Alternatives to Modern Society
infot...@gmail.com
The corrupt and polluted cities of Europe and North-America have
vanished as the people started their trek towards south.
The storyteller says:...the whole world was at the brink of destruction
from pollution, population growth, and exhaustion of natural
resources.... And even worse, the capitalist decadence was threatening
to corrupt the very soul of our northern nation. But then the
Hyperborea-society came in... after liberating their own areas, our
revolutionary forefathers saw that the world could only be saved under
the wise rule of the North.
A student asks: But where then did the original inhabitants of this
region go ?
The storyteller replies: Krkhhm, cough! ... well ... err .. their
number was ...ehh.. reduced.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/page1.htm
II.
If the present number of Earths population is preserved and is reduced
only by the means of birth controll, then:
- Birthgiving is licenced. To enhance quality of population ,
genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring. So that
several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
- Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed
only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
- Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats
and invertebrate animals.
Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is
used as fertilizer.
- Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars
are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass
transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
- Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade
must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of
diplomats and correspondents.
- Business will mostly end . Manufacture is allowed only for well
argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned.
Products will be durable and last for generations.
- Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical
skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is
reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a
fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.
http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/idea/
III.
The Covenant of Traditional Values
Whereas, modern society (defined as the collusion between consumerism,
democracy, and capitalism) as a design theory and not simply a physical
entity has shown its unfitness through long term problems including but
not limited to pollution, land overuse, rampant cancers, crime, urban
blight, worthless plastic products, meaningless functional lifestyles,
and so forth, we the undersigned commit ourselves to a new system of
values that will be the underpinning and abstract description of the
design of a society to both replace modern society and restore our
ancient traditions and ways of life.
Our goal is not to replace our leaders, or to transfer wealth within
our economies, as revolutions do, but to create an entirely different
society which is not prone to the failures of modern society. Only
structural change will accomplish this. We must both remake little of
society, in that our changes will leave most of daily life and most
people undisturbed, and we must remake all of it, in that we need a new
design philosophy for society and a new way of living.
Modern society is defined by its preference for quantities, based on
the form factor of the individual or the material worth of each unit,
instead of internal traits. We assume that because something is defined
as a tractor, it will work like all other tractors; we extend this same
logic to humans and, needing to justify our absurd assumption, use
bureaucratic averages to create expectations of a generic human being
with generic behavior. This not only fails to predict our actual needs,
but works to shape us as docile and whorelike people of limited
personality.
Our platform contains a handful of major changes in our outlook and
methods of civilization:
1. Leadership by Intelligence and Not Popularity. Modern society is
based on a greed empowered by individualism, or the placing of the
individual above all else; this is the result of underconfidence on the
part of a large number of our people, and their political empowerment
allowing them to misappropriate resources to ensure individualism takes
precedence over any other thought or value. Consumerism, democracy, and
media/popularity are the means by which we make decisions. For the
future, we want to have intelligent leaders chosen by a subset of our
population that comprises the intelligent and capable in making
leadership decisions; instead of democracy, and the consumerist ideal
that whatever idea makes money is the best, we would like a community
of leaders picking leaders based on what is the best course of action
for our society, no matter how unpopular it appears at first (most
great ideas are initially opposed by most people, so it is unreasonable
to expect that because most people do not like the sound of an idea, it
is bad).
2. Not Equality, but Guaranteed Positions in Social Hierarchy. We are
not interested in equality, as with it comes necessary economic and
social competition and the resulting instability, because if we are all
equal there is no way to stand out except by dominating others. We
prefer a good living according to our abilities, such that except in
cases of gross incompetence, we are able to work in the positions given
to our ancestors and to gain a better living if we are dramatically
more competent than others. However, the basis of our new social view
is that each person is unique, and we cannot compare a plumber to a
bank president and conclude that because one makes more money he is
superior; we must each take our position in life and do with it what we
can, but not attempt to draw moral decisions based on income and
therefore force all of us into a vicious competition that eventually
consumes us all. Competition leads to a lack of lowest public standard,
in that whoever cuts the most corners wins, and impoverishes more
people than it makes rich.
3. Our Natural Environment is Not a Resource, but a Living Entity of
Parallel Value to Our Own Lives. Our environment created us and
nurtures us and will remain important no matter how good our technology
gets. Its survival is as important as our own. We must cease to see it
as raw materials for a society, and see our world as civilization and
nature coexisting. To this end, we need to end the cause of all of our
environmental woes, which is overpopulation, and to cease dumping toxic
effluvia and chemicals into our environment.
4. Natural Selection Must Regulate Us. Both as individuals and as
groups, we need regulation by an external force. We must re-design
society so that it disproportionately rewards those who have the
balanced traits of intelligence, beauty/strength, and an inherent
nobility to their moral thought such that they consider the whole over
the individual and do what is right according to the balance of the
cosmos. Further, we must enable natural selection to eliminate any
community that is so unable to run itself that it perishes from natural
(famine, war, disease) causes.
5. We Must Have Higher Values, Not Inclusive Ones. A fundamental trait
of modern society is compromise; we value making sure everyone is
heard, that every opinion is aired, and that all people are represented
over doing what is best for the world as whole. It is this logic that
leads to our unhealthy fascination with the individual, and hence
popularity/profit. Our goal is to have higher values so that we
constantly envision a better design of not only civilization but an
idealized human, and strive toward it. Heroism, natural beauty,
transcendence and harmony with nature are more important than any kind
of equality or compromise or social popularity. By having higher
values, we are always pushing ourselves toward a goal that will make us
healthier, smarter and more noble as people. Through this mechanism, we
offer people something better with each passing generation, and each
set of parents can look on its offspring with pride in both their
abilities and the world they will inherit.
Modern society is based on the individual because the individual is a
useful unit for counting power. We do not seek the best answers, but
the most popular. Because even a group of highly intelligent people
will have contrasting opinions and thus will only be able to find an
inclusive opinion that is a lowest common denominator, modern society
through democracy and consumerism erodes every good idea into the same
old thing. It is incapable of changing itself. It is up to us to change
it. By these concepts and actions we, the undersigned, swear.
uri
Scotius
You're whacked.
RyanT
human rights?
Environmentalism is fine, but such fanatical opinions usually come from
the well-to-dos who are in denial of the fact that it's technology and
modernism that allowed them to live comfortable lives to begin with.
They're probably more concerned about losing places to hike and camp
than the overall scheme of the human condition.
knucmo
destructive form of society, then you have declared it well. It's the
same old Marxist cliches about "consumerism" and consumption being a
bad thing and that instead what we need is a centrally based command
economy where industries that are non-profitable are subsidised. Look
yonder upon the fall of the Soviet Union and you'll discover what a
disaster it was both for the economy and its people. Also you argue
for the disenfranchisement of others on the basis of their
"intelligence" thus creating an elite culture. This only further
weakens your false appeal to the common man or "plumber" - since he is
exactly the sort of person you'd completely remove from the political
process on virtue of his lack of academic qualifications or intellect.
A few points -
I. Saying that intelligence is the basis for leadership would have such
"heroic" persons as Stephen Hawking, Einstein or Keynes in charge. As
such, these persons would have the moral integrity to see right through
your elite fascist ideas. Nor is intelligence enough. It ignores the
virtues of leadership, not necessarily pure intelligence. It does not
take intelligence alone to be a great politician but other factors such
as prudence, wisdom, counsel, and insight.
II. Natural selection does regulate us (to a degree). Your advocation
for the perishing of any community is not an enabling of "natural
selection" at all, it is a conscious decision to wipe out fellow humans
based on perceived "weakness", a Social Darwinist fantasy. Other
excuses for such horrific genocide that have been offered might be
class conflict, ethnic cleansing, the "greatest" good, nevertheless, it
usually amounts to the same - death, misery, strife and evil far worse
than the so-called unfairness of capitalism or modern society.
III. Funny that you push for a competitive eugenical theory but despise
competition in the financial market since it breeds poverty. Well, if
as a result of your financial weakness, I'd have you wiped out
according to your dubious theory of "natural selection" since you'd be
unable to "run" yourself.
Competition does not breed poverty, but instead poverty (in
democracies) is mainly due to imprudence, a lack of incentives been
offered to raise oneself out of poverty, and a plethora of benefits
being offered masked as compassion that cease to encourage those in
poverty to "rise" out of it. Plus, what makes you think that money for
the poor is the best way of helping them out? It presupposes the
question. It's not going to particularly help those who have
prodigious alcohol habits or drug habits, yet you'd quite happily steal
money from those who have been prudent and productive enough to earn a
decent living and redistribute that hard-earned cash to the "deserving"
poor (of course those who are physically unable to work deserve some
restituition - but perhaps not according to your theory - they are
physically weak, quite possibly unheroic so that is a ground for your
death squads to pay them a visit - or simply let to them languish. But
then you rail against capitalism for its apparent disregard for the
poor.)
IV. A bit of a strange remark about democracy and the way it grinds
ideas into the "same old thing". Well, I'm not sure what democracy
really has to do with the many scientific theories and experiments that
are undertaken (other than granting freedom of inquiry and freedom of
speech) - we certainly don't find Tony Blair interfering with
scientists conjectures and mishmashing it into an "old idea" though.
It would actually be more of the case in your envisioned system that
all ideas were made to fit so as to champion the same virtues of
beauty, strength, power etc. As for political ideas, they need
refinement, or need to be binned or argued against, as in your case.
If people simply accepted the first idea without any discussion of it
we'd have a set of prejudiced, dogmatic laws that are probably
unimplementable. That's why there's a legislative process.
V. The "Higher values" rhetoric is again Fascist ideology. The Master
Race, pure blood, the superiority of Nordic blood, the need for
conquest to subjugate lesser foreign humans in order to show them the
true values of humanity. Let people pursue their own ideals, not
yours, which seem to have resulted from some barbarous fascist fantasy
of yours. Intelligence and beauty are indeed great values, but they
are best nurtured by individuals interaction with others, not by
political coercion. What's more, intelligence, beauty and one's manner
are individual characteristics - but you scorn this unhealthy
"obsession" with the individual...How quickly you forget the mistakes
of such a regime in the 30's and 40's known as the Third Reich. But
then I reckon you've got as good a chance as being a Neo-Nazi as anyone
else here.
Yes - this definitely seems to have emanated from some sort of
political and moral "anus" - putrid morality, politics, rehashed
Nazism.
knucmo
knucmo wrote:
> If ever there was a declaration of dictatorship, and quite a mindless,
> destructive form of society, then you have declared it well. It's the
> same old Marxist cliches about "consumerism" and consumption being a
> bad thing and that instead what we need is a centrally based command
> economy where industries that are non-profitable are subsidised. Look
> yonder upon the fall of the Soviet Union and you'll discover what a
> disaster it was both for the economy and its people. Also you argue
> for the disenfranchisement of others on the basis of their
> "intelligence" thus creating an elite culture. This only further
> weakens your false appeal to the common man or "plumber" - since he is
> exactly the sort of person you'd completely remove from the political
> process on virtue of his lack of academic qualifications or intellect.
>
> A few points -
>
> I. Saying that intelligence is the basis for leadership would have such
> "heroic" persons as Stephen Hawking, Einstein or Keynes in charge. As
> such, these persons would have the moral integrity to see right through
> your elite fascist ideas. Nor is intelligence enough. It ignores the
> virtues of leadership, not necessarily pure intelligence. It does not
> take intelligence alone to be a great politician but other factors such
> as prudence, wisdom, counsel, and insight.
Here's a supplement directed at the writer of this American Nihilist
article concerning his idea about the intelligent ruling over others:
It supposes that people are too stupid or clumsy to oversee their own
affairs. It also supposes that the educated or intelligent are
perfectly aware and all-knowing about what the uneducated want too.
But, this is not the case at all. Given the numerous mistakes and bad
ideas emanating from intellectuals or the academic world I would say
this is certainly not the case. Nor is it correct to suppose that the
academic are any more conservative with their money than others.
uri
knucmo
uri wrote:
> Progressivism is the correct way toward social change.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Nope, nor is the much discredited movement of Progressivism the right
way either. Progressivism can be used as an excuse for big government,
that is, a consititution that can be changed to make it fit social
policy, nor is their reliance upon experts particularly democratic.
Not the sum of "good government" as Jefferson would say. There's also
the typical leftist disregard for one's rights to private property, in
turn furthering the power of bureaucrats and politically favoured.
Progressives see nothing wrong in amending the Constitution to counter
any decisions made the Supreme Court which they thought were bad.
Plus the term "progressivism" is somewhat of a misnomer - policies such
as minimum wage, protectionism and other such ideas are economically
backward (thus, regressivism) usually hurting the people they try to
help. Good intentions perhaps, but bad results.