Friday, October 21, 2005
Rational Agriculture and Left Dhimmi Fascism (2)
The People. The Land. Traditional Cultures. At one with Nature. Harmony. Spirit. Authenticity. Simplicity. Alienation.
Are we referring to the Left or to the Right cliches and catch words?
In our previous post on this topic we began our look at the roots of Left fascist dhimmitude in the counter-revolutionary struggles of the peasants and manoralists against the rationalization of agriculture. We'll continue here to show that the feudal ties of the Land and the Soil and Nature are unbroken in the hearts and minds of most of the world's populations, and that in the greater West where those ties are broken there is a nostalgia for their restoration, a struggle for neo-feudalism, for fascist communitarianism, for control of and even the destruction of privacy.
How is it that men fly aeroplanes full of civilians into crowded office towers full of civilians for the sole purpose of killing people at random? Why do some blow themselves up on buses, in trains, in cafes, and in schools full of children? Let's look at farming for a hint. Social relations. Man and man, man and soil, man and God. Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer. What is the right and natural state of man? And if that is wrong and unnatural, what is a man to do but try to destroy it by any means necessary? The man of the soil takes wings and destroys the Tower of Babel.
We have written of the natural and unsentimental bifurcation of Humanity, of the division in catastrophic ways of the split between the toilers and tillers of the world and the priests of the aether. This natural division isn't new. One sees it in earliest Babylonian societies in which the toilers and diggers provided the star-gazing priests with goods and services in exchange for practical knowledge of the universe: when to plant, when to pray. Today, the priests have no need of the diggers but for them to dig their own graves and fall into them dead. The time of the tiller is done. This is the time of the priest. Blame it on rational agriculture. You'll be right to do so. The peasants know it directly. They are the ones looking at the end of their time. They don't like it. They are more than angry. They are enraged and homicidal. They want to kill you and destroy everything you stand for. One can hardly blame them.
And in not blaming, in being sophisticated intellectuals, in understanding the relative merits of all peoples and cultures, we must still accept that there is a crux to this problem: a return to pre-industrial life or a continuation and expansion of Modernity. For all of our good will toward all peoples, of our guilt over past wrongs, of our concerns for the treatment of Third World Peoples and Traditional Cultures and the Rape of Mother Nature, and so on, we still have to take one path or the other, and only one will be successful. Humanity is bifurcating, and one group must die out.
What is the purpose of Man?
We don't seek a definitive answer here but a position, an indication of an attitude. Your answer will determine whether you are a fascist at heart or a thinking Modernist. Of course the terms are loaded, but think carefully about what they mean. Fascism in some form or another has been the lot of man for 5,000 years, since the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution. Today the world's majority live in some form of fascist relationship to the world. There must be something good about it because most people like it. It's we, the Modernist revolutionaries, we who are the tiny minority in the world. We are so because of modern farming. We stopped being farm animals and became priests of the aether. We go or we fall back. There is no alternative. One path or the other.
Why does the good man suffer while the evil man prospers? Who can say? But we ask. And the primitive asks why he, being good, is tormented by the evil who prosper greatly, who rule over him, who destroy his life as he and his have lived it from the beginning of time.
Eric J. Hobsbawm writes:
What happened to the land determined the life and death of most human beings in the years from 1789 to 1848. Consequently the impact of the dual revolution on landed property, land tenure and agriculture was the most catastrophic phenomenon of our period. (p. 184.)
Hobsbawm refers of course to the fact that peasants relied solely on agriculture for life, not on industry or commerce to survive. But more than that, the peasant relied on the feudal system of agriculture for life. In times of hardship he relied on the social network of feudalism. His was not a cash nexus. That has changed for the Modernist. The Revolutions arrived. With the revolutions came men with new ideas of how the land should be used: For profit.
[N]either the political nor the economic revolution could neglect land, which the first school of economists, the Physiocrats, considered the sole source of wealth, and whose revolutionary transformation all agreed to be the necessary precondition and consequence of bourgeoisie society, if not of all rapid economic development. The great frozen ice-cap of the world's traditional agrarian systems and rural relations lay above the fertile soil of economic growth. It had at all costs to be melted so that that soil could be ploughed by the forces of of profit-pursuing private enterprise. [L]and had to be turned into a commodity, possessed by private owners and freely purchasable and saleable by them. [Land] had to pass into the ownership of a class of men willing to develop its productive resources for the market and impelled by reason, i.e. enlightened self-interest and profit. [The] great mass of the rural population had in some way to be transformed...into freely mobile wage workers for the growing non-agricultural sector of the economy. (p184.)
Two major obstacles stood in the way: pre-capitalist landlords and the traditional peasantry. The British and the American[s]...both eliminated the peasantry and one the landlord altogether. The classical British solution produced a country in which perhaps 4,000 proprietors owned perhaps four-sevenths of the land which was cultivated...by a quarter of a million farmers...who employed about one and a quarter million of hired labourers and servants.... The classical American solution was that of owner-occupying commercial farmer who made up for the shortage of labour by intensive mechanization. Obed Hussey's (1833) and Cyrus McCormick's (1834) mechanical reapers were the complement to the purely commercial-minded farmers or land-speculating entrepreneurs who extended the American way of life westwards. (pp. 184-85.)
What we are witnessing here is the commercialization of agriculture for the simple sake of personal profit. Consider that in this scenario the land is simply dirt. It is no longer the ancestral homeland, the collective holding of the family, the clan, the tribe, or the volk. It's rotten and decomposed stuff that grows food. There is no sentimentalizing of The Land. It is not Mother Nature. There is no Great Spirit. It is land for profit. A commercial enterprise that succeeds or fails by dint of reason and effort. This mode of producing crops is revolutionary and disruptive of traditional life, to say the least.
If we look at the average suburban American's view of nature and farming he will likely at some point say it would be nice to get back to a simpler life on the farm, to a time before things got so hectic, and cetera. He, having no stake in such an idea, gets back into the SUV and stops at the supermarket for groceries on the way back to the house in the burbs, his own alienated space of privacy and individualism, products of Modernity, thanks to rational agriculture, and mostly unbeknownst to him. But, for the peasant in the context of movement, of transition to the modern economy of cash crops, of industrialization of agriculture and society, the view is more immediate, and it is threatening. It drives some literally insane. It drives them to suicide and murder.
Nomadic and primitive Indians were not the only people who neither understood bourgeois -individualist rationalism on the land nor wished for it. [T]he vast bulk of the rural population from the largest feudal lord down to the most poverty-stricken shepherd united in abominating it. Only a politico-legal revolution directed against both lords and traditional peasants could create the conditions in which the rational minority might be come the rational majority.
[The] first object was to turn the land into a commodity. [In] Catholic and Muslim countries... the great bloc of ecclesiastical land had to be taken out of the Gothic realm of non-economic superstition and opened to the market and rational exploitation. Secularisation and sale awaited them The equally vast blocs of collectively owned-- and therefore badly utilized-- lands of village and town communities, common fields, common pastures, woodlands, etc,. had to be made accessible to individual enterprise. Division into individual lots and 'enclosure' awaited them. That the new purchasers would be the enterprising, strong, and sober could hardly be doubted; and thus the second of the objects of the agrarian revolution would be achieved. (pp.186-87)
With just a bit of sensitivity one will see the state of the average primitive in today's world. Having lived in a community that has no concept of change, communities in which he is raised to believe himself to be an organic component rather than an individual, and which he is a subordinate component, he will see his community under threat by outside forces (capitalists, globalists, infidels, &c.,) and his reaction willl be to save the great community from change, i.e. harm, from us.
When we return to this post next day we'll continue with our look at Hobsbawm and also to Berend for more insight into the primitives of the Third World, Islam in particular, and also to see from shence comes our own nostalgia and self-defeating Left dhimmi fascism.