by the Tasmanian National-Anarchists



The recent revelations demolishing the consensus on ‘manmade global warming’ have done immense damage to the cause of ecology. These scandals are a direct result of the hijacking of the environmental movement by the extreme Left (and please note, by ‘Left’ we refer exclusively to the globalist Left, not the old fashioned left which just wanted a fair go for the worker). The Left hitched its wagon to the ‘manmade warming’ theory because it appeared to give them a perfect excuse to bring about their cherished aim of global governance. As a result, ecology has been reduced to a matter of ‘carbon emissions’.

But now even Phil Jones, the top level scientist who advised the UN on climate matters, has gone on record admitting there has been no warming in the last fifteen years:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=9ed4f421-6134-4484-98be-d9f4f18d4a9c

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Meanwhile, in Germany, the Greens Party seems to have abandoned its concern for the natural world, instead focussing its attention on politically correct enterprises like supporting the bombing of Belgrade (all those Serbs had to be killed for ‘humanitarian’ reasons, according to German Green leaders).

The green movement, which started with noble intentions, has clearly been subverted from within by globalists. It is now time for genuine environmentalists to examine where their movement is headed, and to assess how much damage has been done by these Leftist infiltrators.

In our view, the hijacking of the ecology movement by the Left has done massive amounts of damage, not only in terms of the reduction of ecology to phony statements about ‘carbon emissions’, but also by alienating the common folk from the movement by hitching environmentalism to currents which most people don’t agree with (e.g. ‘progressivist’ causes, and increased statism).

Strength and Beauty

The truth is, we need wilderness areas not because they function as utilitarian ‘carbon sinks’ (a disgusting term) but because they enable us to transcend the mundane. We need a non-human world of beauty and terror for warriors and dreamers to lose themselves in.

Environmental aesthetics shouldn’t just extend to wilderness areas, however. They are equally important in the human environment. Towns and villages, too, are ecosystems, with both human and natural elements. Ecology means opposing the sterile, cosmopolitan ugliness of our modern cities, and replacing this with meaningful and beautiful folkish architecture which is unique to each place, thereby rejecting the internationalism which makes London look like Sydney look like Paris look like Madrid.

It also means destroying corporate advertising billboards.

Famed Tasmanian wilderness photographer Olegas Truchanas once asked: “Is there any reason why the idea of beauty could not become part of government policy?” Unfortunately this can never happen under the current liberal system, because liberalism regards the idea of ‘beauty’ as deeply suspect, perhaps even as ‘fascist’.

The Many-Too-Many

Most of our environmental problems stem, directly or indirectly, from the one cause: overpopulation.

Overpopulation is not merely a threat to quality of life, either – it also exacerbates the danger of global tyranny by promoting large scale societies, more easily brought under control by a centralised world government. Although population levels in the Western world are starting to decline, in the so-called ‘Third World’ they are booming. Perhaps the best way to combat overpopulation is by supporting movements to promote birth control in the Third World.

But quantity isn’t the only concern. Quality is just as important, and humans in the West are becoming more stupid and slovenly with each generation. Television and the liberal education system are dumbing down the populace like never before.

Guillaume Faye observed that “the technocratic civilisation operates an intense selective pressure in favour of human types who are oriented towards such dispositions as economic aggression, submission to doctrine, devotion to certain norms of physical comfort and so forth. Such a pressure is genetically deleterious.”

So how can we reverse this genetic, mental and spiritual decline, without the use of governments or coercion?

Only through a new spirituality…

‘Let us be wild! Let us be pagans!’

Paganism needs to be reclaimed from the Wiccan stereotypes (Wicca isn’t paganism, it’s a feminised version of Judeo-Christianity with a Goddess instead of a God). Real paganism is folkish, and folkish spirituality goes hand in hand with environmentalism. Preserving the health of the folk is just as important as preserving the health of the ecosystem.

Environmentalism was created in Europe in the 19th century, not by globalists or communists, but by FOLKISH NATIONALISTS. Many of these early environmentalists supported the Nation State, but in our own time nationalists should directly oppose the State, because the State (acting as an arm of globalism) is crushing regional identities all over the world.

To be a nationalist today means supporting the struggle of ALL tribes and nations to maintain their identity in the face of globalist monoculture.

Gerhard Petak from the band Allerseelen wrote: “Folkish is today a dangerous word. Like the words home, roots, loyalty it is situated in the cross wires of an omnipresent brainwashing. Those who use this word are pushed close to the Third Reich. But the foreign policy of the Third Reich was not folkish at all. The principle that the peoples were different, but equal of birth, was not taken into consideration.”

Petak also believes that scientific developments and technology cannot be undone, for better or worse. It may be possible for some individuals to lead a luddite lifestyle, but technology itself can never be abolished. Instead, it must be transcended:

“Tradition and future, spirituality and technology, wisdom and science, mythos and logos have to meet without fighting, destroying each other. That is the difficulty, the art of alchemy. A green paganism has to be conservative avant garde, in some areas conservative, in others revolutionary.”



Which way forward?

Greens must begin by rejecting their support for open borders immigration, which only benefits the capitalists they claim to oppose. The fact that so many greens sympathise with the Left is remarkable, given the bad track record of Communist regimes towards the environment.

Ecologists also need to adopt a more warrior outlook – that is the only way they will ever get respect from the public. Steve Irwin had a warrior demeanour and was greatly respected, even by those who hate ‘greenies’ and ‘ferals’. Germaine Greer, on the other hand, attacked Irwin after his death (for this very trait) but is not well loved. Ironically (given Greer’s feminist views), more women would sympathise with Steve Irwin than they would with her.

Joe Sixpack has come to see the green movement as the provenance of dreadlocked, arrogant communists. To counter this, the green movement as a whole must cut its ties to the Left, and instead forge ties with national revolutionary groups who believe in genuine self-sufficiency. It must also attempt to build better ties with ordinary people.

The creation of smaller groups of activists and thinkers, people who are already on equal terms, is probably the best way to go (to avoid the ego clashes and ‘messiah complexes’ so common in politics). Large movements are open to Leftist or government infiltration. Think small.

And finally, while the green movement’s rejection of modern society is understandable (given how shallow that society is in many regards), greens must not be blinded to human potential. Man and nature have their own spheres, but they aren’t rigidly separate. The spheres are interlinked materially through the common biosphere, and culturally through the inspiration wild nature has always provided for artists, poets and philosophers. We owe nature a duty of care first and foremost because we owe ourselves a duty of care.

Heidegger wrote that the role of mankind is “to enable the earth to bring forth a world.” That is the eternal Faustian quest which Western man must engage with, or die.

The only alternative is the triumph of materialism.

In other words: the triumph of the Left.