Moral Particularism and the Imbalance of Nature
IN this modern age of concern for environmental issues, many people and even some naturalists who should know better, often talk of the ‘balance of nature’, and in reference to the impact of mankind’s growth and expansion across the globe, are highly critical, citing current trends as evidence that ‘we’ are “destroying the planet”. Worse than this however, is the tendency to view the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples of the ‘developing world’ as being ‘in harmony’ with nature, while blame for ‘the destruction of the planet’ is directed towards the peoples of the West, as further evidence of our ‘innate wickedness’.
In fact, while ‘Green’ politicians, environmentalists and ‘eco-warriors’ often talk vaguely of ‘mankind’ destroying the planet, such people are invariably of a liberal or Marxist disposition and the culprit they really have in mind and all of their venom is directed towards White people and what they see as Western culture and Western civilisation. It is in fact a central tenet of the egalitarianism, humanism and the moral universalism that permeates all of what is currently viewed as progressive and politically correct discourse, that a state of worldwide ‘harmony with nature’ and between the races, religions and nations of the world should be the primary goal of mankind.
Even some nationalists position such a state of worldwide ‘harmony between the nations’ and between mankind as a whole and the planet as their ultimate objective. The only difference between such ‘nationalists’ and those of a Marxist outlook being that while Marxists envisage such a world in which all of mankind are corralled into a single global super-state, the ‘nationalists’ envisage such a world composed of ‘independent’ nations living as a kind of ‘patchwork quilt’ of cultures and ethnicities under the supervision of a benevolent over-arching global administration of some kind. Indeed, Greg Johnson the Editor in Chief of Counter Currents, proposed the creation of just such an administration while speaking at the London Forum on 11th April this year. He spoke of the need for , “… some kind of order, some kind of organisation, some kind of forum, where people who are broad-minded can come together to mediate the conflicts that inevitably arise from the more narrow, particular, partisanships and duties that we all have”.
Greg Johnson was expounding upon and advocating the ideas of Gottfried Lessing, suggesting that mankind needs the direction of an ‘eternal conservative freemasonry, and began by stating: “We believe that the best, most harmonious and well-functioning societies are racially, culturally and linguistically homogeneous.
“We believe that the best constitution is not a one size fits all, totalitarian, ‘boiler-suit’ …, it’s a unique garment tailored to fit the distinct genius of each people.
“We think that there has to be some sort of supra-political or trans-political order to mediate disputes amongst us and to co-ordinate our relations with other racial and civilisational blocs, like Islam, India, Africa, China and so forth”.
Greg Johnson thought this was necessary in order to promote “human solidarity” and “to think about the common good”.
Of course, such ideas appear quite laudable in a superficial sense, especially against a backdrop provided by the egalitarianism, humanism and moral universalism of the modern, ‘progressive’, politically correct milieu in which many of us currently swim. Harmony and moral universalism go together like ‘love and marriage’, like a ‘horse and carriage’ to paraphrase the words of a song, but moral universalism — incorporating soppy romantic notions such as “human solidarity”, ‘global harmony’ and ‘harmony with nature’ — is the foundation stone of both Marxism and liberalism.
I don’t wish to disparage Greg Johnson and other nationalists who have also fallen into the trap of embracing moral universalism in the hope of justifying their vision of nationalism to a politically correct world. I believe their intentions are good, but the natural order is not one of harmony, because harmony requires stasis, and as we all know the natural world is not and never has been static. The one constant in all of time and space and throughout the universe is ‘change’. Change is the engine that drives evolution and it cannot happen in a universe that is static, in which all of the forces are in harmony. It can only happen in a universe in which the competing forces are out of balance — where a state of imbalance or disharmony exists.
Nationalists who argue for a ‘harmony of nationalisms’ have unfortunately allowed themselves to fall under the influence of a kind of ‘intellectual Stockholm Syndrome’ and this comes from an over-enthusiastic embrace of ‘meta-political’ discourse in which one immerses oneself in the arguments of our enemies in the hope of justifying our own political outlook to those same enemies. There is an old saying attributed to Alexander Pope: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien. As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
There is a lesson to be learned here, as nationalism, especially racial nationalism, differs fundamentally from liberal and Marxian ideologies in that it must be based upon moral particularism, i.e. based upon the premise of ‘what is good for our race’. Anything that promotes the survival, proliferation and advancement of the White race is good. Anything that militates against the best interests of the White race is bad. This is and must always be the bedrock of our ideology!
If we return to the arguments of the Marxian environmentalists, we find them advancing two basic ideas:
The first is that ‘we’, that is ‘mankind’, must bring our consumption of the earth’s resources into balance with the planet’s ability to renew those resources, thereby creating a situation of ‘harmony with nature’; and
The second, is that ‘we’, that is the White people of the West, must help the peoples of the ‘developing world’ to acquire their ‘fair share’ of the planet’s resources and enjoy their ‘fair share’ of its wealth — thereby creating a situation of ‘equality’ and of ‘harmony’ between the nations, races and ethnic groups.
In order to shame us in the West into agreeing to this, we are told about our ‘carbon footprint’ and told that in order for all of the people of the world to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to that which exists in the West, it would require several planet earths — 3.6 planet earths to enjoy a British standard of living or 5.3 planet earths to enjoy an American standard of living. This is supposed to make us feel that we are being unnecessarily greedy and what seems to evade most people is the logic that:
If we are to achieve parity of wealth and resource consumption across the world, we are either going to need several planets in order to provide the necessary natural resources, or the standard of living for people in the West must be reduced several fold until it matches an only marginally improved standard of living for the far greater population of the developing world; and
Perhaps it was not such a good idea to encourage the peoples of the ‘developing world’ to want and/or expect a Western standard of living, something they cannot have without massively damaging the interests of the White nations of the West?
During the 19th and early 20th Centuries we in the West dominated the world and we could have fashioned it in any way we chose. Had we set about creating an alliance among the White nations of the world, the resources of this planet would have been sufficient to cater for our needs even with considerable population growth amongst our peoples, and we could have looked forward to massively increasing our standard of living and our technological prowess, such that interplanetary travel would already have been possible well before the advent of the current century.
The non-White populations of the world were kept in check by poverty and disease and their own inability to counter these phenomena, and they neither had nor aspired to our standard of living and if we had not persuaded them that they are our ‘equals’, they never would have. The non-White populations of the world would have gradually dwindled, and as their need for land and natural resources diminished, we of the West could have colonised the newly available living space.
The world today would have seen an almost worldwide White Imperium with technology far in advance of that we have today and already beginning to colonise other planets — expanding the ‘final frontier’ — taking our civilisation to new worlds — going where no man has gone before!
As it was, with such immense possibilities available to us, our leaders were literally ‘spoilt for choice’ and with no pressure and no threat from a natural enemy, our governments decided instead that uplifting the conquered peoples of the colonies was a more pressing priority. Instead of asking themselves, ‘what is good for our race’, they chose instead, that which was good for others and which it has turned out, has been bad for the White race.
Imbued with the moral universalism of a religion given to us by Jews, who ironically practice a separate religion that exhorts them to always ask, “is it good for the Jews”, and filled with ‘righteous’ zeal for ‘the Lords work’, Christian missionaries took White man’s medicine and gave it to the natives. They built houses and roads and railways, and hospitals and schools, and they taught the natives about the White man’s ways, encouraging them to want to be like us and have the things we have. And so the natives increased in number and eventually wanted to rule themselves, and we let them.
They continued to increase in number, even though their crops began to fail and their people became malnourished, and we responded by giving them more medicine and more food-aid, but this was not enough. The bourgeoning bio-mass of their people cannot be sustained under their own administrations and so in their millions they are now invading our homelands in a seemingly endless flood. They want our life chances and our way of life. They want what we have and in order to get it they are literally prepared to risk death.
They want what we have and they will not stop coming until there are so many of them here, our wealth and resources are spread so thinly, that the average standard of living in the West has been reduced to Third World levels. Only when there is no advantage to them coming here will they stop coming, but when that day comes, if nothing changes, our White nations will be no more. We will have been swamped, displaced and crowded off the face of the earth.
We in the West have become like the proverbial old lady who befriends a couple of bedraggled cats she finds in her garden and begins to leave food out for them, eventually allowing them into her house. As time passes more cats begin calling at her home, and more, and more. Eventually a neighbour realises that the old lady has not been seen for weeks and when police break down her door, they find her emaciated and partially decomposed body lying amongst the litter left by literally dozens of feral cats. So concerned was she to feed each one of these ‘needy souls’ that she neglected to provide for herself and eventually succumbed to starvation and hypothermia.
We should not hate the immigrants who come to this country, because they are only doing what nature has programmed them to do, what all of our people would be programmed to do if it were not for the constraints of moral universalism. They are simply seeking and doing what is necessary to acquire the good things in life. They are doing what is right for them, their families and their race, and they are not pre-occupied by the consequences of their actions for us. The plight of our people and our survival does not inhibit them or even factor in their thinking and this is why we too must begin to ask what is best for us and to act accordingly.
Now let us for a moment consider what would happen if the wealth of the world could be spread evenly among all of the peoples of the world and a situation of ‘harmony’ is established. To examine what would happen next, we should look at the indigenous peoples who currently do live, apparently, in ‘harmony’ with nature.
If we examine the indigenous natives of the Amazon basin, we find that they began to live in ‘harmony’ with their environment some ten or twenty thousand years ago. A price they have paid for that ‘harmony’ however is that their culture has remained stagnant throughout that time. They were not able to change their way of life or introduce any innovation without disrupting the ‘harmony’ they had created, and so they stagnated and retained a stone-age culture and a stone-age existence.
Within such groups, each day involves the same routine as the previous day and each individual leads a life that is identical to the life their parents led and it is not surprising that among such people they have no sense of time — they live in the present — they know only what is ‘now’. When they think of the past, their lives are indistinguishable from their parent’s lives and all of their forebears before them. Their memories blur into one collective ‘memory’, in which their past is the same as their parent’s past and their past is the same as their present. When they try to think of the future, they can only imagine days that are the same as today, in which either they or their children will do the same things they do today and again, their future blurs into their present. For them every day is ‘Groundhog Day’.
In our world of ‘harmony’ therefore, all human progress will gradually stagnate, because any change to the way people live, the introduction of any technological innovation, will require the consumption of more resources and that will disrupt the harmony. It will disrupt the delicate balance that will have been achieved between the quantity of resources available and the size of the population capable of being sustained.
One way to increase the resources available per capita, will be for certain people to be denied the right to reproduce, or for people to be limited to one child per couple, but we all know how successful that policy was in China!
The result of striving for global ‘harmony’ would be humanity trapped in a state of cultural and technological stagnation — humanity preserved in ‘aspic’ — a planetary living museum, where everyone lives the same lives their forebears lived and every day is ‘Groundhog Day’.
Some people will accuse me of exaggeration and bias in projecting such a dystopian future, but let us examine one very telling factor: On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American space mission to the Moon before the end of the decade. His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module’s ladder and onto the Moon’s surface. Between 1969 and December 1972, five further lunar missions were achieved in which men landed on the Moon, and up until 1976 there were further unmanned lunar missions, but none since. It is not that we don’t have the technology to land men on the Moon, the USA simply cannot afford the cost in terms of resource consumption.
Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the last time mankind landed a craft of any kind on the Moon, and the 44thanniversary of the last time a man walked on the Moon and we must face the possibility that a lunar landing may never ever happen again!
Our generation may be the generation that witnesses the ‘tipping-point’ at which increasingly the constraints placed upon us are no longer our understanding of technical complexity, but the availability of natural resources. As we increasingly prioritise environmental goals and the achievement of global ‘harmony’, we may be witnessing the point at which the advance of human civilisation finally grinds to a halt!
Evolution requires that life forms expand their numbers and strive to fill every ecological niche with their kind and once one species has achieved that aim, the struggle for an increasing share of finite resources will apply the selective pressure needed for a new sub-species (race) of that original species to evolve, which then expands at the expense of the original population until it too has filled every ecological niche. This is what happened when Homo erectus evolved and spread throughout the inhabitable world driving all previous hominid species into extinction almost a million years ago, it is what happened when Homo sapiens evolved and spread throughout the world, and it is what should and would have happened again at the end of the 19th Century, if it had not been for the lunacy of moral universalism.
Moral universalism is un-natural and counter evolutionary and it is for this reason that liberalism, Marxism and Christianity are aberrant belief systems. Furthermore, it is the disharmony and moral particularism of racial nationalism that is in tune with nature and which provides the hope of a better future for White people. Let us never forget that!
* * *
Source: Western Spring