tradition/history/politics
Writing for a cause
I am an environmentalist, and recently I have been proud to witness a sizable shift within the right towards a new and far superior version of environmentalism. Finally, there is an alternative to the environmentalism founded upon eating synthetic meat and throwing orange paint at works of art, one that holds profound respect for our closest contact with the celestial world: nature. Though this new nature-conscious right has often been labeled as reactionary (the current ruling class’ favorite term to immediately dismiss any valid criticism) as well as being equated with sub-cultures glorifying terrorism, both are merely a way for those that fear its power to sensationalize and discredit the most genuinely revolutionary movement of our times. In this regard, I see my environmentalism as less of an empirical sentiment – though there are extensive logical arguments supporting the curtailing of man's exploitation of God’s natural world – but rather on a spiritual plane, where the natural world should be seen as both a gift and a channel in which mankind is able to digest and receive the touch of the creator. The original traditionalists such as Guenon and Evola felt the truth only nature was able to reveal – though they distrusted the matriarchal and ‘base’ religions founded on nature worship – through their propagation of spiritual beliefs that directly view technological progress as a force of further separating man from the esoteric ‘tradition’. I am inclined to share their view, for technology’s crimes are certainly not only severely detrimental in terms of its profound physical effects, but rather because technology serves to sever our tether with spiritual fulfillment (see my story “tethered” on the creative page of the website for more on this idea). Man, in their eyes, is united by many shared qualities, qualities only realized when he understands the metaphysical hierarchy and truth through the theophany of that truth within the physical world. For example, the male and the female are shown to us (in Evola’s view) through the solar and lunar, as well as through the feminine earth and the masculine heavens. His critique of industrial society is direct and pointed, asserting: "In modern man, the consciousness of 'being' is replaced by that of 'having' and especially 'making,' that is, of manipulation and possession. This tendency can be called 'techne,' and it represents a fundamental change in human civilization," (Revolt Against the Modern World). To any who have felt the fall of snow on their reddened cheek or felt the powerful yet benevolent ray of the sun on your pale and sickly back, you have certainly felt the touch of the creator in a form so pure that you must find it hard not to turn away from for fear of tarnishing its idyllic purity. In recent years, such beliefs have skyrocketed in subscription and relevance, ranging from articles fear-mongering about Steve Bannon’s crackpot philosophical ramblings to young men revolting against the world they have inherited through a deep and new-found connection to the natural world and catholicism. King Charles is among this school of thought, and his environmental efforts have always been coupled with his attempts to revive mystical tradition within religion and find alternative medicines, a man truly worthy of his long-awaited kingship! In Evola’s eyes, the natural order would reveal the inner monarchical nature of the universe, so it is fitting that a king finally sits on the throne who knows his worth and seeks to revive his status as a “personification of the ‘life beyond ordinary life,’” (Revolt Against the Modern World, p.7). However, this movement has yet to go mainstream, which can primarily be blamed on two factors. The first is merely the pig-headedness of the modern right and how far they have strayed from truly conservative principles. In the words of the recently deceased Theodore Kaczynski: “The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently, it never occurs to them that you cannot make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and economy of the society as well, and that such rapid changes will inevitably break down traditional values,” (Industrial Society and its Future, p.11). I do not cite Kaczynski as a hero, nor do I endorse his actions, however, his work undoubtedly contained many of the most sober criticisms of both sides of the political spectrum. What made people community-oriented, divinely connected, and virtuous? The answer is nature, to put it simply, for she naturally engenders strength, independence, and a dogged work ethic through rewarding the higher types with plentiful children and survival. It may seem heartless, but it is the very principle that science has established. As a side note, it is important to recognize that modern society is not propelled forward by “logic” or “reason” – both in fact would tell us that the best course of action for man’s development and the earth’s ecosystem would be to act per natural will – rather, modernity is based in fear; it uses man's base instincts and emotions to wrangle and stifle his higher qualities. A living and youthful culture will be held in check by its own vitality and its ability to instill vigor in its cells – the people create its very existence – however, a dying and senile civilization will need to scare, drug, and grip its population firmly in order to hold onto its last shreds of life. That is exactly why rather than seeing society as a living and breathing being, modernity has mechanized and simplified it, requiring it to increasingly strip natural freedoms to continue the facade of benefit to the common man. Modern conservatism’s idealization of the nineteen fifties is highly symbolic, for just like their forefathers, their individualistic self-centered nature has stripped them bare, leaving their only goals being temporary financial success and a can of beer in their right hand to sip whilst the world of their children burns to the ground. However, conservatives are not the primary concern of this article, for the second reason relating to the niche nature of this movement can be pinned on those to the left. I want to preface this scathing critique by saying that I have no animosity towards the people whom subscribe to left-wing environmentalism, many close to me do, rather I see them as misguided by the very people spurring on environmental tragedy. These are people of fine intentions, infantile yes, but in an endearing way, and if they were not so damaging I would be inclined to ‘live and let live’. The key word is infantile, for one of the many tragedies of industrial society is that it stunts mental and emotional growth as a means of control. The system makes you fearful of nature, fearful of autonomy, and fearful of others to make the overreaching policies it enforces seem benevolent: a process which began with the likes of Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century. Instead of infantile, Kaczynski in his criticism uses the work ‘over-socialized’, describing how, "The leftist of the over-socialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually, he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society," (Industrial Society and its Future, p.6). To create a helpful analogy, imagine a dog unhappy that its handler has decided not to lead it towards one of his companions. To display his frustration that the owner has not led him to the desired destination, he pulls on his leash, barks, and creates an overall nuisance of himself. However, he knows that if the handler dropped the leash for a second, the German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Malenois of this word would devour him instantaneously. The leftist is a collectivist for the very reason he is over-socialized; he has been broken in by the handler more fully than the Doberman. Because he has been left with so much self-doubt, he resents even the autonomy he does have and wishes to further nestle himself under the government's wing, while at the same time wanting the illusion of freedom. Unfortunately for our little doxen, he cannot have his cake and eat it too, and the second his pulls risk the leash falling from his handler's hand, he will regain his composure and submit himself more fully than before. Once more, we see the inherent contradictions that our little doxen’s existence is brimming with. I would like to circle back to an earlier point about “logic”, “science”, and “reason”. The leftist has stolen the word liberal, and portrays himself as the standard bearer of the enlightenment ideals, but this is merely not the case. I have already displayed the profound juvenile roots of leftist environmentalism – which admittedly do not take a great mind to understand – yet their constant claims to have science behind them do not cease to enrage me. Has man caused unimaginable harm to the natural world? Yes, the leftist and I agree. Unfortunately, that is where all agreements stop. At one point organizations did have a scientific basis, for example: “As is well known, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organizations used to oppose mass immigration, in part quietly for this reason, but also because population increase will on its own place unacceptable strains on nature,” (Bronze Age Mindset, p.63) yet now that understanding seems as lost as Roman concrete was to the dark-age peasant. Because the left wishes to rebel by opposing all that the conservatives support, they mire themselves in a mountain of contradictions such as the example I just provided. Their solution to this is to propose further technologies, further advances, and further toleration. It should be abundantly clear why injecting more of the Yersinia Pestis bacterium into a plague victim will not cause him to be cured, but once more, the leftist is not interested in a real solution. Their commitment is lukewarm, a cause to get up-in-arms about and discard when it stops serving the same purpose as a confessional. The hard truth is that our Faustian society has been on its deathbed for some time, and rather than preparing to rise once more from the ashes, they wish to hook the dying leviathan to an iron lung and a pacemaker. If they loved, respected, and revered nature, they would revel at the sight of dogs being clawed to pieces by eagles while yipping tragically, but they do not. Nature’s hierarchy and the high standard of greatness that she holds us to is not their goal, rather, they want an outlet akin to a teenage boy wearing a hammer and sickle shirt to annoy his parents without having read a single page of Marx. So is it worthwhile to find common ground with these people? To put it simply, no. The easiest possible way to discredit a genuine environmentalist movement is to associate it with those who do not even hold its core tenets. The reason that they participate in performative acts such as lying in the road and harassing farmers attempting to go about their lives is that they do not care about finding realistic solutions, rather they derive their pleasure from grandiose acts that prove their moral high ground to only themselves. To clarify, many do not actually know this, for it is far easier for a removed viewer to recognize someone's psychological state than it is for the individual themselves, which has been evident in conversations I have had with such people. After they finish explaining basic views of ‘companies are bad’ and such, I present them with an – albeit watered down – version of traditionalist environmentalism. They are resistant and put off, but they have yet to succeed in finding how they can effectively argue against it; usually, they opt merely to half-heartedly agree or say “That’s interesting” and change the subject. Their mind tells them that they must agree with me wholeheartedly, but at their core, they know that they revile my words. Again, this is not intended to slander my opponents, but simply display that our opposition has to do some serious soul-searching to find what they truly value before an effort of reconciliation can be made. A true traditionalist movement would neither participate in the performative statements nor the reprehensible (not to mention futile) terrorist campaigns of Theodore Kaczynski. For a long time, the goal of traditionalists as a whole has been to stay quiet about their beliefs (something I seem to have utterly failed at) and slowly influence academia and politics to gradually ready the solid for a new season of planting. Our environmental aims should be much the same. The end of Faustian civilization is not the end of mankind, and we should be enveloped by a wave of excitement rather than moping about. We can imagine what great virile and youthful civilization will arise out of the West in the coming decades, a light at the end of the dark tunnel in which we are about to embark. In our excited and forward-looking state, our goal should be to make our own sputtering Leviathan comfortable in his last days, while simultaneously cutting his life support. To avoid the inevitable, he lashes out, he seeks to drain the earth and the population of their life force to preserve his own, so we must consciously put a stop to this. We are the caretakers of a dying, senile old man, and for our own safety and future survival, we must take his weapons so he cannot lash out in his decrepit and clouded state. -E.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Notes from the Author:Welcome to the Underground Aristocrats website; before you dive in, let me aid you in navigating this site. On this page entitled Featured Works, you will find the most recent articles in order for you to keep up to date with my writing. However, do not merely scroll here; if you come for creative writing, check out the Creative Work Page, and likewise if you specialize in politics, philosophy, news, etc. I hope my short guide will aid your reading, and feel free to leave comments, both critical or positive. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|