by Vijay Prozak
13 January 2005
The first casualty of any populist system is the ability to exist in a non-partisan activity. Since your power results from marshalling a group and getting them to exert the weight of numbers, you have to dumb down your ideas to the point where a group can accept them and agree on them. Since the society as a whole exists to please the individual, individuals are cultivated to be "different" and thus they will come to the table not willing to agree but to assert each and every one that difference, thus narrowing the focal point of the group. As a result, one has the modern partisan decision-making process: complex ideas are distilled into simple points around which groups rally, forming oppositional camps, and somehow (it is supposed) they will arrive at the truth.
As anyone who has suffered through the decisions of a committee, or any other partisan political process, can attest, the result is that any change occurs in incremental steps around the most obvious conclusions. If a giant rubbery monster is attacking the city, it's easy to agree that something must be done; a problem without immediate manifestation in a way visible equally to all, however, is much harder. It is for this reason that societies collapse from within from lack of consensus, which means that when the rubbery monster does finally surge from the sea spouting fire, no one can even agree that they give a damn enough to save the city, and most of them, wrapped in the fatalistic guilt of awareness of how much they've given up control to crowd pleasing, feel it is divine judgment that they be destroyed.
With my primary issue, namely allowing our natural environment to enslave the human onslaught, this phenomenon is observable to tragic degree. Most political parties, sensing that they can appease the guilt of some with a few token bones tossed in their direction, and thus can possibly gain votes, have a token environmental policy that, while it addresses a few symptoms, will do nothing to correct the problem. This grim comedy was most evident in the debate during the last election over drilling for oil in national forests; while this might indeed be an issue, it is a convenient emotional and symbolic issue that allows everyone to bypass the issue as a whole and go about business as usual.
There is even a Green party! We would be fortunate if such a thing were actually politically viable. However, the Greens have made themselves into an extreme form of the same practice, by which they address only environmental issues, sniping from the sidelines, and have no practical plan for society as a whole. For this reason, they get dismissed by many as airy idealism (vernacular, not philosophical, usage), because they want to stop certain symptoms, but cannot address the causes, and have nothing to replace those causes even if they can stop them, leading to a total social breakdown as vital organs are ripped out of the society and a void left into which (if history is any yardstick) anarchy, depression, chaos and unwelcome sodomy will fall.
Thus, while there is activity in the name of Green (and here we don't mean the usual green that comes pre-printed with denominations redeemable in future value, assuming there's a future, and you'd better or you'll be short groceries and health insurance today) there is no activity with a viable political future going on to address the question of Green, which for you late-comers and back-of-the-classroom types I'll reiterate: stopping overconsumption of natural resources, overutilization of natural space, and the vast amounts of pollution (waste outside of special containers) and landfill (waste, garbage, toxins and discarded plastic inside special containers) that humanity generates. Although this situation in itself is crisis, there's a further dimension, and one that is familiar to any observer of falling empires: the most necessary changes are profoundly socially unacceptable to discuss, because they go against the moral fabric of our slowly but surely collapsing civilization.
It is inconceivable that, in a utilitarian society, there could be a higher priority than the individual; after all, political power in utilitarian systems is derived by getting most people to agree that a certain action or activity roughly pleases them. This is the definition of utilitarianism, and from this idea - pleasing most of the people most of the time - we get our vaunted "modern" and "progressive" institutions of democracy and individualism. Individuals, indeed, are the core of a utilitarian system, because gaining agreement rests not so much in addressing their actual needs, but in getting them to agree that their needs are being met; this is primarily achieved by not offending sacred cows, inevitably by addressing certain high and lofty concepts that every individual feels benefits himself or herself. In a utilitarian society, the individual is king, but paradoxically, rule occurs through the mass. All liberal democracies fall until this framework.
For this reason, a fundamental realization is avoided: that humanity grows daily because populations expand exponentially, and that no population checks itself until it runs into a fatal regulatory factor. This means that human populations will continue to expand a tier every generation, and that by the time this population so poisons itself that decline occurs because resources are limited, resources will already have been pushed to the breaking point, and there will be no unoccupied land masses to which the few sane ones can run while the others die in their own waste. In short, it's a race to the cliff-edge, and most people upon recognizing this have decided it's better to go first over the cliff than get sodomized by the losers at the rear of the pack.
This dual force, on one side the social and political taboo of mentioning the problem, and on the other the emotional and psychological futility associated with it, guarantees that the name of the primary cause of all of our Green worries cannot be mentioned, no matter how many seals we save or whether we forbid all drilling in national forests. The ugly name of this grotesque problem is Overpopulation, and for this I advance a new definition: having too many people to allow natural habitats to exist in their native format, which requires more land than humanity does. It does not mean, as some wish we would suppose, having too many people to fit on earth, because at that point the cause is lost. Nor does it mean having too many people to feed, or to fit in our current land occupation; we're already taking up too much space, consuming too many resources and producing too much waste.
Overpopulation refers to the unchecked growth of humanity. We have no natural predators, so for example an alien observer might suppose that we'd come up with some Design to regulate our population before it reached the point where, inevitably with the growth of generations, it would consume all free-standing resources and force the conversion of the remaining open land into space for the production of food in order to "save lives." Overpopulation is not a static figure, but the ongoing process of having no plan and thus expanding in all directions without regulation, including in such a political system where we cannot mention the need to curb growth, because that will deny to someone the ability to have a big house and family and produce tons of waste, and thus is the exact opposite of trying to "save lives."
Before you throw up your hands in hopelessness at this neurotic delirium, and put a bullet through your own skull, let me say that it's easy to solve. But first, I'll address another misconception: that if we "just" recycle enough, ride bicycles to work, wear sweaters and wash out and reuse our condoms we'll be fine. What a happy illusion! Even if I smoked a grip of crack, I could never believe this will work, because the only people who are going to voluntarily adopt such standards are those who are already wealthy enough to have the luxury of doing so. Further, and most comical, is the knowledge that even if every person on earth were to do this, they would still be expanding as a population and thus would commit the same mass destruction as the path we current follow will, albeit maybe delaying it by up to a decade. Thus the traditional Green concept of being an ethical consumer, while a good idea in its own right (what kind of psychotic asshole would not recycle?), will not solve the problem; it does not address the situation; it is a total failure.
There's another wrinkle here, which is that populations lacking natural regulatory factors breed out of control both outwardly (sheer numbers) and inwardly, which refers to the quality of their populations. Contrary to popular belief, predators are lazy, so they carry off the malformed, mentally and physically defective, diseased and weak before they even think of assaulting an animal in its prime. Humanity has no such regulatory factor, and if there's one thing for sure, it's that the stupid and defective breed more than those who are strong and thus have the foresight and ability to breed only in replacement numbers, which tends to be two parents = two children, and no more.
Before the propaganda of utilitarian society rises in you, and you rebel against me here and call me Satan or Hitler or some kind of thug, realize that if you put any person on earth into a private room and ask them, with the knowledge that the answer will be kept secret for all time, what the human problem is, they'll mention in as many words, "There are too many stupid people." For many of them, nature's sick joke will be that they are stupid, but you'll hear the same answer from a genius or a healthy religious leader as well, so it's not only stupid people who suggest such an idea. Rather, it's a commonly accepted truth that most human beings are fools who, while they can function fine in bureaucratic jobs, are useless for long-term planning or appreciating the subtle beauty of a forest. Their interest is wealth and entertainment, and as long as they can buy food, they don't give half a shit about the demise of our natural habitat, although they may pretend to for the purpose of gaining votes or appearing "noble" to their neighbors.
The vast majority of the human population on earth is under 100 IQ points, and while the IQ test is far from ideal, it gives a general idea of intelligence, and no person under 100 IQ points has the intelligence to check their own behavior, thus is useless for any kind of society that has no natural predators - in fact, they're more than useless, as they'll continue to breed more stupid people who will never check their behavior, and thus will clamor the loudest for more products, wealth and landfills. These people can be sterilized, or killed, but it amounts to the same thing: natural selection being imposed from within. If we lose the three billion or so of these, it's a good start, but there's still too many people. Lest you think this is a polemic against the third world, which is admittedly the biggest polluter (mainly unmeasured, since it requires wealth to take correct measurements), I'll go further.
Most people in the industrial, liberal democratic societies of America and Europe are also fully useless. They can read newspapers, watch TV, and fill out forms and make conference calls at work, but that's about it. They don't care about the environment. They care about more food, more wealth, and better entertainment. They are in fact devoid of all awareness whatsoever of the importance of any long-term action. If our society is going to self-regulate, as it must since it lacks predators, these people need to go away, whether by sterilization or murder. "Murder" has bad constructs, but we don't think of it as murder to kill killers, while it is - "murder" is a positive thing as long as the person, in the words of many a cowboy, "needed killing." Killing is the only way you ensure these people will not act out their diabolical agenda of stupidity and short-term, self-pleasing thought.
Since I'm breaking taboo here, and all of the people who fit this description have stopped reading long ago (and you thought that opening lengthy sentence was for show? silly you), I'll say this: we must consider eliminating our population of under roughly 125 IQ points, since that's about the threshold for those who can make long term plans and those who cannot. IQ is fallible, so I suggest looking at people's deeds so far; no point telling them they must shape up, and then sparing them when they do, as they lack the native ability and inclination to do so. A society of geniuses is probably not our goal, but a society of people who can agree on the most basic long term actions like "don't shit where you eat" and "don't destroy your environment" is necessary, and those who cannot make that leap of cognition are those who will always work against it; let's remove them. Did I mention that ill-bred people also require constant medical care, generating more mountains of waste? Healthy people spend little time in hospitals, until the end, at least.
Oh, the voices would be wailing now, if any of them could understand this far. It's terrible you do this! Our goal is to save lives! My goal is to save life - that is, life a a whole - and some lives impede that, thus they need to be eliminated. Further, some ways of thinking impede that, such as the idea that we should be able to do whatever we can afford to do with no thought to the whole, thus that must be eliminated also. Luckily, this can be done within a democratic process, by creating a feudal civilization in which an elite of long-term thinkers rules, and there is a higher value than money and a consensus that civilization should grow by natural selection toward ever-increasing heights, not stagnation. With even a small portion of the intelligent population agitating for this, as it will make their lives better by not condemning them and their children to future apocalypse, it will occur by democratic means within our very society. And while this future society comes bearing death for some, consider the option: death for all, and our environment that has taken billions of years to evolve.
In Vedic mythology, the oldest and most advanced spiritual system on earth, life runs in cycles which roughly correspond to humans mastering their environment and, lacking predators or a consensual goal, become bloated and fat like couch-dwellers, thus overpopulating and creating degenerate, failure-oriented societies. At the end of these cycles, certain mythological figures appear, and if you pay attention closely to your dreams, you will see their symbolism as wisdom. One such figure is Kalki, who appears astride a white horse bearing a sword, clearing away the excess life so that life itself can thrive again. White horse = rare in nature, but true to the method of nature, created by nature for a specialized purpose, and surviving by its fitness above others. When you see a society that is unable to recognize its certain doom, that has made discussion of the actual problem taboo and thus contents itself with frivolous self-gratifying talk of symptoms, realize that death is here to save life - and in your prayers, look toward Kalki, death on a white horse, and say to yourself, that alone is our salvation.
(imho, this is the new direction of tradition - forcing us to see what
the future is and acting against its roots, thus returning a traditional
order in which what is right, including germans for germans, is not
only preserved but seen as NECESSARY. sieg heil; mein ehre heisst treue =
these are not just words, but belief systems - our honor is loyalty to
nature, and our victory is a return of natural order.)
More of Mr. Prozak's writings can be found here.