666

The first thing that They do is try to confuse you about what you believe. That means hiding the nature of the Left, which is egalitarianism, so that they can hide the nature of the right… a focus on order, natural and cultural, as being more important than me-first obsession with desire and self-image.

Obligingly the public Right conned itself into being Leftist, since instead of emphasizing order it emphasizes a lack of order a.k.a. “rugged individualism” which basically means me-first individualism but without socialist-style subsidies. This makes the public Right and Left two wings of the same (insane) bird.

Those who like order tend to see continuity of logic, nature, mathematics, human social orders, and the divine as a goal. That is, all parts need to match up in parallel with all the others, and be in some kind of hierarchy so that they work together. Individualism precludes this.

Part of recognizing order is seeing that individualism and voluntarism will not produce the results we need. Anarchy results in mass selfishness. If we let it go too far, we experience a tragedy of the commons which results in consumption of culture, genetics, and our environment.

A conservative ecological policy emphasizes saying NO to destructive behaviors, but that throws individualism and voluntarism out the window. Many of us could be described as “culturally liberal, economically libertarian, politically conservative, and ecologically fascist” in order to preserve order.

Naturally this leads to ecofascism or the notion that things destructive to the environment must be stopped:

The alt-right website Amerika.org states ‘the Alt Right movement is a philosophical descendant of Deep Ecology’ (Stevens 2017). Deep ecology’s emphasis on protecting an abstract ‘wilderness’ or ‘nature’ has been a consistent site where right-wing positions have surfaced in the radical environmental movement. Earth First! was criticized for racist and sexist anti-immigration and pro-HIV positions in the late 1980s, leading to a split where self-professed ‘redneck for wilderness’ Dave Foreman and others advocating a narrow focus on wilderness protection left the group, bemoaning the influence of humanist ideologies like feminism and anarchism (1987; Bookchin and Foreman 1999). Foreman is now a spokesperson for Apply the Brakes, and his most recent book Man Swarm (2011) was glowingly reviewed by anti-immigration groups (Kolankiewicz 2015). Opposition to immigration in the name of overpopulation has been a theme for many deep ecological thinkers and groups (Olsen 1999), from Edward Abbey’s warnings against a ‘mass influx of (…) culturally-morally-genetically impoverished people’ (Abbey 1988: 43) to Devall and Sessions (1985) neo-Malthusian fixation on third-world population growth.

Finnish deep ecologist Linkola (2006) has become a darling of the alt-right for statements like, ‘[t]here is no use counting the immigrants at the border: one should wait a while and look in their nurseries’ (2006: 130). His books are published by alt-right press Arktos and praised on Counter-Currents website, which notes that, ‘Linkola’s sympathies lie squarely with fascism’ (Hawthorne 2011). A growing number of alt-right actors, like whitebiocentrism.com and amerika.org, fuse deep ecology with explicit white supremacy, translating deep ecology’s concern for habitat loss and species extinction into fears about ‘white genocide’ and the displacement of ‘indigenous’ white people by ‘invasive species’. Greg Johnson states, ‘what is now happening to the European peoples [is] habitat loss’ due to competition with ‘similar creatures’ (Minkowitz 2017). White supremacist Harold Covington frames his call for a whites-only ethno-state in terms of habitat loss, ‘The wolves have to have a habitat, and the white man has to have a habitat’ (Francey 2013), as does Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance: ‘being only about 10 per cent of the population, we [whites] begin to sympathize, empathize more, with the wolves and other animals’ (quoted in Bhatia 2004: 201).

The best forms of ecofascism follow a Half Earth style model. We set aside half of the land for the use of nature only — no hikers, no camping, no selfies — and let nature heal itself and maintain itself without humans intervening.

We might also do stuff that shocks the GOP like ban single-use plastics, mandate small cars for people other than tradesworkers, end diversity, and cut all welfare state subsidies. We want fewer people especially fewer incompetents like those who usually end up poor, criminal, insane, or retarded.

Hardcore ecofascists have no problem with the idea of reducing the fifth of the population that is seriously dysfunctional. Canada has its Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) program, but we might have something like Mandatory Assistance In Dying for the people under 100 IQ points and other mental defectives.

Ecofascists like most fascists tend to believe in ethnonationalism because this makes culture, not government, the primary driver of change in society. This allows a gentle Social Darwinism where those who do right by the culture, not merely those who earn the most money, get ahead and have big families while the defectives die out.

We recognize that diversity, or the combination of multiple ethnic groups, results in monoculture over time as a uniform mixed-ethnic grey race is produced:

All of the fruits and vegetables available in markets and grocery stores today are products of domestication. Their ancestors were not-so-edible organisms like the little tree Rakha tends. But centuries ago, humans began to take the biggest and tastiest wild plants and breed them together. They repeated this over and over, weaving together the genes that made a juicier fruit or a fatter wheat kernel so that many generations down the line, modern plants are now quite different.

These domesticated plants, despite their advantages, have some significant weaknesses. They’re not as sturdy as many of their wild relatives when it comes to resisting diseases, droughts, and other challenges. When a problem arises, they do not have the genetic diversity that allows wild populations to ride it out—all the individuals are so similar that what kills one, kills them all.

Humans have a tendency to domesticate themselves by selecting for one trait, like sociability or earnings potential, at the expense of the rest. This creates a society of deskbound nerds who talk glibly but are immediately lost when they confront a problem for which they have not been educated.

While this makes humans more efficient in the short term, like selecting for a group that can produce farm workers, it makes them less flexible in the longer term and therefore, makes the society itself more fragile. Anything which deviates too much into the extremes of repetition or randomness becomes unstable and collapses.

As it turns out, avoiding that state of entropy is a big deal for biological life, which exists in a relatively low-entropy system:

The second law of thermodynamics, which says that a system can never move to a state with lower entropy, or order, is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, and lies at the very heart of physics. It is what creates the “arrow of time,” and tells us the remarkable fact that the dynamics of general physical systems, even extremely complex ones such as gases or black holes, are encapsulated by a single function, its entropy.

“Our work serves as the very first evidence that reversibility is an achievable phenomenon in entanglement theory. However, even stronger forms of reversibility have been conjectured, and there is hope that entanglement can be made reversible even under weaker assumptions than we have made in our work—notably, without having to rely on probabilistic transformations.

Nature has produced a quantum reversal of entropy by working against time. It does this through natural selection and other sorting mechanisms that reduce randomness and repetition. This means however that nature is constantly in flux despite being in the long term on the path to the same destination.

Humans fear natural selection because individuals can be victimized by it even if the civilization in question is made stronger by it. In any human group without leaders or a goal, the conversation quickly turns toward banning natural selection so that each individual can pursue its own desires without fear of natural selection.

In fact, most human political systems operate to reverse natural selection, increasing entropy, by emphasizing the value of the individual over order. Leftism — egalitarianism in multiple forms — creates a high-entropy system that demolishes civilizations and species:

Political liberalism is by nature entropic. It says to people that there is no objective good to be pursued, but that we should act on “what is in our mind” or according to “the vector of our desire”. But all this does is to set ourselves, and our communities, more passively in the flow of entropy that is embedded into the reality we inhabit.

The concept of entropy, whilst not being Christian in and of itself, is an easy entry point into aspects of Christianity. It suggests that there is something like a “logos” embedded into the nature of reality, a kind of higher ordering principle that needs to be actively upheld. It fits in, too, with a Christian virtue ethics, in which there are dissolute vices to avoid, but also ordering virtues that we should discipline ourselves to, to form good habits that maintain our integrity of person.

The notion that reverses entropy is not unique to Abrahamist religions, but in fact is descended from the Proto-Indo-European Faith (PIEF) that was commonplace thousands of years ago among Cro-Magnid-descended peoples. This faith emphasized a transcendent order in which excellence (arete) was rewarded and incompetence demoted.

We have written about transcendence here previously, including a definition and theological implications.

In fact, transcendental thinking makes up a core of the Furthest Right or the UltRight and goes back to our earliest analysis of the biologically-centered Right. It is at the core of our ends-over-means approach that is necessitated by the pursuit of order (a goal).

On the other hand, individualists prefer a means-over-end methodology which emphasizes safe, risk-free methods like humanism in order to avoid inconvenience individuals. The Right fights back with the idea of reverence and nobility.

Transcendental thinking allows us to reverse entropy by reducing the randomness and repetition of our behavior through the process of moving toward goals instead of repetitive methods or anarchic individualism. This transcendence anchors us to order and the divine:

The fallen noble man carries about him an offensive odor because he is what our old colleague Thomas Bertonneau called “subscendent,” appeasing his frustrated hunger for transcendence with food of the flesh.

Our embrace of the environment therefore is not an issue among issues, but part of the structure of our beliefs. We see nature as a brilliant design, not an enemy spreading inequality, and see inequality as part of the process that allows nature to reverse entropy.

As those inclined toward the transcendent, we see nature as a thing worth preserving for its own inherent value, and therefore not optional at all. For this reason, we are willing to defend it as we do our lives and civilizations, because it is part of us and the order we need to remain sane and positive in what will always be a world full of risks.