text flows like a conversation between quotations representing either common arguments against environmentalism or statements by public figures, and the rebuttals of the author. A mood of negation of pervades the text as it points out hollow platitudes and nonsensical objections to the obvious.

At its core, this book suggests that normal (modern) human life and environmental survival are opposites, and so humans must become “inhuman” or conditioned to assign no additional weight to human preferences. In this mindset, we are able to separate what we need from what we want; at that point, the solutions to overpopulation, overconsumption and other human ills become obvious. The author sets a mindset of “no contribution” more as a thought experiment and baseline than recommendation, but comparison to it reveals how impoverished our “green” actions have been.

One cannot deny his humanity and stay human (that’s logical) and therefore one must become inhuman to deny his humanity. This is where Real Ecology comes into the picture.

…The priority of Real Ecology is Nature and the duty to point out that it will be destroyed. Not how much the existence of humans will be miserable. It is not the duty of Real Ecology to stop the ecocide. That’s impossible. It’s there to stop destroying Nature by one person at a time: the inner change and non-contribution. (92)

By forcing the issue and pointing out that, without radical species-wide change, ecocide is inevitable, The Alternative of Real Ecology enacts a certain kind of inner change in the human being, which is the framing of the environmental issue in appropriately binary terms. Either the human species gets its act together in a large way and reduces its land use, or we watch the inevitable tragedy.

In this way, the book acts like any form of radical realism. It identifies causes, and looks to their effects, and illustrates for us the choices we have regarding the inevitability of those effects. Its “inhuman” outlook separates us from illusion, and opens the dialogue to a results-oriented conception of environmentalism. In turn, this pushes the human dialogue on the environment past the socially-acceptable to the realistic.

Of the two solutions it identifies — inner change and non-contribution — the former proves the most interesting in that it is a fulfillment of the deep ecology notion of re-designing human life to fit within our natural environment, instead of making the environment subject to human whims, to be shaped in order to serve what our herd think believes is what we need. Larsson makes the whole book an exercise in understanding the depth of this reorganization of our minds and desires, both in nuance of the big points and associated details, forming a list of often-forgotten important environmental concerns.

However, he remains suitably bleak, pointing out that the bottom line cannot be adulterated: we have too many humans and each of them, if they can, will live a high-resource industrialized lifestyle; implicated in this also is the notion that our social mobility causes us to compete through money and possessions, which further drives the consumerist mania that is consuming our environment.

Real Ecology doesn’t deal with solutions. No matter how unpopular or controversial, they are ‘solutions’ and their presentation is all it takes 1) non-realistic: the sudden disappearance/vanishing of the human species. That’s not possible to achieve, so only a theory, 2) partly realistic: suicide. To sacrifice yourself for Nature, and 3) realistic: not having children. The non-contribution. Rather than promoting (Real Ecology doesn’t promote them) these ‘solutions,’ it’s better to present the realistic ones: non-contribution and inner change. Real Ecology will not promote a fantasy, theoretical solution, non-realistic ideas. That’s what realism (real) is about. (111)

It remains unclear how literal this is, since the Darwinian effect of the environmentally-conscious not having children is that environmental consciousness as a trait disappears from the human species. The inner change, however, is wrought in this book through many clever mental puzzles of the variety above, in which a distinction is made between arbitrary but true propositions that are thus unproven or irrelevant, and ultimate solutions which are too extreme. By shifting the Overton window of ecology in this way, Larsson channels our own instinct to look for a moderate center point, which is a change in attitudes toward things previously considered to be universal goods, like the economy or human rights.

This book challenges the reader with surly, often malevolently defeatist thought-problems of this nature. Its largest point is that ecocide is not a forgivable sin, and that for as much as it rages about how no solution can be found, clearly the basis of a solution — fewer people, less consumption, more social order — informs our thinking not about environmental issues per se but general issues, with us naturally wanting to ask, “Will this improve or worsen the condition of our world?”

Printed on recycled paper, The Alternative of Real Ecology taunts and mocks us for our impotence on this issue and seeks to re-frame the environmental question as the question of what type of civilization we will choose for our future, knowing that ecocide not just terminates us, but rebukes the gift of life and will make us guilt-ridden and self-hating. A quick read, it is emotionally provocative and thought-provoking as a result of that, pleasantly separating it from the self-help nature of most “green” books.

A Modest Proposal To Reverse Ecocide

Friday, September 16th, 2016

rewilding_the_city

So our last edition of Outliers included a depressing factoid. According to an article published in Current Biology we have lost 10% of our planet’s remaining wilderness area in the last 20 years. Here’s the takeaway.

We discovered that a total of 30.1 million km2 (or 23.2% of terrestrial areas) of the world’s land area now remains as wilderness, with the majority located in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and the Australian continent. An estimated 3.3 million km2 has been lost since the early 1990s (approximately a 9.6% loss in two decades; Figure 2), with the most loss occurring in South America (experiencing 29.6% loss) and Africa (experiencing 14% loss).

This would suggest that a lot more human activity is intruding into areas that were once free of primate subjugation. Yet, simultaneously, humans are increasingly abandoning many of our failed cities to the maximum extent they can afford to. So that brings up a question: if humans remove wilderness areas when we spread, why not let wilderness take back over place we decide are undesireable? It’s a good question. Would tree squirrels manage Flint, Michigan much worse than the current state and local governments? I jest, but only to a degree.

When human society decides an area is no longer economically viable for use, why not put it to a God-worthy purpose? Are we not the stewards of all creation? If so, shouldn’t we replace what we no longer find viable? Replenishing that which we exhaust could come in rather handy fifty years hence. I see no reason to believe we won’t burn over the next few patches of turf we inhabit as well. The track record doesn’t guaruntee future performance, but it does give you the best set of probabilites to guide your next wager.

Re-Wilding has recently achieved some success as smarter, more enlightened defenders of nature have made common cause with a variety of philanthropists, outdoorsmen, and corporations looking for public goodwill merged with state and Federal tax breaks. The Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust is one example that gives me an opportunity to brag about people close to home. Ultimately, all the strategizing comes down to one issue. Wilderness that is privately held; by beneficent patrons, that strongly prefer that it remain wild, can best remain perserved.

To make up for De-Wilding, there needs to be a concerted movement in favor of Re-Wilding. Outdooralabama.com^15 maybe. It would have to work something like this.

  1. Potential sites of failed human habitation are evaluated for their ecological potential as recoverable wilderness. The most potentially valuable for species, biome and contribution to global ecological cycles (carbon, The General Circulation, Hydrological Cycle, et al.) are prioritized.

  2. Remaining hold-out humans are incentivized to vacate.

  3. The land is acquired and decontaminated.

  4. Human structures and artificial elements are removed.

  5. The land is then left patiently alone for 25 years until it reverts to its dominant biome.

  6. Ongoing maintenance is supported through low impact, ecologically inexpensive use at a fee.

The Tragedy of The Commons doesn’t occur on private property with robust and enforcable rights. People who care about saving the planet should put their money where their mouth is. Anyone who has read Ecocide In The USSR knows that the CCCP had much stronger governmental environmental laws in force than the US would ever willingly pass. Almost by definition, wilderness will never economically benefit the state unless someone is charged taxes on the land. The more powerful and expensive the state, the worse it will be penalized when land remains uninhabited wilderness.

If we want land to be wild, we will increasingly have to take that land and recreate it into such a state. That is the increasing cost of heading off the ecological form of soft apocalypse.

Green heart

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015

abandonment

My quest began with environmental concerns, and led to conservatism. The key point at which my thought pivoted was the realization that human destruction of the environment occurred because humans could not anticipate the consequence of their actions, or did not care, simply because no one is enforcing the principle of reality on them. Instead they exist in desires, judgments and feelings which focus on the nexus between the individual and the social group, leaving no concern for reality, God or nature (which are conflatable terms).

Consider this burst of juvenilia — in vino veritas and in childhood the same — from the German black metal band Absurd:

Thuringian plain, deep dark forest
Evil dwells on there in the woods
Snowcovered hills, cold winds blowing
Romantic place, is it understood ?!

Evil in the forest in Germany’s Green Heart !

Hateful savages, strong black minds
Out of the forest, kill the human kind
Burn the settlements and grow the woods
Until this romantic place is understood !

Animals, beasts, horrid landscape
Cause there are no signs of human living
When you look around no human living
Now this romantic place is understood !

It conveys a sentiment most of us find appealing: remove the humans, and leave the forest, which is beautiful in its pristine state. They did not intend it as a policy statement, more as a symbolic explanation of their turning away from what society regards as “good” to what it sees as “bad”: the removal of human life.

And yet they capture the essence of nature: a romantic, stormy and wild place which is not rational like humans, meaning that it does not make decisions by justifying them with higher principles. It responds only to cause effect reasoning, and it sets its goals by need and passion alone. In that is a higher reasoning than our human “higher” reasoning.

The environmental problem of humankind originates in bad governance. We allowed ourselves to grow with no greater principle than “we have more people, so we cut down more trees.” We then granted each person desire limited only by money, which means of course that they will all want houses and four kids and lots of products to brag about and cars to drive. We called this equality but really it was murder. Murder of our own future, and murder of our environment, which we may call ecocide or multiple genocide of non-human species.

I do not subscribe to the romanticization of nature, only to the knowledge of the romanticism of nature. Nature wants to kill you. Without the houses, medicines, soaps and barriers the force of nature would infest you with parasites, kill you with diseases, or outright tear your limbs apart. And yet that is its romance. Nature has no subterfuge, no sabotage and no deception. It is merely a struggle for survival by consumption of other things. (Somehow, trees have escaped the worst of it. Perhaps they are the wisest beings on the planet. I know that in their presence, I feel a great ancient wisdom that my puny human mind can barely begin to grasp.)

All of our environmental problems could be reduced by good leadership. Good leadership treats its people as a whole, not as individuals or a collective in which all must receive equal treatment. Like nature, it picks the best — the strongest, the healthiest, the most beautiful — and it elevates them above the rest because it wants more of them. It excludes those who contribute nothing or are evil. It rewards those who are excellent so they may enforce excellence on the others.

Our reasoning since the fall of the kings consists entirely of intermediates. Instead of leading, we choose paths by what is popular. Instead of finding the good, we treat everyone as an average (“equal”). Instead of having goals, we make each person an island in himself where his goals are the whims he has, which means those goals change constantly and amount to nothing but a steady accumulation in the landfill of the vestiges of his passing fascinations.

What does nature need? To be left alone, in enough land for itself. That means no fences, roads or weekenders in certain areas. Just forest, or prairie, or even desert in its pristine state. To do that however we must do what is eternally unpopular and tell people no. No, they cannot have houses in the outer suburbs. No, they cannot immigrate here. No, they cannot buy large cars. No, they cannot open another McDonald’s or dry cleaners and make profit from it. Leadership says no to those whose goals are not good; in our current society, we pretend that merely stopping some who are bad is the same thing, but it is not. Good leaders filter all that is incompatible with goals, instead of defending themselves lamely against known evils while the unknown slip past in droves.

Those who think you can be an “environmentalist” are nonsensical. The problem of the environment is the problem of human leadership. The problem of human leadership is egalitarianism, which means we cannot say no. Until the notion of equality falls, we will continue to grow out of control and consume more resources, no matter how many useless “green” products we produce or above-average IQ people we convince not to breed. Ecocide is our act, and it reflects our poor choices, thus we must reconsider how we make choices. Anything else is a surrogate act that will not achieve its goals.

Greenism: Moral Reality or Political Appearance?

Monday, December 8th, 2008

immigration

Demonic gods seeking to destroy civilization should study memes and trends. A meme is a notion that appeals to most people so they repeat it to others; a trend is the corresponding physical action they take to show they have been infected with a viral meme. Memes and trends fill mental space so effectively they can camouflage reality.

Our latest trend, here in the covert ongoing collapse of human civilization, is to be “green.” Spin doctors finally formulated a meme for our ecocide in progress and called it “global warming.” It is such an effective meme that while science bluffs and wrangles with its veracity people are already in full-on sublimated panic trying to “go green” to avoid apocalypse.

And in the rolling suburbs and cubic apartments, solemn stares note that “green” equals “good” and then gratefully relinquish awareness to comfortable oblivion. They like having memes like this — external voices of judgment, from universally agreed reliable sources like media, government, role models and friends — because someone else takes the blame if things go wrong.

We can see the paradox of the morality of “greenism” through this division. People can receive instructions, but the same impulse that makes them accept these instructions as “truth” has them refusing to engage the issue itself, preferring to act in surrogate instead. This is what we call externalization.

The ancient Greeks, and later postmodernists, observed that when civilization has been around for awhile, people must live in two realities: first, a physical reality they can predict to varying degrees and second, a social reality comprised of how actions and individuals look to other people. It replaces internal motivation with manipulation of external appearance.

From this split comes our modern neurosis. Carl Jung saw neurosis as the brain splitting when given an incomplete answer (“people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life”, [1961] 1989:140) and Plato used a cave metaphor to show how people accept representations of reality as reality itself.

When neurosis becomes the norm, civilization is already well into decay. Individuals get lost facing the mess, and turn to a series of philosophies that despite their diversity disguise a tenet in common: the independence of the individual from society, while retaining the benefits of society.

In this postmodern vision, we are considered good citizens in social reality if we do not act in a way that restricts others — at all. This absolute, which is nothing short of sociopathic since it denies the cooperation and compromise that makes any civilization succeed, thwarts our ability to take collective action.

(As a reader points out, there is a self-reflexive exception: we cannot restrict others, except in order to restrict them from restricting us, which is why society prohibits murder, rape, and arson but not, for example, buying a huge house and a Hummer, even though those cause damage as well, albeit indirect and requiring a long-term view to see.)

This leaves us with one choice for going green: buy green products and do green things on our own, and hope that the others — who we already know from the condition of the planet are generally a selfish, oblivious, destructive herd — figure it out on their own. A more impotent philosophy would be hard to devise!

When approach philosophies, the only question is whether an idea is effective (anything else is the kind of false elitism that makes idiots praised for “unique” — and wholly irrelevant — ideas). No one gives a damn if Joe Chardonay buys LED lights and recycles used cigarettes. The world goes on. No real change occurs.

People will endorse either “political greenism,” or individually acting in ineffective ways, or “moral greenism,” which means greenism is so important that it requires setting aside all other principles so we can at least avoid ecocide, end uncertainty, and build from that new level. Compromise and sacrifice are required, which conflicts with political greenism.

What isn’t moral greenism: buying green products, voluntary recycling, specially-designed green houses, turning off leaky taps and “vampire electronics” which use electricity in idle states, recycling cigarette butts, and making art projects out of recycled materials.

What is moral greenism: designing all products and houses for multiple purposes, including sustainability and durability, since a product which doesn’t need to be replaced produces the least waste of all; mandatory recycling and minimal packaging; ending our reckless growth; encouraging natural selection to remove truly delusional and dysfunctional people; smarter people having stable families and more children to raise the quality of humanity.

People — arguing not toward an end, but from how it makes them appear, which we could call “reversed” logic — say greenism must uphold “Progressive” principles. Progressives want the individual to be the moral principle that overrides everything else in society. They see that as a positive future which reverses a primitive (but natural) past — a negative outlook on nature itself.

I have a radical contrary proposition: there is nothing new under the sun. The challenges of civilization today are identical to those that faced the first civilizers; our technology and institutions bring efficiency, but they do not change the essential questions and solutions to the need for civilization.

“Progressive” dogma is a sleight of hand to make us believe that social reality does indeed supplant reality, and the people telling us to believe this are neurotic and depressed and most probably want everyone else to suffer the same fate. They’re not thinking about reality and subconsciously hate nature.

The green issue separates those who actually intend to fix the problem from those who want to appear to fix it. Currently, the latter group far outnumber the former, but their numbers dwindle as the problems of modern society slowly reveal themselves more clearly. As ecocide progresses, and we’re all still miserable, they start looking like demonic deceivers.

As when we formed civilization, our goal now is to adapt to our environment and master it — not kill it. Paradigms change over time, and the “political greenism” neurosis belongs to old, dead, stodgy, inflexible, brain-dead order that got us in this mess. The future belongs to those who can think about reality, not how things appear to other human monkeys.

Your best weapon against these monkeys — humans who, content with being human, no longer strive to make themselves better internally, and so fixate on external details — is to call them out on the divide between appearance and moral reality. Let them know we’re playing with fire, and the problem is easily solved if they abandon the neurotic meme of reality denial.

Environmentalism Contra Democracy

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006

counting_the_landfill_damage

A smart writer once observed that philosophy is a product of sick times. Healthy generations do not need reminders of what is right, but inherit those inclinations through blood and culture. When culture fragments, or wavers near disaster, philosophers become more than teachers of structured knowledge: they become those who can look through the forest of abstraction to capture a vision of reality.

We are on the verge of environmental crisis. Although the television networks now babble neurotically about global warming, that is one aspect of the problem caused by human growth and technology. The fruit of our oceans is decreasing; we are using too much land to have forests renew the oxygen in our air. So much of our land is covered in concrete and so many of our rivers polluted that fresh water is getting scarcer; land animals and plants are being squeezed out of comfortable habitats and into such small numbers that inbreeding and sickness are wiping them out, thanks to human division and settlement of all open land. We’re about to commit ecocide.

Thinking non-selfishly for a minute, we should look at the consequences of natural loss with a poet’s eye: we are about to lose an amazing creation of great beauty and inspiration, and thus not only damage our souls, but be responsible for an act of crass destructiveness with no equal in history. The sack of Alexandria, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide — these all pale in comparison to reducing our environment to parks, gardens and lawns. Which is what will remain: we will have squirrels and sparrows and lawn plants, but the more complex parts of our ecosystem will not remain. Our political leaders will be able to claim less of a crisis because it isn’t all dead, but converting a world of billions of species into an extended, homogenous backyard garden is like trading Beethoven for repetitive techno.

The kind of mean mentality that allows us to create this …wreckage… is appropriate to an outwardly satisfied but inwardly self-hating time such as our own. We hate our ugly cities, our tedious jobs that produce nothing of practical value, our prima donna spouses, our moronic coworkers and neighbors, the violent inner cities, the numbingly normative suburbs… yet we are sure there is nothing that can be done. How do we explain to the average person that they must give up that new car, house or child because if everyone has those, a distant future disaster awaits? Democracy rewards action on immediate crises, or granting of new “freedoms” or wealths to its population, but it does not reward the kind of leadership that staves off distant apocalypses.

Our politicians are “leaders” only in name, because one might expect a real leader to take care of constituents regardless of that constituency’s desires for short-term rewards. Our leaders tell us what we want to hear, and rule by popularity instead of sense. Reality is a distant world. We create our own “reality” because with our technology and our social agreement we can live in illusion and defer consequences. In this kind of system, there can never be a reversal of what makes people wealthy or happy no matter how destructive it is; democracy is the triumph of people preferring illusion to reality.

But we are taught democracy, capitalism and liberal civil/women’s rights together comprise “freedom,” and that anything but freedom is “bad.” So what can we do? We shrug and watch the ongoing travesty, certain we cannot with these hands and these minds do anything to reverse the course toward total destruction. After all, this path to death runs parallel with “progress” and “freedom,” which are bringing us an enlightened time, free of wars and want — or is that too illusion? We wonder, and do nothing. There is nothing we can do …or is there?

The current problem with environmentalism is environmentalists. For the most part, these are silly people who, rich on a first world lifestyle, want some kind of “cause” to distinguish them from the masses. They want an identity. They want a reason to be right where others are wrong, and they want to use this for social prestige. “I’m really into environmental issues” is conversation, not activism, but conversation is what motivates the environmental “movement.”

These are the people after all who are famous for boycotting proposed buildings after the plans have been approved, for coming in to yell at developers of new housing long after such a need was inevitable, for protecting the most rare species while ignoring the receding hairline of forest… they want you to eat bean sprouts, to stop having Christmas trees, to use lights too dim for your eyes, to concentrate on turning off taps and appliances. Environmentalists are useless because they do not focus on the problem as whole: too many people, and too many of them using technology.

Why are they so afraid of this obvious truth? It’s political suicide. It makes bad conversation to tell people accustomed to getting what they want that we need to cut back, and therefore that not everyone can have their “freedom” and in fact we need to take it away from a good many people. Even further, this brings the question of how to allocate resources to the forefront. Do we spend money on handicapped retarded orphans or on breeding smarter, healthier people? Oh no: this reeks of fascism, evil empires, Satan, etc.

Thus environmentalists make good conversation and hinder untold millions while ignoring the basic issue. Even worse, since they are “The Environmental Movement,” they look to most people like responsible adults in control while simultaneously obstructing others from taking charge of this problem. The environmental movement is like a corrupt politician, damaging both in what he does do and what he does not do while keeping others out of office who might do something. The environmental movement is a clog in the pipe of advancing environmental causes.

Because they cannot address the actual problem and thus find a solution, the environmental movement specializes in crippling non-solutions. They antagonize those trying to earn a living while failing to stop the onset of environmental disaster. They like to think, fond of themselves, that they are “educating” people toward a better future. But after forty years, they have nothing of import to show for this strategy. The loss goes on and environmentalists are busy recycling diapers and going to cocktail parties.

Let the Power Fall

…what appeals to all of us about anarchy is the idea of having space. We would be able to do what we needed to without nosy neighbors or obtrusive governments stopping us. After all, we walk a fine line: we are afraid of strong government, which has a tendency to appoint bureaucrats who destroy our dreams, but we’re also afraid of our opportunistic and predatory fellow citizens, who if not restrained by government tend to wreck our dreams as well. Anarchy sounds so simple. We do what we want, and if someone intervenes, …well, one might suppose we simply shoot them and move on.

Therein is the problem with anarchy. If surrounded by people like ourselves, who want simple healthy things in life and have no intention of disrupting others, we’ll be OK. But get one parasite into an anarchy and deeply disturbing situations result, especially if this parasite can defend himself. A simpering clerk who wants to steal is easily dealt with in an anarchy; but what about a predatory criminal group whose goal is to steal? Ah, then we’re back to militias and posses shooting it out with the bad guys in the streets of our cities, while little Suzy and young Billy get dropped by ricochets in the midst of their Latin homework. Not quite a solution, either.

What appeals to people about anarchy is not an ultimate state but a transition, a dissolving of the blockhead bureaucracy that constrains us and a freedom from the disapproval of our neighbors and thousands of special interest groups who will hold us back because we do not honor Christ, the Holocaust, Black rights, Women’s rights, anti-drug policies, corporate welfare, animal sodomy, etc. Anarchy would be a giant disconnecting, a liberation of ourselves from the gelatinous obligations of society, and we see it rightly as a transitional state.

After all, only an idiot would want to live in anarchy (the inexperienced are idiots by ignorance, not by ability, so we forgive the many young and distracted people who champion anarchy). When people talk fondly of anarchy they are not speaking of the chaotic state of existence where the law of the jungle returns, but in Sex Pistols terms, of tearing down a dysfunctional society and thus escaping it. We know in practice anarchy would work about as well as government by dice-throwing.

Our environmental crisis is brought on by our aversion to unpopular facets of reality. We cannot solve the crisis until we admit that:

  1. There are too many goddamn people.
  2. To cut back, we are going to have to violate some “freedoms.”
  3. When we do cut back, we should pick the best among us to breed.

These are common sense plans, when one is freed from the constraints that “freedom” and popularity put on us. After all, if we were marooned on a jungle island of small size, it would not be an insane command to breed the smarter people so that in the future a micro-civilization could exist which would make wise decisions. And before we get into the illusion of equality: no one is so insane as to insist that some are not smarter than others, better looking than others, or nobler in character than others — if it were so, why would it be that only some become professors and writers and actors? — we can only delude ourselves into blaming “oppression” for so long, since history is replete with examples of those who rose above adversity to succeed.

These future changes would require violence. A few generations of sterilizing criminals and retards, paying the less intelligent not to breed, legal abortion with tax breaks for those of lower intelligence, some small land wars and an end to third world aid (the area where the population is growing — Europe and Europeans in the Americas have long stabilized their populations).

Jobs could be re-interpreted to require real brains and real work, filtering out both the low intelligence and the kind of “thin intelligence” that bureaucratic paper-shuffling and marketing reward. No permanent welfare would force the unable to go elsewhere in order to raise their abundant children (statistically, welfare families are more likely to have more than two children, while stable households are more likely to have two or fewer children). These are all peaceful, un-destabilizing methods which could bring about these changes within generations.

Trees or Happy Masses?

Yet we balk. It’s not fair… not everyone gets the same chance… the burden falls heaviest on those in the intersection between categories dumb, poor and socially insignificant… it’s oppressive… we would prefer anything, even suicide, to such injustice. In fact, that is our choice: we either restrain ourselves now, or we self-destruct into archetypal third-world societies living under environmental duress. A few will rule from air-filtered artificial dwellings, and a mass of 90 IQ lumpenproles of no determinate heritage will labor in the wasteland, dying of cancer at age 35 and breeding with no higher evolutionary purpose in mind. Humanity, the failure. And as it went down, as if out of sheer spite, it tore apart its environment and left a barren planet as if determined that, having suicided, it would prevent any other species from having a chance at the stars.

In modern times, we are ruled by the Crowd. Coarser, simpler minds are always out there to promise unrealistic solutions in exchange for power; they sell illusion and deliver, years distant, disasters that most people cannot conceptualize as they cannot predict anything past their own next pay period. The Crowd does not mean badly, but it destroys nonetheless, and it is the incapability of that nobility of emotion and self-sacrifice that characterizes real leaders, who wish to avoid disaster both in the present and future. The Crowd wants what it wants, which is pleasant illusion and wealth and “freedom,” and the cost — they don’t even think that far ahead.

Those of us who are not fully delusional want to change our modern time because we smell disaster on the wind, but we don’t know how. If we look at single issues, like abortion or gay marriage or the whit-tufted weeblesparrow becoming extinct, we have no solutions. If we look at the whole of the problem, and see it in the context of history, the task suddenly becomes easier:

1. Wrest power from the Crowd.
2. Cut back our population.
3. Create better people than any that exist now (the overman of Nietzsche).

Overmen should be our goal because only a sick person wants to be the height of all time; we always want to get better, both personally and as a species. We can get better. We can make a humanity that is better than any humanity before. We do not do this by “freedom,” but by quality control. The Crowd will never deliver us to higher states, but to lower, by insisting on tangible immediate rewards instead of hard work toward time-distant greater heights. The solution begins with removing the power of the Crowd.

Democracy as Replacement Reality

Why to detest democracy: all governments are best at making themselves the dominant means of control, and democracy is no different. Masses do not study political theory and could not comprehend it if they did; they understand the last thirty years of history in simple terms, but are lost as to the two-thousand year picture. The masses are easily controlled with democracy because they both (a) believe themselves to be free and (b) vote according to what they see through a news media controlled by relatively few people. Whether that news media is public oration, as in ancient Greece, newspapers as in turn of the century America, or televisions and Internet funded by six ultra-wealthy corporations as in the modern time, the masses respond to what they see because it provokes them emotionally.

Thus democracies sway between Evil Villains and Helpless Innocents, but understand no shades of grey. The masses, in “freedom,” pick extremes through statistically predictable means. Control is easy because it’s invisible, and so while the public show of “government by the people” burbles past our ears, in private groups of wealthy people decide what to fund and through that how people will vote. This isn’t conspiracy thinking; these wealthy people desire nothing more than to neutralize society from doing anything that will threaten their wealth, and to guide in profitable directions. They’re simply enjoying their freedom, and if the rest of us pay for it, it’s only because we’re too silly to have a more comprehensive direction than individual material accumulation.

Democracy rewards those with low self-esteem and low selectivity in their personal choices; these are people who find the most reward in social recognition. They like to believe in public image because when they look too closely at reality, they see things they do not like about themselves, in the same way the most vicious anti-smoker is an ex-smoker and the most violent racist is someone unsure of her own parentage. They fear the inner world of meaning, and of significance to life, preferring the tangibles like wealth and comfort because these are beyond debate, beyond dispute. Too much intangibility they equate with the presence of death, something they’d rather (and heck, all of us, but if we’re brave we do not give in to this impulse) forget. Democracy is good at rewarding those who run from unpleasant truth, and it feeds them pleasant illusions in exchange for the ability to manipulate them.

Democracy encourages self-centeredness. “What do you want?” replaces “What is best for us all?” Personal preference replaces reality. This has gotten to the point that people have replaced objective reality with personal choices; if you want the inferior logical solution, go ahead, it’s your choice. They do not believe objectivity exists. What stands before us are a series of choices, or preferences, they argue, instead of objectively-demonstrable better and worse solutions. You like to eat garbage and coat yourself in feces? Well, fella, whatever makes you happy — so goes the logic.

Smart people have for centuries puzzled over this, and thanks to a series of mind-bogglingly unproven and incomplete theories ranging from Christian Heaven to quantum physics and its partially articulated doctrine of relativity, have convinced themselves this is possibly true. Maybe we do live in a world where everyone can have a personal reality in which to be a king, and where every preference might work out. It has not occured to them that nature works by the opposite principle to avoid that becalming of reward to better choices known as entropy which is brought about when all choices create exactly equal outcomes. Why choose at all, then? — which means there are no better choices, hence no evolution or natural selection, hence nothing ever gets better. But does it get worse? Stagnation usually leads to decay, but we cannot say that in public anymore as we’ll offend someone.

Although you will not see this fact in textbooks, there are no historically successful examples of democracies: all of them have terminated early, exploding into authoritarian states and then tapering off into third-world countries with “amazing” ruins lost in the jungles and deserts. Democracy brings about pleasant illusion and, having hidden reality, is then surprised by it and overwhelmed by consequences — every time. The only difference now is that thanks to our technology, we’re really playing with fire: nuclear bombs, ecocide, wars so big they boggle the mind. We control the globe and can actually for the first time damage nature. We’ve put the whole stack on red 13 and we’re gambling with our future.

Democracy is excellent for those who fear the world (reality) and fear its natural selection process. They are guaranteed “equality” — freedom from natural selection — and “freedom,” or the ability to live as weirdly or defectively as possible so long as they make it to their jobs and bring home those checks. For those who fear the world, democracy is a protective measure, but like all protection rackets, it requires prompt payment. You do that by tolerating unrealistic decision-making and eventually a lapse of leadership into happy promises and grim consequences.

This is why all democracies fail at first by sliding into authoritarianism. When reality becomes a distant world, and decay sets in, the few sane ones left begin to see what’s really on the plate and start screaming. Because the situation is so far gone controlling it is impossible, they slam into a place a strong reactionary government — which, alas, is composed of the same defectives who are running the democracy, and thus either lapses into left-wing errors (kill all aristocrats, dissidents, intellectuals and other necessary brains) or right-wing errors (embark on endless war and the building of statues). The society that out of control filled with parasites and useless people responds like a man who suddenly realizes he’s on fire, swatting violently and desperately at patches of flame without realizing that the quickest solution is to drop to the ground and roll.

And drop to the ground and roll we must — roll away from the Crowd, from their protective Democracy, from the big money interests that manipulate us without caring if we self-destruct because enough money means the elites can live in spaceships while earth rots and burns. No one is in charge here as far as leadership toward the future goes. We’re all complicit in blithely going along this path to doom. If you care about environmental issues, you will recognize that a transfer of power is needed, and that we need to roll away from Democracy and then stand up and assert reality instead of fantasy — and only then can we avoid planetary ecocide.

Recommended Reading