Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Path: A Reply to Rick Darby

The following post is in response to comments here last post from Rick at

Rick raised some worthwhile concerns, and I wrote back at such length that I felt I might as well post on the main page:

The essay below, Part 5 on Biehl's "ecofascism," is long and fairly detailed. It's of a piece with the seven or so essays on "Modern Agriculture" and pieces as well on Hiedegger and Darre, with more to come.

The reason for the emphasis here on ecology, something I honestly don't pay much attention to in my daily course of living, is bound also to the concept of "Identity Fascism," of which there is some here and more to come. Along with that is the third theme of "Gnostic Fascism," and then "Antiwar Fascism" and "Eschatology Fascism." Altogether the focus is on Left dhimmi fascism and it's reaction to Modernity and the triune revolutions of France, America, and Industry. There's not much chance of anyone following this blog's thesis as closely as I do, and therefore not much chance of the casual reader seeing the overall plan like I do. I'll try to summarise, if I can, to give a short version of what this is look at ecology is about:

Our epistemological view informs our life course. If we turn to Nature for our understanding of reality and our purpose in life, then we will have to limit ourselves to Irrationality as philosophy. That needn't be total. One may synthesize, as the Romantics do, Nature and Reason, giving privilege to Nature. That's the problem as I see it.

As Rick Darby points out rightly, one might try to associate ecological concerns with fascists rather than address the question of the validity of ecological concerns themselves.

The ecological "ground of existence" is German Romanticism, and within that the precepts of xenophobia, antisemitism, racism, sexism, and violent Irrationalsim. That's the historical record, and we can't legitimately ignore it. As Rick points out, to suggest that there is nothing else to ecology is ad hominem. Yes, Haekel and Arndt and Reihl are proto-Nazis; but no, it doesn't mean that ecologists today, all everywhere, are Nazis. Nor does it mean the Nazis who inform the ecological debate are wrong a postiori simply because they are Nazis. The historical record shows that those who created the modern sciences of ecology and environmentalism are proto-Nazi and later officials in the NSDAP rulership. Those who follow from then are also often neo-Nazis, and both Right and Left fascists in the classical sense. None of that invalidates valid ecological concerns. The source of truths doesn't invalidate those truths.

Rick points out the immigration and population problems that ecology addresses to some extent and in various ways.

When we look at the American scene today of unrestricted illegal immigration it pales in comparison to that in Europe, where Eurabia is a deepening daily waking nightmare. And even that is nothing compared to the realities of life in typical Third World megalopoli. We have seen here and elsewhere recently the swarmings at the border posts in Spanish Morocco of African migrants dying in the attempt to enter Europe illegally to escape from their home dysfunctions. That tells us graphically that there is a growing problem of immediate concern not only for Africans but for all of us. It is a problem of Human ecology. We are witnessing an out of control explosion of people akin to the rabbit plague in Australia that is creating before our eyes a Human wasteland, a desert of people, a clear-cut land of Human tree stumps. Our most urgent concern as residents of the West is of course to protect ourselves from irreparable resource depletion, and with the influx of destructive parasitic migrants such as Muslims our own consumption patterns become magnified and threatening to the existence of our world as it is now, and becomes increasing more desperate with each passing year. Really, we must do something, and soon. The question I wish to raise in this blog is what are we to do? And that will depend on how we organize our interpretations of knowledge itself. Our epistemological ground will divulge paths that direct us in many and varied directions from which we must choose the better.

Historically, the path of ecology is one of xenophobia, racism, violence against outsiders. That's history. We need not repeat the mistakes of the past, astoundingly evil ones at that, nor even lesser paths of bad epistemology. We have to be clear what our possible paths are in order to make a determined attempt to strike a right direction. Knowing the history of ecology might allow us to avoid past evils. The ecological problems Haekel and Arndt and Riehl and Darre faced are facing us today in ways more intense than they faced. We, if we are to be moral actors, cannot choose the past paths of the fascist ecologist, but we must also address the same problems they did. My focus here isn't on ecology itself but the epistemology of ecology, as it were. If we examine and define that ground of being in ourselves, therefrom we might move ahead rather than backward.

In numerous posts over these past years I've referred to the problem of Islam as one of the bifurcation of Humanity, the splitting in two of the paths of Humanity, the first remaining in the primitive world of tillers and toilers, the redundant people of the body politic of Modernity. There cannot be a compromise between the two paths: we cannot have a mass of subsistence farmers living side by side with people living in a rationalistic Space Age. One grouping must make way for the other, whichever that might be. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it seems to be a clear case of Social Darwinism, of cultures in a battle of the survival of the fittest. I beg to disagree. I do agree that Islam is a body of a billion people made psychotic death worshippers by an evil poligion, a political religion that informs the basest aspects of the Human experience. What, in the struggle for the course of history, is to be done about them if we Moderns prevail? Obviously if we lose the struggle against Islam we and the world will sink back to pre-feudal times and Man will again become a farm animal generally, which is the situation of the vast majority of Humans on Earth today, and which has been the lot of Man for the 5,000 years of the agricultural Revolution so far. But, if we win the struggle for the future as Modern, what will happen to the billion Muslims of now? As they are, they are psychotic. They are not simply violent, they are Irrational in the greater sense of having as a mental ground Irrationalism as epistemology. They simply cannot ever be rational in the Western sense and remain Muslim. At an intuitive level they understand that well. They also recognize that the Muslim world is being left further behind daily by the Modern Revolutions, which in turn drives them into further psychosis, further rages, further acts of "grand gesture fascism," such as suicide/homicide acts. Even further, these acts of Irrationalism as epistemology validate the death worship of Muslim culture, encouraging it more, and it will in turn provoke a response from the threatened West. In other words, a few more major attacks by parasitic psychopathic populations will goad the West into massive retaliation, eg. nuclear responses against Iran. I suggest that that is a bad thing. I see the clear possibility of a "sand diorama," a small museum construct of dress-up characters on display in a dusty museum of a lost race. What do we do to solve this problem of maddened and violent parasites swarming over our lands? It is a problem of Human ecology. Extermination is low on my personal list of options. I'm certain that's so even for the most bellicose ranters on the Internet, especially those who've never seen the results of massacres in person. I hope we can find a workable solution to this problem that includes the least necessary violence, though massive violence is definitely required even at this point.

This problem is not of ethnicity, race, not even of religion. It is a question of how we approach knowledge of the realities of life. We are Modern or we are primitive. That isn't to reduce us in the West to Mr. Spocks from Star Trek and to suggest that the primitives are cavemen. Our differences are vast, and I offer that our differences are unbridgeable. However, our differences are not insolvable. How we in the Modern West will approach the solution will come from how we understand the possibilities of knowing reality. Our Muslim cousins know reality from the Irrationalsit position of Islam. For them there is no other understanding of reality. I hope we can all forget about them as equations in this problem. Our task is to address the solution of Islam and its population of tillers and toilers, the parasitic swarms of violent psychopaths, and to see for ourselves how we might best deal with them in as humane a fashion as possible with the least amount of Human suffering on their side. We will not address this as Spockian logic fetishists. we must account for our own irrationalism conjoined with our Modernist epistemologies of universality and individualism and privacy. When struck, we must strike back, but within reason. Our debate is restricted to ourselves, excluding the object of our concern, given that they don't have anything positive to contribute. Muslims are irrelevant to the future course of what we do with and to them. They are a bloc of redundant, violent, suicidal parasites. Nothing they want makes any difference to us. Our questions will have to do with how we see reality and how we gain knowledge from it. That will determine how we act to solve this problem of Human ecology. We must do whatever we do in a Modernist and rationalist manner. Our 19th century and early 20th century forebearers acted in ways we cannot imitate. We have a problem like theirs, but our solutions must be completely different from theirs. We can be rational, reasonable, and restrained in our solutions, or we can nuke the bastards.

Our understanding of how we know what we know will decide the positions we take in our struggle to maintain the Modernity of the West. Faced with insane Islam as a poligion within and without, where do we find our solutions? First we must ask "Who are we." We will find that answer according to how we know reality. If our answers to that come to us from horoscopes, tarot cards, and runes, then we will follow a path very different from that leading from rational discourse. If our view is that knowledge is derived form the heavens, we will not be rational in our approach to solutions to the threats of Islam. We must, if we are to solve the problems of Islamic jihad and social ecology, identify who we are. Who are we protecting when we say "we?" And how do we prove that one is one of us? that will depend on our epistemology. Here we have spent some great amount of time, and will further in time, looking at the problems of identity from Herder, Fichte, and contemporary "Identity Fascism." When we know who we are, then we can determine who our enemies are. I suggest that we will know ourselves either by reason or by "Gnostic Fascism," a concept that needs wait for explication.

We, at this vague level of residents in the modern West, face a problem of Human ecology. It's pointless to ignore it, wrong to suggest that those who do are Nazis simply becasue ecology stems from evil originators. We, whoever we are, must decide how we wil solve the problem of Islam, of jihad, of swarms of violent parasites. Early ecologists opted for genocide based on psuedo-scientific clap-trap to justify their deeds. We, whether we like it or not, are faced with an intensified version fo the same ecological problems our Nazi ancestors faced. How we decide to solve our current problem will come from how we understand reality. If we allow ourselves to be guided by past ecological principles, we too will turn to racist genocide. I point out the history of ecology for the simple reason that if we do not know that history we might well blindly repeat it.

Our next post will continue this investigation of ecology. We hope you'll join us, and please feel free to write you comments on this topic or others as you see fit.


Pastorius said...

Jeez, Dag, you write long posts. I love to follow your ideas, but sometimes I, simply, can't find the time to deal with the whole continuum.

But, here is my first thought on Rick Darby's comment, and your answer to it.

The immigration problem in Europe and America is not a problem of physical ecology, but, instead, it is one of ideological ecology.

Western Civilization is an organic system unto itself. If you take an idea away, it upsets the balance of the ideological ecology. Likewise, if you add an idea, it also upsets the balance.

In America, we have been dealing with assimilating South American immigrants. Ideologically, the problem they present is not so fundamental. South Americans tend to be Catholic, and they tend towards hard work, which is congruent with the "Protestant Ethic." But, they also tend to not believe that they can achieve whatever they set their minds to. Instead, South Americans seem to believe in hard work for hard works sake. Because of this belief, they tend to encourage their kids to enter the workforce earlier, instead of eompleting higher education. Their emphasis is not on becoming part of the technological class, but is, instead, on making sure their kids learn a trade. This is where we differ. America is no longer a trade-based economy, but is, instead, a creative and communications based economy. Thus, this is where it becomes difficult to deal with the endless stream of South American immigrants. Their family structure does not support assimilation, because it does not have quite the same idea of what a "job" is.

But, that is nothing compared to Islamic immigration. In Islam, the problem is not centered around the philosophy of a "job," but is, instead, centered around the existential question of why we are here. Are we here to live in service of Allah, and the strictures of Sharia Law, or are we here to be free, and creative beings, made in the Image of God?

Sharia is completely incompatible with Western Civilization. There is no common ground, thus, there is no meeting ground for compromise. And that means, there is no possibility of a "melting pot."

Western Civilization, as an organism, can not digest the strictures of Sharia Law. Therefore, the introduction of traditional Islam into the organsim of Western Society will result in one or the other of two results. Either we will see complete expulsion, or we will see the organism adopt the illness.

dag said...

Nice work.

I'd like to do whatever it is that other bloggers do, such as Robert Spencer at, tucking away the bulk of the essays in a pocket somehow, but for now that's not physically possible for us. That leaves me with simply typing till I finish, and my apologies to the readers.

The purpose of my blog here is to amass sufficeint detail to provide as nearly as I can a law court quality presentation in the rough that will cvonvince a public jury of my thesis, which is still evolving.

My hope is to meet my dead-line by the end of January, at which time I will retire to my chamber to edit, revise, and one might hope, presnet a coherent and readalbe manuscript for the public's consideration. That's one reason I'm so pleased to get feed-back as I present each piece daily. I have some idea of where I stand and what objections might be to the presentation.

In manuscript form this might not be the problem it is now on screen. I sympathize with those who read this without the benefit of hard copies. It'd drive me nuts to have to reread this on screen. To compensate for that I've tried recently to jazz it up with colored type, but due to being wounded some many years ago my eyesight is askew and I seem to have come up with some ridiculous color combinations. Live and learn.

I do try to break down my essays and those I persent in such a fahion that the reader will have some break from the eye-strain of a 20 page essay. My next, for example, is again on ecology, and I think it'll come in over the course of five or six installments. The essay is brilliant, and I hope to have thousands of readers for it daily, perhaps millions if not brazilians.

Reader comments are essential to any successful blog, I think, and I do preclude that success by producing pieces that are too long for the average person to endure in one sitting, but I don't know how to do this and still meet my dead-line. I'll give this problem some thought and we'll see if I can find a compromise.

Yes, keep those cards and letters coming. I do appreciate the efforts.

Yalla, Dag.

Pastorius said...

Yes, well, I did my best in commenting.


U de' man, Dag.

Rick Darby said...


I'm flattered that you found my comment stimulating enough to inspire from you such a detailed response. I have no critique of your thesis as a whole, because (a) your knowledge of the history of ideas and the antecedents of the ecology movement far exceeds mine, and (b) I lack the time it would take to study and comment on what is apparently a trial run of a book you have in mind.

My point really involved no more than a paragraph or two of your posting the other day. I simply wanted to point out that although the character you quoted on overpopulation may have been some kind of proto-fascist, his comment on that subject seemed to me perfectly reasonable. In discussing things rationally, we need to separate the idea from its believers. Hitler was a supposedly a vegetarian and liked the music of Wagner; that doesn't mean all vegetarians and Wagner-lovers are fascists (except, of course, for Wagner himself).

I also agree with Pastorius that it's a little hard on your audience to present a chapter-length discussion as each posting. You do offer many interesting insights, but man, some of us just can't commit that much time to reading and pondering such a rich texture. What about boiling it down a bit and letting us reach some of the conclusions on our own? If you do I think your traffic will multiply.


You are right that some groups have far more disruptive impact on the "ideological ecology" than others. But sheer numbers and economics count too.

Pastorius said...

Oh, definately numbers count. But, we could assimilate many more Mexicans, or Englishmen, or Spaniards, than we could Muslims.

Economics wise, the Arabs do pretty damn well in the U.S. They are no problem in that arena.