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
Europeans have been remarkably clear about one singular issue over the past decade. Every poll that has been taken reflects this wave of popular sentiment, every election demonstrates the population's will vividly, yet no political action has been taken. Finding a singular issue that nearly an entire population is united around is rare and only happens in the most dire of circumstances. It took immense violence and economic hurt to rouse the people, however by this point Europe had awoken to find her vessel had floated into uncertain waters; either to drift farther or to navigate back to welcoming shores. That impassible storm is a globalized and non-cultural (the true reality of multiculturalism) Europe; that tide represents the politicians and plutocrats that pull her vessel while she slumbers in all her strength and beauty; that sun-soaked shore brimming with expansive and healthy crops is the realization of her Muliebrity.
Before immigration is expressly analyzed, I wish to clarify that I am analyzing this issue from a scientific, anthropological, economic, and political standpoint. Though steeped in my own bias and romantic idolization of Europa’s past, the information provided shall speak for itself. Recently, I read a phenomenal book by the renowned German professor and economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe entitled From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy. One of Hoppe’s most striking points surrounds the outlooks and goals of modern politicians as opposed to the aristocratic institutions of the past, a dichotomy situated at the heart of the immigration crisis. The primary example is that of the hereditary sovereign contrasted with a democratically elected politician, for often in our modern egalitarian mindset we neglect the objective benefits of the latter. He uses the analogy of ownership over a property, for while a monarch is effectively a landlord of a nation for life and will have to ensure the long-term value of his property; a democratically elected “owner” is merely a shortsighted caretaker. For a monarch, their actions will more often than not take decades, for each alteration to the nation will be seen for its ultimate effect rather than merely for the profits of short-term action; blame deflection is made utterly impossible. This is evidenced by the immense frugality (contrary to popular belief) that most European monarchs adopted towards the issue of debt, an issue that only became dire with the onset of governmental centralization under constitutional monarchies and democracies. Though slower than the current system, the benefits are clear as day. Removing a sovereign's time limit forces the central figure to be cool and calculating, but additionally incentivizes the monarch to not exploit his population in order to further the value of his property and ensure long-term stability for his heir. As a landlord, a monarch has the desire to increase the standing and value of his holding to benefit himself in the future as well as his children; forcing his hand and ensuring the monarch works for the betterment of the nation. Though Hoppe and I have differing views of industrialism, the principle that improvement will be made either industrial or not remains. In stark contrast, we have the democratically elected president, congressman, or parliamentary representative. These temporary caretakers have only a short time to act for their own benefit and must use it in order for their party to retain power. Hoppe directly states that a representative would be stupid not to take this opportunity, and how right he is that this system naturally plays on man’s worst and most bestial qualities. Ultimately in Hoppe’s eyes, “the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more than the replacement of a permanent, hereditary monopoly ‘owner’ – the king – by temporary and interchangeable caretakers” (Hoppe, p.44). You need not be an economist or political scientist to understand that this naturally leads to general governmental shortsightedness, far more dangerous than an overly cautious monarch. This is not to mention how democracy naturally plays directly into the hands of both wolves of men who merely manipulate public sentiment to scramble to the top, and plutocrats who orchestrate catastrophes, wars, and social unrest for no other reason than deepening their already dragging pockets. These two archetypal unnatural forces are as old as time, but modern democracy has allowed them to manipulate a system due to it being governed purely by man as opposed to natural law. Declining birth rates are one of the foremost tragedies that have engulfed the entire first world, for the exploitation at the hands of plutocrats has incentivized hardworking natives to not reproduce into a system that squeezes them dry; neutering the original inhabitants to a point of nihilistic self-doubt. This is terrifying to those in power (whom have staked their lots on unnatural population booms) but additionally presents them with a valuable opportunity to further their imbecilically self-centered goals. The entire democratic system is propagated by constantly drugging the masses on short-term economic growth and technological advancement, always at the detriment of the long-term health and happiness of the population. If the exponential curve of population and economic growth slows for just a few years, the artificial pillars of modernity from government to social values will swiftly collapse for the very reason that they have become so far removed from nature. I fear for this society that has invented laws and values not only separate, but in outright defiance to nature, for that is a society destined for failure. One would hope this building catastrophe would force a mirror on these men’s faces and show them the error of their ways, but just as rats in the engine of a car, they have found a wire to chew through to make themselves a bit more comfortable while destroying the engine beyond repair. Their solution is as follows: artificially inject increasing numbers of cheap labor into the nation to compensate rather than solve the root issues of a birth rate decline. You see, a native population is dangerous in a different way than an immigrant one. A native citizen is governed by ancient laws and customs, they have an innate care to preserve the land of their ancestors who died for their very presence in that land. Not so for the economic and opportunistic immigrant. From the perspective of a dead-eyed plutocrat, injecting those most vulnerable and easily controlled into the population is far easier to manage and exploit than one with pride and wisdom. The situations that make mass migration possible are sometimes caused by some natural factors as is often claimed, however, I would be as naive as a leftist if I took this as the majority of cases. Instead, the real and supreme evil is that oftentimes the forces causing these migrations are artificially induced by the same nations simultaneously taking them in. This is simply imperialism under a new mask, and is equally if not more devastating for all parties involved. Needless wars over company rights to oil and resources destabilize local populations with their own valuable and beautiful traditions and cultures, and force them to find solace in the very nations destroying their identity. The hunter has thrown a branch into a thicket to force the fawn into the bright clearing, alluring in its expanse, while his dark, matte barrel trains on the bright fearful eye fleeing imagined specters. I truly feel the utmost sympathy for these fawns, and the issue I find in mass immigration is not an emotional hatred of Islam or those darker than myself, but rather the purely destructive effect on cultures stretching back millennia in both the First and Third World. Governments form, as Hoppe says, from a need to solve disputes and grant protection over private property; so why would it be wrong to assume that these nations would naturally stabilize if left to their own devices? Rene Guenon, a well-respected founding father of the traditionalist movement, lived among the Sufis in a far more content existence than his homeland of France for the latter period of his life, so I would be dishonest to call these people and their cultures subordinate to my own and in need of the plutocrats ‘civilizing’. I have no dogmatic faith in democracy, and though a monarchist, I have no need to impose that system on others. All I advocate for is the natural progression and development of man in all his beauty and divergence; subordinate to God and not shells of men. It is no wonder why these immigrants feel dejected and distrustful in an alien land, and as I said there is no blame for that, but this tension naturally manifests in anti-social tendencies such as violence. What we have seen in Europe is nothing short of an orgy of spiraling chaos caused by this underlying tension, and the victims are all except a few high-ranking plutocrats. No one is happy with this situation, and they have voted accordingly time and time again. However, these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It is not that politicians have cotton in their ears, quite the contrary, they merely have no interest in finding effective solutions. Each has promised sweeping new reforms, yet no action has been taken. The conservative party in the UK is simply one of the most egregious examples of this blatant manipulation of the common man innate to democracy. Rather than assigning a farmer to preside over the coop, we have allowed wolves to prop the gate open to fatten themselves at our expense. While the chickens, now mixed with ducks and geese, battle for the grain, we neglect to notice that one by one the wolves have begun picking us off and squeezing us dry. The English, Scottish, and Welsh cultures are in my eyes the most beautiful we have, and yet each is under threat of being watered down to the point of disappearing for the one true God of modernity: money. London has long since become a minority-majority city and its culture has been sorely hit, while Leicester and Birmingham have nearly fully departed from their cultural and ethnic base. Even in Wales, the great anti-culture has reared its head, and the traditionally hardy sheep herders have become nothing more than self-righteous and self-destructive factory slaves that attempt to usher in their own demise (as shown by the Welsh labor party's public messages). But how could the people have remained in such a deep state of slumber? Well, it was aided by a chloroform-soaked rag stuffed down their throat. Just as Hoppe laid out in his description of how monarchs stole more power by supplanting natural law with their own divinity and destroying a system of balance found through aristocracy, the same logic applies. They drafted intellectuals to justify their power grab and unite the easily manipulated masses to do their bidding; a historical trend that has yet to fail. The reason nearly all modern intellectuals are left-wing is not that intelligence innately leads to progressive politics, but rather because those in power are intentionally manipulating the intellectuals of our times to play into their hands. For example, take the German intellectual elite of the Weimar period. Since most had acquired their prestige with the funding of the monarchist bureaucracy and aristocracy, they did all they could to undermine the new democratic system. They were conservative because that is simply where the money was, just as modern intellectuals are progressive because it will secure them comfortable work. ‘Cancelling’ those against modern progressivism is simply the way the elite weeds out the dissenting voices among intellectuals and creates a choir of unison voices to give them a ‘moral foundation’ filled with witty ‘got you’ lines to silence those with reasonable concerns. At our core, we are natural beings just as the virile tiger or the petrified fawn; we innately feel when we have been cooped in, but how can an individual who puts so much value on logic attempt to out-do the entire intellectual body of modernity? This is seen through the entirety of the school system, from secondary school to university campuses, and interestingly enough these intellectuals seem to truly believe the lies they are employed with putting to paper. The reason that the size of the intellectual class has risen to such baffling proportions from the feudal age to the modern day is due to the increasing need for the government to have legions of foot soldiers fighting the tides of natural dissent. Like a living breathing being, society is best when in homeostasis, and to diagnose its ills one needs only to look towards the swollen organs infecting the others. Once the puss is drained, that organ can once more return to its natural and pivotal function of honoring the cerebral and honing our understanding of the physical as well as metaphysical, however, in its current state it has festered beyond recognition and use. I provide you with two poignant historical examples – both ironically are weaponized by the left, yet, in reality, play directly into the hands of traditionalists such as myself – chattel slavery, imperialism, and democratization. Chattel slavery led to the invention of modern racism, not because the wealthiest slaveholders truly believed their own lies, but rather because it was useful to keep the poor white population docile. Many of Jefferson's memoirs showed a marked self-awareness, and yet he was the first man to put American racial pseudo-science to paper. Though I am not arguing that Jefferson was not a racist in the conventional sense, his marked admiration towards native Americans and his acceptance of African intellect both display a man whose conviction towards the inferiority of these races was at best lukewarm. The white population of the South overall lived in dire poverty, but their egos were sufficiently fed despite their stomachs yearning for a meal. They became the overseers whipping the black and bony backs of their brothers raw, and they became the clansmen after the war had destroyed a system that had done nothing for them. It is convenient to propagate a system when the whip hand is not the same that pats your child or holds your wife, just as it is easy for the same variety of elite in the modern day to look at growing violence in the cities with indifference as mere numbers on a page. By paying lip service to the exploited majority, that same majority allowed and aided in one of the greatest moral tragedies of human history. Hindsight is a powerful force, however, I do not wish future generations to realize the ills of their father's small-mindedness just as the current residents of the American South have finally accepted the complicity of their impoverished forefathers. The exact same is true for imperialism, something that many on the right have yet to fully denounce despite its glaring moral failings. I am well aware of the gleaming and luminous exterior of imperialism, I was swept up with its allure for many years, but was not the fruit in Eden equally as enticing? Imperialism alas is much as the fruit offered by the serpent, the kind of power it provides man over his brothers and nature is far too much and corrupts him from the first splash of juice hitting his unknowing lips. The growing ultra-wealthy elite managed to delude the population with a lie of a great civilizing goal, and once more were allowed to get away with the utter robbery of the majority, not to mention the disastrous effect on nature. Men like Karl Pearson, the English mathematician, managed to delude the population into seeing piles of dead Africans as stepping stones to civilized society as opposed to the genuine humanity of each martyred man. It is only when man attempts to play God that he can conclude: “The path of progress is strewn with the wrecks of nations; traces are everywhere to be seen of the hecatombs [slaughtered remains] of inferior races, and of victims who found not the narrow way to perfection. Yet these dead people are, in very truth, the stepping stones on which mankind has arisen to the higher intellectual and deeper emotional life of today” (Pearson, National Life from the Standpoint of Science). Men today are equally as guilty as Pearson when they view the numbers of rapes and violent crimes directly as a result of mass immigration as mere numbers on a page; nothing more than an issue easily solved by pouring more money into freedom-stripping police forces. No one wins except the manipulative few, that is the story of modernity. Imperialism allowed for the total hegemony of the plutocrats in its destruction of self-sufficient cultures, and the orchestrating of mass immigration is merely the beast sinking its teeth deeper into the human race so it can do nothing but allow its flesh to be torn off its tragic bones. I am no great intellectual, merely a fairly well-educated man with eyes and ears like the majority of you reading this. It did not take the mind of Nietzsche or the natural talent of Mozart to understand this phenomenon, so why on earth do so many clamor for tolerance and acceptance of a clear manipulation? Are we too proud to admit we have been duped for nearly three centuries? Are we so removed from nature that we fear she would swallow us up on our return to her unforgiving arms? These clear and basic understandings of mine are not new nor revolutionary, but have been lost in the din of artificially induced conflict and discord. The intellectuals have been drafted to do the bidding of the hollow-eyed few, the poor have been deluded by meaningless social issues shoved down their throat rather than true economic alleviation, and the middle class has been exploited to the point of nihilism. Europe must rouse herself, as must the third world, and tear off the chains of technology and artificial growth that keep us docile to these tragedies. Are we willing to be complicit in the destruction of the cultures our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers spilled blood to build; for nothing more than our own desire to play at God? -E.S. |
Notes From the Creator:Politics can take the form of two distinct beasts: that of the sophists whom merely wish to suppress the aristocratic men of nature, or that which allows man to cultivate the upper echelons of heroism and majesty. Here, you will find a fervent advocacy for the second, and nothing but revilement of the first. ArchivesCategories |