Posts Tagged ‘health’
Tuesday, December 20th, 2016
With the election of Donald Trump, many who supported him are asking themselves what they stand for. Are they conservatives? Moderates? Or merely against the far-left direction that the country has taken since WWII, including the disastrous policy of diversity?
Underneath all that Trump stands for, there is a simple principle: realism. He believes in assessing his ventures by their results, not the feelings generated, and expects to see those investments functioning smoothly and making people wealthier. Otherwise entirely a moderate candidate, he differs only from the bulk of politicians in this way; he opposes politics itself, and prefers results-based realism.
Most writers remain locked in the prison created by the categorical boundaries of words. They wonder if this means that Trump is in favor of the “free market” and “freedom,” or other abstractions that serve as proxies or symbols for what we ultimately want, which is a healthy nation (and, if we are sane, a restored and self-improving Western Civilization).
What they forget is that all of these things are means to an end, and that end is the goal of a healthy nation and thriving Western Civilization. Currently we do not have that because we stopped cooperating toward that purpose, and instead focused on the human individual and its “reason” as the be-all end-all of social goals. From that, we got a society which could not remain united.
Having a purpose such as health, however, does not unite a herd. They do not all understand it, which means that it must be left to wise elders or otherwise competent people. This offends the mob. And yet, it is the only stable state of humanity because most knowledge exists in specialized domains. You do not elect your pilot on a transcontinental flight, nor your neurosurgeon, or even your arborist. You choose the competent.
Conservatism — for those of us who still use the word, knowing that “mainstream conservatives” is based mostly in the first word — is that which conserves, which means keeping up those time-proven ways of life that produce the best civilization, including a transcendental view of life such that we hold it holy and revere it. Unlike Leftism, conservatism is complex and nuanced with depth and breadth (Leftism is simply “equality now!”).
This approach requires tearing objectives down to their most basic targets, as measured in terms of results and not social appearance and emotions as Leftist “successes” are. At the end of the day, it is realism through consequentialism plus a desire for excellence and beauty in all forms. We want sanity in our society, after centuries of insanity accelerating after WWII, and we cannot point to intermediaries or proxies for that.
For example, “freedom.” Freedom from what? To sane people, we think of the ability to go about our lives and do that which is not destructive. However, when we say the word freedom, we tear down that complex idea and replace it with an unbounded abstraction. We have no idea what we are fighting for, but it can fight back, because anytime anyone does anything destructive, he will claim “muh freedom.”
Free markets are the same way. These are a means to an end; basically, everything but free markets amounts to some type of socialism and always fails so spectacularly that we want to avoid it forevermore. Wealth redistribution — this is all that socialism is, in reality — converts thriving places to impoverished ones where half of the beets on the truck are rocks and all the potatoes go toward vodka.
Conservatives need to refocus on goals and not methods. Using methods, or “means-over-ends,” in place of goals is a Leftist trope because it enables them to replace functional things with social conceits. Applying ourselves toward purpose and goals allows us to achieve the fulfillment of conservatism, which is preserving the way of life that works out best.
Sunday, January 4th, 2015
Society is sick, as we have corrupted everything. Health doesn’t matter anymore; what used to come naturally and organic through way of life is gone.
Examples include bread, water, fish – the building blocks of human civilization. These three items contain all the macronutrients you need, and the sustainability (water) that keeps bodies mobile. We’ve disconnected ourselves from the sources of these building blocks, and as such, termites and cockroaches pick at the foundation.
Drive down the street in your hometown. Take careful note – while being careful during your own driving, of course – of what others around you are doing. I was taught to drive defensively; to act as if the people driving around me were all morons or, worse, actively pursuing an accident with my vehicle. Sadly, I’ve found this to be not far from the truth.
What do you observe? Cell phones, coffee cups, bickering, laughing. Barely anyone focusing on the road itself; the task at hand. Where is this person going? There is a neat little device called a directional in all vehicles, and yet, it collects dust. It’s not nearly as exciting as the touchscreen navigation. Interesting irony in that. Certainly not as interesting as streaming whatever Pandora thinks is good to listen to from my cell phone into my car’s speakers.
I have a wonderful 2 year old daughter. She loves music. She loves to draw, too. She will sing along to just about anything. And yet, when she saw a black and white video recently, on YouTube, of Dean Martin singing “Volare”, she was mesmerized. It seemed to capture her attention better than any Disney studio executive could ever imagine. Maybe she needs to hear more classical music, or at a minimum, focus on something without so many camera angle swaps and flashing lights per minute. She’s still young, we have time to ensure she doesn’t get too caught up in the world of bright screens, which hides the now supposedly dull world of sticks, holes, yards, outdoors, slides, and fresh air.
Peanut allergies. High fructose corn syrup. Bright screens in our faces at all times, at all hours. Lack of sleep and too much caffeine for an ironically lazy populace. Mercury in our fish, too much fluoride and chemicals in our water, very little healthy to buy on the grocery store shelves, and no time to simply relax.
Society is sick. All sick organisms go one of two ways: cured, or dead. I’d love to be part of the cure. I don’t have a lot of hope that there are enough people to want to be part of the cure, such that this group could affect the organism like a reverse-virus; killing the sick part of the organism and creating something new and better in its place. Time will tell.
Friday, June 6th, 2014
Among curmudgeons, the notion that it takes ten times longer to refute a lie than to tell one is widely known. Such facts come to life because curmudgeons familiarize themselves with both truth and lies, and use both in their arsenal. Generally their lies are innocent: feigning illness to avoid social events and suggesting far-off lands as “ideal destinations” for idiots.
But the truth remains that lies form a culture of themselves. Once a lie takes hold, it must expand or it will be revealed. Its death occurs through revelation because when a statement is shown to be untruthful, it has lost its attraction for its audience. It then lacks minds in which to live and winds of gossip on which to spread. Cornered by irrelevance, it fades from history.
The act of lying itself constitutes the fundamental lie. To say, “It is so,” when it is not, one undertakes a burden of keeping a lie alive. This makes the master of the language the servant of the lie, because with a lie’s revelation there also comes an unmasking of the liar. And while people possess no particular drive to truth, they fear being manipulated and thus shy away from liars.
Once a lie is told it invents a culture of deception around it. The lie must be protected; the liars must unite and back each other up; all contradictions to the lie must be erased, subverted, blemished, corrupted or otherwise neutralized. Most human cultures on earth dedicate themselves to nurturing a lie and inventing a mythos around it that turns good into bad and bad into good. This keeps the lie safe beneath layers of misdirection.
In the West, we cultivated a culture (instead) of truthfulness. Where in other cultures people consider it a loss to reveal a truth that is personally embarrassing, the West made a religion of placing truth — and Reality — above the individual. This concept shocked the world, which was composed of people who dedicated themselves to the exact opposite. To them, individual ranks above Reality as a means of self-protection. Even when — especially when — they talked about how egoless they were.
Western culture probably reached understanding in only a relatively small number of minds. But its salvation emerged from what it did not do, which was protect a central lie. Instead, it looked to the stars and to the infinite and eternal, finding a union between truth, beauty, immortality, harmony/balance and goodness. The West found God in knowing its Reality through truth. But this placed it at a brutal disadvantage.
The rest of the world thrives on deception. Most humans live under primitive circumstances even when on the surface they imitate advanced societies. The people there anticipate dysfunction, dishonesty and parasitic intent from those around them. As a result, they stage pre-emptive strikes against their fellow citizens, hoping to manipulate those fellow citizens before they manipulate the people themselves. The lie feeds as it grows.
Cultures of deception have the upper hand over cultures of truth, however, because cultures of deception are always on the attack, never trusting, and always deceptive. Cultures of truth cannot respond to them in time and get obliterated by them. The two are not even speaking of the same things when they use the same words. Cultures of truth do not understand naked self-interest.
These cultures of deception value nothing except that which gives one person an advantage over another. They can unite in moments of passion on polarizing activities like extremist religion, political upheaval and class warfare, but for day to day life they lack unity. But they also come about within cultures of truth, and this minority status unites them immediately.
When culture aims at truth, it bypasses these infected quagmires of deception. It rises above and organizes itself, discovers learning and creates a sense of unity among its people. But much as any greatest strength is a greatest weakness, healthy societies attract the unhealthy who are enraged by what they cannot have, and seek to destroy it.
Many of these — but not all — call themselves leftists, liberals, progressives and socialists. Like all infectious agents, they disguise themselves as harmless or benevolent. Their goal however is to kill. They wish to destroy the civilization of truthfulness by bringing the culture of deception into its midst. All because they perceive that they cannot have it.
If they were to study history, they would see that having what is good comes easier than expected. One must call out the lie and puncture the culture of deception, then replace it with a culture of truth. From that all good things flow. And for a former culture of truth now infected with deception, the same solution works every time.
Thursday, August 8th, 2013
Politics is made of images in which cause and effect are the same. I pitch to you a law, and claim it will stop rape or cheating on taxes or whatever.
Reality is more complex. In it, a law is just one of many forces acting on us all, including our decision to do criminal acts, which may or may not reflect actual thought. It might just be impulse, opportunity and generally low standards for oneself. Low moral standards.
Right now, there’s a huge push to legalize weed. The political reason is simple: civil rights, dope, free sex and comfy couch Communism are the Baby Boomer hallmarks. They’re what the kids of WWII inherited from the 1920s and 1930s era decadent propaganda of the intellectual elites.
No matter what they say, their actual agenda is replacing majority culture with freaky no-standards culture. Weed is great for that. If it feels good, do it. And more importantly: “I would not feel so all alone / everybody must get stoned.”
Why feel alone? It’s Napoleon Dynamite all over again: the freaks, geeks, stoners, outcasts, etc. join together and overthrow the majority. Who wants another blonde, rich, straight-A-getting jock? Hell no; let’s get freaky and have no standards.
That way, everyone is included. It’s like a rainbow of weird, except there is no weird, so you have to pretend the motley confusion is actually a movement and not just a breakdown. Baby Boomers excel at that. Then again, there was nothing else left for them.
The actual reasons to keep pot illegal are very simple and very hard to understand.
First, keeping it illegal isn’t designed to prevent use. It’s designed to signal that in our society, we don’t want it used in our civilization. The reason for that is both simple and complex.
Here it is: anything that feels better than life itself makes life itself pale in comparison and leads to leaving reality behind as a state of mind.
It isn’t that pot makes you unrealistic. It’s that the experience of enjoying drugs means that you can’t go back to normal life and enjoy it. It will be hollow without the happy feeling and the new strange world of hallucinations.
We talk about insanity, criminality, peer pressure and other problems associated with pot, but there’s really only one problem: it’s mentally unhealthy. And when you think about it, there’s only one quest in life, which is to be healthy.
To the moderns who pride themselves on rationality, this thinking makes no sense. If it doesn’t cause more crime, it’s good, right? If it doesn’t cause cancer, it’s safe, right? If it doesn’t make you leap off buildings, it’s positive, right?
No — not because it is bad, but because it is not good.
Good is bonding with reality and learning to love it. Finding ways to expand it. Rising to new heights of proficiency.
Bad is withdrawing and becoming dependent on substitutes — liberalism, drugs, sex, television — to make you feel like life is worth living.
When you think about it, that’s a pretty wretched existence. And wretched people become resentful, do angry and passive things, and quietly band together Napoleon Dynamite style to ruin anything healthy.
Rationality is illogical. The real peer pressure isn’t to use drugs, but to endorse the Baby Boomer agenda. What do they hate? Normalcy. By extension, they hate anyone older than thirty, because those people have started learning about reality.
In essence, they hate reality. It competes with their own egos. They want those egos to fill up the world, and to squeeze out everything else. To replace reality itself.
It’s the kind of vision only a stoned hippie could think was positive.
Tuesday, August 6th, 2013
You can agitate for laws and social propaganda to legalize or require tolerance for anything. Maybe you are a misunderstood and disadvantaged minority who wants to openly parade your genitals in the street, but are opposed by uptight hateful people in their precious neighborhoods who claim to be protecting women and children from unwelcome lewdness.
Perhaps you advocate public defecation, a totally natural act performed by all animals, and a basic right vilified by homosapienphobic bigots.
In a forced multicultural society unable to maintain any agreed upon standards because of recently introduced disunity and contradictions, someone might enjoy killing cats and dogs to use as food. This is normal in rich old cultures that we need to be celebrating, but is oppressively prosecuted in the West as animal cruelty. Those who don’t embrace cats and dogs as sources of food need to be educated to tolerate every possible choice, without judgment of consequences.
Those who had never lived in a coherent civilization desire the door to be opened still wider, unconcerned with impacts on neighbors and society. They might even offer “facts” showing mainstreamed deviance and hedonism have a neutral or positive impact on the economy. This measurement assumes our only common interest is the collective economy.
You will be expected to tolerate sending your children to public schools full of disrupters and the emotionally disturbed who retard education for the entire class and set a bad example of failure. Some parents will even put their dummy kid in advanced placement classes, becoming a speed bump for all who wish to learn, expecting them to be treated as an equal in a system that considers it unfair to require a demonstration of high ability to join a demanding curriculum.
No wonder private schools and home schooling are rapidly gaining favor.
Maybe your children will be exposed to media messages of enlightened toleration for almost everything. Murder remains off-limits, unless the person is called close minded. Stealing is only excused if the thief had good intentions, like using the proceeds of his crime to feed homeless drug addicts.
What if we had other measurements of a nation’s health than its temporary economic situation? The Gross National Happiness Index is one attempt, but perhaps coherence and purposefulness would be a better way to assess a people’s sanity, vigor, and applied potential.
Wednesday, March 21st, 2012
The headlines rage: The people are unfit! The people are unhealthy!
Constant news articles tell us that the people are too fat, too thin, smoking too much, or just generally unhealthy. Why is this everywhere? Is it because the government is concerned about our well-being? Of course not –- it’s all about saving them money.
Sick people cost the state money. They take up valuable hospital space and often require insurance or government pay-outs. This is the only reason for the current interest of the state in the private health of citizens.
Let’s take a moment to ponder this thought. Ignoring the people who have become ill via their own self-destructive tendencies (e.g. alcoholism), exactly why are some of these problems on the rise? Simple answer: The government did it.
Most people work at 9-5 jobs which involve little or no exercise. When an adult comes home, there are children and housework to do. Fast food is everywhere, and having little time for anything but work, they graze here and there, nibbling at whatever high fat product is the cheapest.
Before the urban desk job, people moved around more and burned off the calories. Now, only the wealthy or unemployed have time for exercise.
Likewise, more people than ever have serious vitamin D deficiencies from lack of sunlight. The forty hour week is turning us into a species of sickly obese hairless urban rats that dwell inside a central warren.
The government, in lieu of preventing the problem, complains about it with well-intentioned press releases: “The people are fat, the people are unhealthy”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the lifestyle it imposes on working adults is the leading factor in creating this new species of light-shunning hefty hominids.
On one hand it dishes out sloth and gluttony, and on the other hand it punishes the people who obediently and diligently labor to make themselves ill in the name of the all-powerful, almighty state. It then laments this condition as if its acts were not the proximate cause of this condition.
To avoid being slowly killed by crippling Vitamin D levels and/or weight problems, we need to think in terms of prevention.
Cut the working week and bring the cost of housing down to realistic levels. At the moment it takes two average incomes to sustain a mortgage. Bring the cost of housing down and create 20 hour per week positions so the people can become healthy and productive again.
A nation of sickly, depressed workers is not a strong nation. It is not a happy nation. It is a sick nation, and sickness is not conducive to prosperity. Heal the people, heal the country. Prevention is always the remedy.
Friday, January 20th, 2012
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche cannot be described as a traditional philosopher. He consistently returns to the the theme of health, he refers to himself as a cultural physician, and he famously wrote, “my genius is in my nostrils.”
He may be referring to how in everyday life we are predominantly conscious of the divide between true and false, and less aware of the divide between healthy and sick. Some would say this occurred because we have taken our more primitive functions for granted and fallen in love with our brains instead, forgetting the wisdom of our other organs.
The metaphor of the immune system will help explain this. When a disease invades the body, the immune system is not at all obliged to accept the disease at face value — in other words, to accept the “truth” of the disease. If it did, it would be a pretty shoddy immune system.
In a sense, the function of the immune system could be described as irrational. The immune system clashes with disease in a war for power. Each fights for the ultimate prize: more life! The immune system cannot wait for the brain to make a decision. It must be constantly xenophobic and warlike.
The immune system does not operate on the level of true/false. The same is true at the cultural level. We are too in touch with our brains, and not enough with our immune system and our nostrils. Training our brains to become comfortable with cultural ruin is not a solution; it is a rationalization.
Avoiding rationalization requires we embrace the irrational. Our cultural antibodies must irrationally fight the disease without appeal to the brain. Today we are reliant on medicine in both a literal sense, and a metaphorical one. Like a patient who becomes accustoms to antibiotics, and thus loses the ability to fight disease without them, our rationalization of the status quo on a cultural level has weakened us.
Imagine three different tribes. Tribe A has superior intelligence, medicine and technology. Tribe B has superior spirit, religion and willpower. Suppose that these two tribes are warring with each other. Tribe A uses medicine and technology to heal its sick and wounded at all costs. Tribe B shuns medicine and instead puts its faith entirely in the will of the universe to heal its sick and wounded. Clearly, Tribe A will crush Tribe B, and perhaps only a very few of exceptional health from Tribe B will survive.
But out of the mist comes Tribe C! Tribe C uses medicine only in emergencies and otherwise puts its faith in the will of the universe. They believe that the strong will survive with or without medicine. Perhaps in the short term Tribe A will get the better of Tribe C thanks to their superior technology and medicine. But it’s not at all hard to imagine that in the long run, Tribe C will emerge victorious. The literal and metaphorical immune system of Tribe A will become dependent on medicine, while the literal and metaphorical immune system of Tribe C will remain robust thanks to nature.
There is nothing moral or immoral about a disease invading a body. The disease does what it does. But by the same token, the immune system does what it does. It is no different when a native culture resists and rejects foreign ideas and influence. It has nothing to do with morality nor does it have anything to do with what is “true” or “false.”
The antibody is as irrational as the disease, and as single-minded. The question is not about true and false, but a will to power and the will to life. We should not fight or justify our own irrational cultural impulses. We should integrate them. They like our immune systems ensure a long and healthy life.
Thursday, December 1st, 2005
Civilization, like the health of ethnic groups, is a cyclic pattern. It starts with a few brave explorers who, in contrast to others, have the long term vision and faith in life to create something anew; to strive for something better, even if it does not immediately benefit them. They eschew opulence and popularity and immediate public recognition in favor of a vision barely cresting the horizon, that of something better not on the level of the tangible (wealth, comfort) but of ideal: a higher form of organization to life, known as a new civilization.
When these pass on into the great undreaming sleep of death, those who succeed them face genetic variation to which nature subjects all species, namely the turning of entropy (randomness) into variations and then the testing of those by survival, with the elimination of the lesser. Humans do poorly emulating this, since most of them can only think according to one comparison at a time, e.g. strength in arranged combat or multiple-choice tests or wealth, and therefore, they cannot do what a stringent natural environment in which death is as plentiful as life can do. Consequently, over time, instead of turning entropy to their advantage, aging civilizations absorb it in the form of blockheads, fools, perverts and the indolent.
No matter how much Christian pity, liberal tolerance or conservative good-ol-boyism lurks in your bones, you recognize this truth on some level, because you are constantly surrounded by people, and you have no use for more than you find fair companions. There are sexual predators who cannot be rehabilitated, career criminals who will never change, and people who are either outright stupid or of such blunt perceptual skills that they might as well be. You can put 10,000 Harvard educators on each case and never change them; their failing is innate. We don’t like to talk about this in polite society, but this is because polite society is designed toward gathering consensus, not achieving the best answer; aging civilizations favor compromise over direct truth.
Swallowing these people gluts your society with those who will almost always make the wrong decision, rather than those who will usually make a right one. I say “a” right one because while there is a singular right matrix of principles by which one makes a decision (survival, higher order), there are many ways to implement it. Blockheads don’t see this, and insist on a single means of measuring people, such as wealth or popularity. Blockheads thus further the erosive process like a body rejecting healthy organs. At this point, since blockheads make up a fair percentage of the population, in order to achieve consensus society must bring it down to the blockhead level. Thus a civilization passes from middle age into old age, from which there is no escape.
This contra-evolution selects lesser orders, which have broader application among a population consisting mostly (for example) of people from 85 IQ to 130 IQ, and thus steadily demotes higher orders. Intelligent ideas fall prey to popular ones, inevitably featuring greater comfort and hedonism; great art falls prey to popular culture, and religion becomes a matter of showing up and repeating comforting mantras designed for a group of mostly blockheads. It is similar to feeding wildlife: those that prevail are not the ones who can take care of themselves, but those who are most conditioned to take a handout. Society domesticates itself, inverts evolution, and begins the descent into oblivion.
In wealthy societies such as our own, this may take some time. It’s important to note that IQ numbers are used here, as in all essays by this author, as an approximation and not a rule; the IQ test is fundamentally flawed in plenty of ways, the least of which being that it equates a linear mathematical representation of tactical ability with an assessment of strategic thinking capability. It’s entirely possible that a genius like Arthur Schopenhauer would test out at 135 IQ, which would be an obviously false result, as he was able to perceive and articulate things that many 160+ IQ types found impossible. For the sake of argument, assume that IQ is a hypothetical approximation, and recognize that much like IQ, our own measurements of our society’s health are linear and prone also to massive failure. We have wealth, and technology, but if we fall apart from within, those things will not massively organize in parallel to “save” us.
While no one will admit this in public, because it is unpopular thus unprofitable thus equivalent to standing up and screaming “Impoverish me!”, our society is in the final stages of its death procession. Whether we have five years left, or fifty, our intellectual and spiritual life is made impoverished by the futility of higher order in a system that favors lower orders. This subjects us to constant stupidity, makes us numb and depressed at such a subtle level that we don’t even know it, and assume that an ugly landscape of concrete and plastic in which almost every action or object we undertake is a product inferior to real experience is somehow “OK.” Look around you; everyone is surviving, but few are enjoying the process. They escape into enclaves of conditioned positive thought, like religion or family or drugs or business, and ignore the big picture. When truth is an offense, civilization entropy is not far behind!
Naturally, we all detest the person who screams “Fire!” and does nothing more. There is a solution to this problem, and it’s as radically simple as the reasons for decline, when you look behind the weird justifications (justification = finding a reason for an action after undertaking it for a different reason) like politics and economy that people use to explain our failing society. Opulence is what allows a civilization to tolerate its own entropic detritus and call it “citizen,” and perhaps, a deviation from the path of praising monetary prosperity is our future. Because we deal in wealth, wealth is needed to survive well: housing away from the ghetto-heads, private schools to keep your kids away from morons, better medical and legal services to avoid the public mediocrity. Yet for all this gelt, we are like drowning men trying to climb out of the water that surrounds them as it rises; there will never be enough money to escape the pool of blockheads which gets bigger every year.
What is a future without wealth? A society where we are not predominantly motivated by personal self-interest. How does this work? Other values, like culture and heritage and quite simply, creating a higher order in every scheme of organization we touch, must prevail. Could that work with our current population? No, on two levels: first, they are genetically morons in the majority; second, their spiritual and philosophical outlook is geared against evolution and not with it. For our future, we need to at least be ruled by people of a higher grade of discipline and a finer intelligence, such as people who can balance a need for some degree of material comfort with an abstract values system that may not immediately reward them. These supermen will be more like the creators of our civilization, long ago, and less like the daisy chain of mediocrity that has followed.
Fred Nietzsche, from whom the term “superman” is borrowed, is misinterpreted on the left as a Nazi and on the right as some kind of Communist for his suggestion that humanity rise above itself. His concept however is not solely eugenic, nor solely political, but predominantly addresses the spiritual state of humanity: the superman is one who is willing to rise above fear of physical discomfort, and even rise above the need for personal security and survival, in order to, like the creators of civilization, assert a higher ideal: an order not on the level of the tangible.
He saw this higher consciousness in the heroic and tragic works of the early Greeks, who would praise an act for the degree of thought required, regardless of the outcome for the actors involved. If everyone died, but died doing something noble, well, then, it was a positive outcome for them – this thought is blasphemy in modern times, when our newspapers are required to call any death a “tragedy” and those who died, either “victims” or “heroes,” the latter term having lost all significance after the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001 (heroic attacks in themselves, since without caring for their own deaths, the al-Qaeda commandos achieved a highly symbolic victory). The Greeks, the ancient Romans, like the ancient Indians before them believed there was a fate worse than death, and it was the ignoble act of preferring a lower order to a higher one.
This is a spiritual question because it reflects how much faith one is willing to place in the operations of the world. If life is good, and we can organize our surroundings to a higher degree, there is no reason not to except personal failings, such as laziness or perversion or innate stupidity. Those who have long term vision and can see past the tangible see a larger picture of life by which they understand its order, and how humans can fit into that at a higher level, including acceptance of and in fact utilization of evolution – a thought which requires we face our own mortality, as part of the nature of evolution is the loss of lives, including possibly our own, if we don’t measure up. Are we selfish, fearing death so much that we would endanger all of civilization, or are we brave enough to trade our own deaths for a greater degree of organization?
On this question the concept of Superman hinges. Our current society is ugly, futile in its repetitive nature and menial goals, and self-destructive in that it threatens ecocide (which, contrary to popular belief, does not require elimination of all living things, but enough to disrupt the ecosystem as whole, and thus throw a balanced system into a chaos that leads to a downward slide) as well as suicide through our subtle depressions and ennui neurosis. It is clear that the previous model of civilization, and indeed the genetics of most of the people in it, have failed a crucial test by refusing to acknowledge the firm realities of the future: humanity must curb its population and must cease its reckless pollution, externally, and must find something better to live for than money and status, internally. Since they have failed, and the countdown has begun for our civilization’s death, those who are still brave must plan toward the future, and that plan will include our own next stage in evolution, from human to superhuman.
If you want a room full of credulous, simple people to believe your religion, you tell them simple lies. They want you to lie to them about dying, and tell them that as long as they do some token thing, they won’t die. So you invent Heaven, twisting an ancient concept into a product, and promise them that if they swear an oath to a certain god, they go there, no taxes or surcharges required. How does this become destructive?
In the ancient sense, Heaven was not “a place on earth” (cf. Belinda Carlisle) nor was it a place at all; Heaven is a state of mind, according to the ancient faiths. You do not go to heaven after death, but if you dwell in heaven throughout life, your death does not trouble you (and it is unclear if you actually “die,” since it is possible that your mind and actions branch beyond the individual). Because Heaven is a state of mind, and not a place, the only way to get there is through individual action and finding one’s own path. No one can promise you Heaven in exchange for allegiance or a specific set of actions (usu. “kill the unbelievers”). You have to get there by yourself.
Can you imagine why telling people they must achieve a state of discipline called Heaven is healthier than promising them a place called Heaven in exchange for task/belief (essentially, a political notion, as it is the basis of mass manipulation)? Surely this much is clear: when Heaven is a place, people cease working for heavenly states within themselves.
Sheeplike people content themselves with categories, believing that if we all agree something is of a certain type, it makes it so, and somehow changes the world at large. For this reason, we call certain soldiers of the enemy “terrorists” if they don’t play by rules that we define, which, naturally, are to our advantage. Perhaps they hijack planes and kill civilians; in our public view, this is somehow different than our purchase of planes for the express purpose of bombing civilian areas. We would make more sense if we claimed that they were “terrorists” because a 747 crashing into the WTC has three numbers, while a B-52 bombing Fallujah has only two.
The fact of the matter is that when you are fighting to the death for something in which you believe, nothing is too dirty or too mean, especially in modern warfare. After all, ungodless America sprayed dioxin on forests to remove natural camouflage (Viet Nam), fired radioactive antitank rounds into schoolyards (Iraq I), tortured prisoners and held others without trial for years (Iraq II), firebombed civilian centers with high concentrations of children (WWII), gassed enemy troops within sight of villages (WWI), used camouflaged snipers against uniformed infantry (Revolution), spread biological agents to enemy tribes (Indian Wars), and faked attacks on our ships to justify combat (Spanish-American War & Vietnam). There’s no method too dirty for us because there can’t be, if the other guy is willing to use it, and even if he’s not, our job is to win, not to be “moral.”
We call people “terrorists” like we call them “evil,” or “cowardly,” or compare them to Hitler; all of these things have been done to al-Qaeda and other groups that resist us abroad. Domestically, we reserve this term in modified form for those who dare to note that ecocide is impending, and thus fight back with the weapons they have. We call them “ecoterrorists.”
Ecocide is a tricky issue. Idiots like to equate “global warming” with all of humanity’s effect on our environment; this makes it easier to get fanatical about global warming (left) and argue against it (right). Global warming is one tiny part of environmental change, which is a euphemism for “actions leading to ecocide.” Look at it this way: our environment is maintained by “ecosystems,” or interactions between plants and animals and weather and growth media (soil, air, water). There are millions of parts in the giant equation of our global ecosystem. When we remove enough of those parts so that the mechanical process that is our ecosystem can no longer balance itself, it will collapse like a bridge whose infrastructure has been destabilized, and destroy many species and the equilibrium of energy and growth media exchange that permits life as diverse as what we have now. That is ecocide. It is not a single change, or even all that many changes, but it is vicious and permanent.
Some wits argue against this point by saying that earth has always been under change, and that humans have wiped out species before. True, but earth’s changes have been the collective result of many natural forces, and are not linear (consumption of land fueled by overpopulation, and pollution from industry) as humanity’s are. Further, those species that were wiped out in the past were a handful of large animals; that’s a far cry from shattering an entire ecosystem, in which literally millions of species will be destroyed, obsoleted or mutated into something as generic and boring as the tame squirrels, pigeons, sparrows, rats and cockroaches that infest our cities. We are going from a complex ecosystem in which many species exist in parallel and cooperatively achieve a cycle that maintains itself to large populations of adaptive generalists like squirrels, who maintain nothing but survive anything. This is a loss of diversity and a loss of the overall “life” to our planet, replacing that with a few species that survive as long as their resources last.
For example, if we consume enough forest, it will be unable to reseed itself healthily, and we will replace thousands of tree species with a handful that will be maladapted in many soils and climates, causing erosion and damage. If our oceans get toxic enough, but not necessarily fully toxic, there will be a reduction in bluegreen algae that corresponds to not enough oxygen. The things upon which we depend for life will change in intensity and possibly presence. You might not know that if we kill enough frogs, but not all, they will not breed at replacement rates, starving all the animals that depend on them. The entire system collapses like a house of cards, but there is no obvious signal that it will happen.
Our global ecosystem needs most of the planet for itself to function. Not city parks, not land divided by roads and fences, but unbroken wilderness. All of the changes we see now are just tickles, the first signs of failure, like the weakening of a support strut in a bridge beginning with a small creaking noise. There will be no giant flashing sign that says PUSH HERE TO DESTROY EARTH, nor will the response be sudden. It will be slow, but at a certain point, like a chemical reaction, it will have gone too far to be reversed.
Those who realize this are “ecoterrorists.” They see something that most people not only lack the brains to see, but would not acknowledge if they did see it, because they are fundamentally selfish, usually as a result of their limited intelligence. This is not to say these people are “bad,” only that their judgment is suspect, and they should not be allowed to make decisions with far-reaching outcomes. For many of them, the most complex decision they should make is what to eat for lunch, and judging by what most people eat, they will screw that up as well. Ecoterrorists are inherently fascists. They recognize that unless forced to do otherwise, the majority of the human race will happily usher in an age of ecocide because they want that big pickup truck, that Dead Kennedys CD, that mocha java in styrofoam, that new television with widescreen – thinking only of themselves, they are blind to larger implications of their actions, and thus as both ignorant and uncaring agents of destruction will collectively commit ecocide.
Ecoterrorists should wear that name as a badge of honor. Not all of them are visionaries, and in fact many are blockheads, but they are perpetuating a necessary resistance to industrial society and the proletariat masses that empower it through their reckless, selfish consumption. You cannot blame the rich, nor can you exclusively blame the poor; you must blame the system that allows unwise, selfish and misinformed people to make decisions with wider consequences. Ecoterrorists want to take “freedom” away from these people, which is fortunate, as it’s the only sane conclusion. Ecoterrorists know that these same people will use their democratic “freedom” to block any sane action on the environment until it is too late. Ecoterrorists realize that it is immaterial how many humans we lose, because we can grow more, while ecocide is forever.
Whether you are left, or right, or somewhere else on the political spectrum, you must realize this:
- There is a real threat to our environment.
- Democratic systems will do nothing about it, as they are based on individual self-interest over collective interest, and even collective interest generally includes only collected individuals, not our environment.
Ecoterrorism helps accomplish what politics will not. Liberal democracies are incapable of addressing the environmental problem, because they are based on selfishness. Token responses like the Kyoto Protocol will lessen one symptom, global warming, but not address the problem as a whole. We are leaking toxic stuff into our environment and overconsuming land and resources, displacing and destroying species needed for our global ecosystem. Slowly we are committing ecocide. Only ecoterrorists oppose this. Your local ecoterrorist deserves your support.