Sep 7th, 2011 by Brett Stevens.
People get upset when we talk about globalism because they see it as inevitable. They know that our society, happy on the outside, is miserable within. And they know that it is spreading worldwide, and will not stop until it collapses.
They also know that most people are numb to this. If you teach a person that getting bucket of slop A is more status-oriented and trendy than getting bucket of slop B, and then let him get bucket A for relatively easy tasks, he is yours forever. And so the human species was bought.
Globalism was known to paleoconservatives as internationalism, or the idea that we are all citizens of the world. This world is based on scientific management, or finding the utilitarian solution that pleases the average and then forcing it onto everyone.
A few brave people have spoken out against this. They come from these doctrines:
- Deep ecology. Deep ecologists realize that environmental laws are band-aids on a bigger problem. The only shift will come if we return to the idea of cultural values that include land, less-growth lifestyles, and responsible living.
- Nationalists. Our problems cannot be solved by strong government, nationalists say, so we need a common cultural values system to serve as a decentralized power structure. That way, we can all aim for the same thing and we don’t need government, reckless capitalism, or social pressures.
- Libertarians. The idea of command economies, a centralized State, and the nanny style rules and regulations that follow upset libertarians. They want a “free” country as in no restrictions on the pursuit of opportunity, and let private citizens and churches address social problems.
- Anarcho-primitives. Modern society has gotten out of control and now we serve our tools, not the other way around. The solution is to give up on our vast industry and retreat into smaller, localized communities without strong central authority, argue the Anarcho-primitives.
Which of these do I pick?
All of them.
There’s no way to argue that the deep ecologists are wrong. They know modern life for what it is: the “me first” of the individual creating giant groups dedicated to irresponsibility. Laws cannot curb this; only culture can.
Libertarians are saying something very similar, but they’re attacking it from a different angle. In their view, “managed” (bureaucratic, administrative, statist) societies always fail because they are unresponsive both in time of reaction and in their tendency to become inward-focused. The solution is to get rid of the State and let organic culture do the rest.
Anarcho-primitives are even farther out than the libertarians, but closer to the deep ecologists. In their view, our goals are misplaced. We don’t need more towering industry. We need better ways of life and more inner satisfaction.
What do these three have in common? Get rid of the power, and replace it with culture. Militarized police, government pamphlets, public education, UN committees and a complicit academia and industry cannot compete with values held in common. This type of deeply entrenched social system only emerges out of culture.
Culture cannot be manufactured by a government or environmental consortium. The result is that the state and the centralized power must be removed, and replaced with an organic or distributed and naturally-recurring type of values system.
The problem is that as Jonathan Haidt points out, heritage/ethnicity is a genetic record of culture. The only culture that naturally recurs is that which is in the genes. This leads us to nationalism: the only culture that works is that which occurs organically in an indigenous, separate population.
In other words, if you want an option to globalism, you have only one, and that is nationalism. Nationalism means that every tribe on earth rules itself, by its own standards, without any one central “right way” being imposed upon them.
Not only does this provide for saner politics, but it gives each group a clear sense of standards in common, a clear identity that binds them to these standards, and through similar heritage and values, a comfortable place to grow and thrive — a far cry from the commerce-ridden, socially-crazed society we live in now.
“A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own selfhood, it can never fulfill itself.” – Malcolm X
Malcolm X is saying: one civilization is needed for black people, and one is needed for white people.
The Klan has historically tried to organize colored divisions. Klan leaders met with Marcus Mosiah Garvey and gave a monetary gift to Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The Socialist Party and the Klan formed a 1924 alliance in Milwaukee to elect John Kleist, a socialist and a klansman, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Klan has at times appealed to militant workers.
I believe to be reactionary is fatal to our goals and I constantly preach against it. I encourage the study of left-wing and right-wing movements. I say we should take what we can from every source.
It was back in 1985 when I first met Osiris Akkebala, Chief Elder of the Pan-Afrikan International Movement (PAIN). Chief Akkebala hosted a radio show in an all-black community where we had a scheduled demonstration. PAIN follows a Garvian philosophy, and understanding that Marcus Garvey had met with the Klan in the 1920s, Chief Osiris approached me for a private meeting. We hit it off well and have been good friends ever since.
Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.
I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: “If we can’t get along together, then we need to separate.”
I’m a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don’t feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. I’m not naive enough to believe we can get it without a very bloody struggle. – John Baumgardner, Revolutionary Klansman
Nationalism for one group means nationalism for all, which means each group gets self-rule and its own state.
The enemy of nationalism is internationalism, or the idea that none of us get our own group, but we all become members of a mixed-race, cultureless, valueless society ruled by consumerism and a strong centralized Nanny State bureaucracy.
Nationalism is not racism; nationalism is cultural separation through ethnic group, which is a genetic record of culture.
Pan-nationalism, or world nationalism, is the idea that each ethnic-cultural group (joined by language, heritage and culture) deserves its own nation. Pan-nationalism suggests that no nationalist can afford to work only for his or her own tribe, but must realize that all tribes are joined in the same quest: to bring about a nationalist order on earth. Our enemy is not each other. Our enemy is the system of “modern society” that exploits us. Our goal is to re-structure modern society to keep its good aspects (technology) and weed out its destructive aspects. This is achieved by putting culture before commerce in every nation on earth, and our method of reaching this is Pan-Nationalism. – Pan-Nationalism
This is what every ethnic group wants: a common standard of values, customs, language, common sense, aesthetics and heritage.
This means each person knows what behavior is rewarded by the group, and how to be a good person.
The attempts of the internationalists to develop a “universal morality” have resulted in a permissiveness which makes for a miserable society.
Instead, we need a common social standard; to have that, we must have culture.
This has other benefits — with a common social standard, we can embark on effective environmental activity by making it part of our cultural values; without a cultural standard, we cannot have this, which is why “green activism” up until now has consisted in making rules that few obey and most ignore:
We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.
We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.
We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:
- The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
- The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.
- Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
- Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.
As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors. – Foundation for Deep Ecology
We either pick this future, or we have a dismal future of anarchic liberal politics and capitalist consumerist manipulation of our land, selves and communities.
What say you. I have significant issues with what he's saying but it's basically true
Edited by babyfinland ()
how does Islam fit in with this
an ummah among other ummahs
how does Islam fit in with this
or thinking a little more boldly
*tips turban to the young bearded woman playing harpsichord*
i guess i'm glad someone is giving a shit about the environment? i mean i guess if there needs to be a racist nationalist movement or whatever it might as well be green
lol lemme post this on the front page
I didn't write it