The New Natural Order

^[1]2,975 words

In a previous essay, “Towards a New European Palingenesis ^[2],” I argued that the first step towards returning to some semblance of civilizational normality begins with the Dissident Right’s realignment back towards the timeless principles of the natural world, namely hierarchy and order. One of the most serious problems facing the contemporary world is its artificiality. Artificiality used in this particular context refers to the widening chasm between that which is real – say, the biological reality of race – juxtaposed and conflated with that which isn’t, like the erroneous belief that race is a mere social construct. One such problem is related to the environmental world. Most glaringly, putting technological innovation aside, the resources of this world are finite, and as such it is imperative that we begin comporting ourselves with this thought foremost in our minds.

As a real concept, the “natural environment” refers to the nexus of the interrelationships that exist between all living and non-living things residing on the planet. Central to this definition is the notion that the natural environment embodies all things which are not artificial, and herein lies the crux of all the environmental problems which currently plague mankind. Since mankind operates in an idealized, unreal, and artificial state, it would only be logical to assume that our understanding, and more importantly our current relationship with the natural world, is equally artificial and erroneous.

Mankind doesn’t coexist with the environmental world, but rather shortsightedly exploits its resources, often for foolhardy purposes. As such, trends within the so-called modern “environmental conservation” movement aren’t purely about protecting and preserving the environment for the sake of the environment itself, but are rather fixated upon “conserving” only that which is useful to mankind; or more accurately what is useful for the less productive races of mankind. The issue of human overpopulation is one such issue that contemporary environmentalism totally – and willfully – ignores. This serves to graphically illustrate the whimsical haze of delusion in which the postmodern world operates.

Human overpopulation quite literally poses an existential threat, not only to the survival of our species as a whole but to the white race in particular. The fact that, by and large, the environmental movement ignores the issue of human population is directly related to the myths revolving around the sacrosanct notions of liberalism and egalitarianism. Human population growth is skyrocketing, and the constellation of challenges it has created has placed potentially irreversible strain upon our planet. Thomas Malthus, the English priest and scholar, might have gotten some of the precise details wrong in his theory of population growth, but was in the broader sense correct. All natural resources are finite, and increased consumption, in conjunction with profligate waste and unfettered population growth, is, to use Guillaume Faye’s term, a potential “convergence of catastrophes.”

In his book, Convergence of Catastrophes, Faye summarizes the plight of the modern world quite accurately, and might I add poetically, when he writes, “A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos.”[1] ^[3] The collapse of the environment, which human overpopulation is almost singularly causing, is one of Faye’s “lines of catastrophe.” Faye also raises another point: The egalitarian imperative of universal, global industrial growth isn’t only preposterous, but unsustainable. Moreover, the irrational, dunderheaded belief that the material successes of the European First World can be emulated by everyone else is as preposterous as it is fantastically delusional. One need only look at the failed attempts to industrialize the Second and Third worlds, which has resulted in more frequent global cycles of drought and famine, disease proliferation, social unrest, and a whole array of other unintended consequences to realize the foolhardiness in this endeavor. Nietzsche believed that in the end, the world would either belong to the Superman or the Last Man, and should we wish to avoid the dreadful fate of the Last Man – of a world populated by soulless and undistinguishable mass men – it’s imperative that we make a racio-civilizational course correction post-haste.

The delusion and hubris of the postmodern Homo Americanus, and more generally of all white-European populations, stems from the collective madness which not only favors but elevates the unreal over the real. Grandiose notions of artificiality have subsumed all aspects of European civilization. The natural world is ordered and hierarchical, and notions of cosmology and ontology aside, as products of the natural world we function best as a species and as a race when we adhere to our nature. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that, historically, so-called “Western exceptionalism” is partially attributable to the European propensity for not only respecting, and ultimately revering, the natural world, but also for striving to emulate its timeless beauty within ourselves and our civilization. This may seem implausible, given the current state of the world, but one should remember that all radical change begins on the fringes and moves centripetally towards the center.

Hierarchy as a concept, derived from the observation of nature, isn’t related solely to the world of man, but more largely to any and all complex systems. For our purposes, and as it relates to the totality of the natural world, hierarchy can be defined as the differentiation of capacity. Historically, the peoples of Europe have achieved planetary hegemony because as individuals and as members of the collectivity which is Western civilization, we have a capacity for excellence. In real-world terms, the European capacity for excellence boils down to this: As a race we have a propensity for seeking out and obtaining excellence in all things. Returning full circle, it is our racial capacity for excellence which hierarchically differentiates Europeans from all other peoples, and bearing this in mind, the superior standard of living generated as a result of the successes of our unique and singular civilization is the exclusive property of our people, and no one else.

The American historian Will Durant stated it best when he wrote that “the first biological lesson of history is that life is competition. The second biological lesson of history is that life is selection.”[2] ^[4] Durant is reminding us that all human existence, including race and civilization, is about natural selection, and that moreover when we deviate from the normality of the natural world we place ourselves, and in turn our civilization, in jeopardy. A prime example of this type of “unnatural selection” is the massive amounts of “developmental aid” given to Africa in recent decades. Beginning in earnest in the 1950s, the United States and various other European countries began the costly and time-consuming process of developing Africa’s infrastructure, something which was propagated to the entirety of the non-white Third World. Has this reimagining of the “white man’s burden” contributed to African “civilization?” Has the life of the average African improved, or have things become drastically worse in Africa?

Truthfully, having lived in Africa for several years as a youth, I can attest to the fact that present-day Africa isn’t all that different from eighteenth-century Africa, albeit with one major exception, i.e. the surreal imposition of European technology and material culture. As a result of white intervention into African affairs, the continent is now rife with disease, famine, drought, and copious suffering, thanks exclusively to overpopulation. r/K selection theory, when applied to humans, informs us that members of the r-group – groups who place minimal parental investment into their offspring, i.e. Africans – must have more children in order to compensate for high infant and child mortality rates, and a whole slew of other entropic, population-limiting variables. In short, prior to the introduction of white capital and technology into the African continent, overpopulation wasn’t a problem as population growth was constrained by a sundry of deterrents. In more recent times, however, it has become a problem when European technology, particularly medical technologies and innovations, drastically reduced the infant and child mortality rates of the average African, and as result, overpopulation occurred. As of 2016, the average fertility rate for the African continent is 4.85% and the population of Africa as a whole increases around 2.5% annually. ^[5] This rate of population growth is unsustainable and artificial, and as such will continue to be nothing but a harbinger of destruction for both Africa and the wider world.

Moreover, human overpopulation isn’t confined solely to Africa, but to the rest of the non-white world. As we all know, white population rates are plummeting. Thus the exponential population growth rate of non-Europeans poses an existential threat not only to all white peoples, but to the entirety of the planet as well. By definition, overpopulation occurs when humans exceed the environmental carrying capacity of their geographical locales vis-à-vis the depletion of the natural resources which are able to sustain them, and our technological and capital adventurism into primitive, high-fertility cultures is directly causing this. In geographical regions plagued by an overabundance of humans, fierce competition over dwindling resources causes strife, conflict, and instability, which in turn leads to the mass exodus of people from these areas. Human overpopulation is in fact contributing to the demographic replacement levels of migration bedeviling the racio-cultural homogeneity of the entire white-European world.

Global overpopulation has been fueled by the unnatural intervention of Europeans in the wider non-European world, and is the handmaid of industrialization and urbanization. However, these interrelated processes are but symptoms of a much more insidious pathology: the disease of untruth. Thanks to a whole assemblage of internal and external factors, the majority of all European peoples the world over are unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, truth from lies, and the authentic from the inauthentic, but most notably this pathology has arisen as a result of centuries of exposure to an increasingly radicalized strand of liberalism. Of course, the subsequent blurring of reality has been unfolding for centuries. One could say that the “otherworldliness” of Christianity is in part responsible for the cleaving of the real from the unreal, and ultimately of the ascension of liberalism as a desecularized form of Christianity, but as this assertion has already been argued tirelessly, I shall leave it.

It was the formulation of liberalism by prominent Enlightenment figures like John Locke, René Descartes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others which forged the ideological tenets of this fundamentally pernicious ideology. Generally speaking, liberalism is defined by the coexisting strands of hyper-individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, and notably for our purposes but not often discussed, its meliorism. To varying extents, all of this contributed to the abstraction of the modern world, but it is its meliorism – its absolute belief in the value of progress – which paved the way for the chasm dividing Europeans from our ancient and homeostatic relationship with the wider natural world.

The melioristic tendencies of liberalism apotheosized the notion of progress, which in turn initiated a process by which any concept of the divine was desacralized and a new religion of material progress was put in its place, with the impulses of European man serving as its godhead. Driven mercilessly by the melioristic tendencies inherent to liberalism, progressivism was born, eventually becoming the tip of liberalism’s ideological spear. Progressivism, in the early European world, was a reform movement meant to deal with the social, cultural, and economic issues which arose as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In 1920s America, for example, many self-described “progressives” were “Social Darwinists,” and could, for lack of a better term, now be classified as “race-realists”; thus the progressivism of yesteryear was a far different creature from the form it assumes today. Thanks to the European proclivity for “suicidal altruism,” however, the progressive movement quickly spun out of control. Now, the noble objective of improving the lives of downtrodden Europeans became the wider teleological objective of bettering all of mankind.

Early progressivism was a distinctly European phenomenon, created by and for Europeans, and was based upon rationality and science. Fast-forward to the second half of the twentieth century, and progressivism had metamorphosed, or better metastasized, into a monstrous abomination of its former self, one entirely predicated upon the material world, but bereft of its previous grounding in rationality and common sense. This was unceremoniously abandoned in favor of the subjective experience and from this, concomitant with the mass infusion of Semitic elements into the wider European cultural stream, postmodernism and its Marxian twin, progressive social justice, was born. Postmodernism erroneously believes that reality isn’t objective, but rather mediated through language, and thus subjectivity and relativism. Over time, postmodernism became intertwined with the Marxist notion of class conflict, and the subjectivist materialism of progressivism was married to the hyper-fetishization of all things material by Marx and his ideological heirs, and the dystopia of the postmodern world was born. Soon, catchphrases like “modernization,” “democratization,” “Westernization,” and a multitude of other meaningless platitudes entered into the collective consciousness of an increasingly deracinated and fracturing European world.

The extirpation of reason from society writ large and its replacement by subjectivity, specifically its valuing of the non-white racial variety of subjectivity, i.e. of the plight of the colored downtrodden, was yoked to the futile, yet ceaseless and unyielding, ideals of universal, global, and egalitarian “economic development,” both within and without the European world. For example, in America, this manifests as “the African-American experience,” and the plight of blacks is touted, held to be the result of some type of economic inequality, perpetuated by a rapidly evaporating, but comically nefarious, white “master race.” Similarly, continents like Africa are said to be desolate pits of abomination, not because of the actions – or lack thereof – of its African inhabitants, but rather because of the legacy of European colonialism, again perpetrated by the white master race. In true postmodernist-Marxist fashion, it is asserted that the impoverishment of the majority of the ever-browning world is the sole result of white-European exploitation, and as such, must be rectified by the transfer of white-European capital – the patrimony of our ancestors’ hard work – to the non-white world under the banner of economic development. It’s no coincidence that the beginning of the deindustrialization of America, and of the European world more broadly, began concurrently with the increase of foreign aid to the non-white world beginning in the 1960s, and which continues to this very day. Economic development is a modern-day continuation of the myth of infinite progress, and more importantly it is a myth which must be dispelled should our species wish to survive into the next century. The philosopher Alexandre Kojève, when writing on Hegel, stated that the latter’s philosophy of the “progress of history” asserted that the world would eventually enter into a “universal and homogeneous” state, and it’s this ridiculous notion of the unobtainable which our movement should seek to overcome – first in ourselves, and later for the entirety of our race.

The consequence of progressive messianism has been the decimation of the white-European population worldwide. Moreover, aside from nearly managing to annihilate ourselves, we have caused an insurmountable amount of damage to the natural world. Anthropogenic climate change is a farcical pseudo-science, but other types of environmental destruction wrought by the hubris of whites is very real. White intervention in the Third World fosters industrial development, which in turn creates an artificial infrastructure, one unable to support itself but nevertheless able to reduce the overall mortality rates of a given population. When combined with the high fertility rates of r-type peoples, overpopulation occurs alongside conflict over scarce resources, and the cycle of nonsense continues. Infinite progress may be a myth, but infinite nonsense is anything but fanciful. The more we develop the Third World, the more we destabilize it, and the more we create a pull-like response of highly fecund, low-IQ, low-skilled colored peoples into the Eurosphere, and thus we catalyze the demographic displacement of our race.

We Europeans have erroneously embraced an ideology of artificiality, and it is this artificial belief in the equality of mankind and of the infinite plenitude of the Earth’s limited resources which has greatly contributed both to our racial decline and to the related environmental devastation of our world. The artificial advancement of primitive cultures with European capital and technology helps nobody, least of all the people ostensibly being helped. The so-called “developing world” is just that, a work in progress, and it is one project that should be halted immediately and indefinitely so that the natural world can once again reassert some semblance of ecological and environmental balance.

Environmental disasters are plentiful, while common sense and reason are not, and it is our duty as the last sane Europeans to preach this radical truth and evangelize the blinking masses. As Europeans – moreover, as living organisms with a profound sense of historical agency – it is our duty to restore the environmental world to a point of balanced homeostasis, for ourselves and for future generations. In order to reverse this trend, we must first embrace the principles of order and hierarchy, and in the process realign ourselves and our race with the ageless beatitude of the natural world. By embracing that which is real, and true, we can begin to eradicate the deceptive and deleterious artificiality which permeates our souls and the world. It is only when we regain mastery over ourselves that we can once again reascend to our rightful position as the stewards of the Earth.

Solving the environmental problems created by our own hubris will be a treacherously arduous road, strewn with trials and tribulations, and as such will require great discipline and nerves of steel, but as the great Greek historian Thucydides wrote, “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” The white race must prevail at all costs, as without our people, the Earth will be set adrift without anyone at the helm.

Notes

[1] ^[6] Guillaume Faye, Convergence of Catastrophes (London: Arktos, 2012).

[2] ^[7] Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968).