← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · neoclassical
Thread ID: 18544 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2005-06-06
2005-06-06 04:36 | User Profile
Preservation
For most people, National Socialism is beyond reach not so much because they are offended by it, but because they do not understand the need for it. To them, there is only one form of society, and within it, we try to make the best decisions we can but the bigger issues are unchanging and will always exist. Many of them are getting a bit shaken up by news from the far reaches of the empire, hints of global warming and gasoline running out and rising crime, but they still don't understand that National Socialism is literally a different type of existence, not just a different shade of government, from that of our present time.
If we had to boil the differences down to one single comparison, it would be this: our current society is one of consumption, while National Socialist and other traditional societies are designed around preservation. Our modern society's view is that the highest goal of any moral or political system is to empower the individual, and translates this into a physical empowerment through wealth. In order to do this, it encourages economic competition so that each individual can achieve whatever level of wealth is desired, and through that, by exercising purchasing desires, can be "free." Hilariously, the same societies that espouse this view are usually the ones whose art, literature and movies speak endlessly of values higher than money, such as love or honor.
These consumer societies now make up the majority of governments worldwide, and we have grown up with these as our only example of government. Because they build their philosophies on a humanistic assumption of individualism, and whether communist or capitalist move on there to a society dominated by a need for money, they form an international government which asserts consumerism wherever it touches. This single world society forms the underpinning of its member states, but they inherit from it the basic assumptions and values of a consumer society. By the nature of these assumptions, this society can only understand other consumer societies and not preservationist societies, of which National Socialism is one.
Consumerist societies assert that there is no higher value than the desires of the individual, and therefore that society should be designed to facilitate whatever the individual wants to do without judging it or denying requests for being unreasonable (they make exceptions for extreme pathological behavior such as murder or child pornography). Society does what the individuals inside of it desire, and there is no thought toward a long-term goal, because the only goal of that society is to fulfill its individuals. For this reason, consumerist societies favor populist democracies as their leadership structure, and therefore, politicians are depend on public approval to go ahead with any action. This means that if any vocal part of the public disagrees with the action, it will be stalled indefinitely in debate in which no side has any reason to yield - they are voting for their own interests, with little concern for the collective, and therefore their position never changes.
Preservationist societies operate in an exact reverse of consumerist ones. In a preservationist society, a goal is established: preserve society, culture and nature together. Since such an assumption outweighs the desires of individuals, preservationist societies are by their very nature more inclined to tell people "no" when it comes to ludicrous desires or illogical actions. In these societies, government views itself as a caretaker of the population and its lands, acting in the best interest of the intersection of those two causes. That is, where population and nature are served by the same thing, a preservationist society acts, but not without both being represented. This is in radical opposition to consumerist doctrine.
What allows this radical difference is that preservationist societies, unlike consumer societies, see no need to remake nature for human purposes; consumerist societies view nature as a state of bad inequality and evil predation, and therefore impose upon it humanistic values which empower the individual, at the cost of consuming nature. Consumerist societies have no limits on how much they expand, or how much of any natural resource is used up; the only limiting factor are the desires of individuals. Preservationist societies, on the other hand, view nature as a perfect state and seek to promote their population only where it exists in harmony with it, both externally (natural lands, species, ecosystems) and internally (genetics, self-discipline, health).
In a consumerist world, it is impossible to explain a preservationist mandate. There is no monetary value in preserving things, and by creating a value higher than that of money and personal desire, preservationist societies make people feel uneasy, because there are right answers and wrong answers, instead of the more nebulous approval of any personal desire as granted by consumerist societies. For this reason, consumer society has created the most destructive onslaught against nature in human history. It doesn't understand the need to preserve external nature from ever-increasing human populations and their desires, and it doesn't comprehend regulating internal nature from the frailty of a few who would breed badly and thus slowly pollute and change the whole population.
However, for those who think, preservationism is a more sensible form of government. Most people grow out of their childish desires and come to realize that it's what you buy, but how satisfying your life is, that determines overall happiness. They know, like the movies and literature of consumerist society which speak emotionally of values higher than money, that you cannot buy happiness, although you can buy the implements to achieve it. Yet those implements are so basic that not much is needed to afford them. For those who think, it's more important to have a stable culture, a balanced society, and a good relationship to our natural surroundings; only in a distant lower ranking comes the ability to buy whatever your heart desires. With these realizations, they turn toward preservationism.
The most important issue that faces humanity today is a preservationist one, and it is an issue in which consumerist societies have more than done badly - they have quite simply failed, no matter how much we "educate" or provide soft incentives for good behavior. Our species has grown radically in the last fifty years, and now, through overpopulation and the resulting land overuse, we are threatening to destroy the habitats of many plants and animals and to thus destroy the complex interlocking web of natural ecosystems that keeps our planet alive. No species exists alone, but many species together regulate our climate and make our land livable. We cannot survive if we kill these off. Unless something changes, however, we're on a course for doing exactly that.
To take a preservationist look at nature means that we have to start denying people some of their desires, and make the individual take a back seat to doing what is right. This is a fundamental shift from "freedom" to "responsibility," and when one goes through this thought process, the almost magical hold that words like "freedom" have on normal people is broken. Big words and big promises usually conceal a disgusting lie, and in this case, the lie is consumerism. "Freedom" gets us selfishness and self-destruction, but no one in a consumerist society will tell you this; they're too busy earning money off your desires. They'll gladly lead us all toward self-destruction, because there's profit being made. In a consumerist society, profit is individual freedom and therefore profit is holy. The environment and our collective survival isn't even a real concern.
Another preservationist issue is racial integrity, and within that issue, both national integrity and healthy breeding within the population. This issue should be part of any intelligent political platform, but beware of political platforms where it is the only issue, whether for or against. Preservationism includes race, but doesn't limit itself to that. A major aspect of preservationist doctrine is that local governments provide best for their own people, but that government is limited; many things must still be done through culture, custom and social pressures. One of these is healthy breeding. Culture and history establish what each population desires for itself, and in accordance with that ideal of beauty and health and character, people breed. If it's an intelligent ideal, better people are created with each generation, but if it's a dumber ideal, more mediocre people are produced until they breed out the better ones and society plunges into ruin.
The racial issue is politically-charged in ways the environmental issue is not, but if looked at analytically, they are in fact parts of the same issue. Our races and nations are natural divisions of our species, and represent thousands of generations of evolutionary separation and specialization in different areas. The races aren't the same in intelligence, nor in character, nor in appearance, and even if you ship a member of one race across the world and put him or her in a different culture, he or she will have inclinations which are genetically predetermined by the original racial grouping. Like ecosystems, human populations are fragile, and if one expands recklessly, they are destroyed. In both cases there is no argument in terms of "freedom" and individual desires that compels us to preserve external nature (our environment) or internal nature (our racial and national groups), because preserving them cannot be justified in consumerist terms.
Instead, we have to look at our world through new eyes and see that it is basically a good place and that nature is in fact wiser than we are, and that we should respect that. Further, instead of trying to consume and build a new world that does not play by nature's rules, we should work in harmony with nature and thus end our constant struggle for something illogical. At this point, we are ready to preserve and not consume: we recognize that what maintains human life on earth is eternal and neverchanging, and that we cannot destroy it - we must work with it. In doing so, we cross from consumerism to preservationism, and start seeing life as an organic whole, instead of a disorganized grouping of individual desires.
Consider the word "breakdown," as in "the rock broke down into sand." It means taking something from a state of an organized whole into a granular state, or one in which there are many smaller objects of uniform appearance but no structure unifying them. When a machine breaks down, it loses the design and organization that lets it operate, and becomes junk. When humanity breaks down, it loses the ability to work together as a group, and becomes simply a destructive parasite, like monkeys given lawn mowers and set loose on wildflowers. When we all grow up, and see what really matters in life, consumerism is no longer sufficient. We turn toward preservationism, and many of us turn to National Socialism, which is the longest-standing expression of that ideal.
Right now, as with all preservationist doctrines, National Socialism is marginalized because we are vastly outnumbered. There are more selfish, careless and unintelligent people than there are sensitive, far-thinking, intelligent ones. In the last World War, the National Socialists outfought their adversaries, but were so vastly outnumbered they crumbled under the might of foreign industry and its many millions of expendable warriors. While that war was horrific, it was a situation where it was better to take a stand and face certain defeat than to give up passively. Perhaps the reason that people allowed this to happen was that they were blinded by consumerism, and could not see the preservationist ideal as being important, because it is not something allowed for in modern society.
That, however, is changing. As our societies fall apart, and the international rich get richer while the average person has to work harder and under more frustrating circumstances just to have a normal and decent life, discontent grows. As this happens, more people recognize that "freedom" is like anything promised in a television commercial: it doesn't have much to do with reality. They're starting to see that preservationism is the reality we need and, having recognized that, want. Every day, more people turn to National Socialism for this reason. And in that change we see the first steps toward healing ourselves and nature.
[url]http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/preservation/[/url]