Thank you. Makes sense. I really have to clarify this in the final book. When I refer to governments, I am not referring to modern governments, but the government I would propose in the coming chapters, namely 10 people choose a leader from among them, and 10 of the leaders choose a leader from among them, and 10 of those leaders choose a leader from among them. So, each political entity would be composed of not more than 1000 people, and most of the decisions would be made at the lowest level, sometimes that of the family. I think way of governance that I propose would exclude the possibilities you are referring to. I do agree with you that any existing government or large entity of any sort including corporations, etc. should not have that power. I am a believer in "small is beautiful". If political groupings should be fewer than 1000 people, there should be no companies so to speak, save for small, traditional crafts shops. Mass production is a disease, and overpopulation leads to the mass production of automaton workers churned through school factories.
Regarding your second point, again, I don't think of this in the modern sense but in the context of medieval guilds and ancient city-states. I think guilds were an ideal way of elevating people without the modern pitfalls.
I think you will enjoy the essay on education, which is coming up later.
I taught for some time at a university, but I left that because the emphasis was always on preparing people to enter the work-force rather than in getting a good liberal (in the classical sense of the term) education. It was shocking for me to see students in their first year of college who had no exposure to art, crafts, or poetry, who could not think logically, and who were functionally illiterate. And yet, we professors were told to pass students with at least a "C" despite not deserving it. These people will leave with their degree and go on into some technical work, never really being able to write well or think for themselves, but that works great for the employers.
I was teaching in a Religious Studies program. The irony is that is the one place you can not say the word "believe". Think about it this way: a violinist who doesn't play the violin would be a contradiction in terms, but they expect professors of religion to have no religion. That and the "current orthodoxies" you speak of. I could deal with the Marxists, and refute them easily, but the new group of critical gender theorists who believe the main focus of the university should be writing books about how poets, prophets and saints were products of mental illness caused by sublimated desires related to their repressed sexuality was just too much for me to put up with. Now that I am out of academia I don't have to even abide by that trash any longer and can read people worthy of being read.
Colin, thank you for your comment. I want to make it absolutely clear: I am not espousing eugenics, and I am not espousing anything that comes even close to that foul smelling doctrine. I think you and Brian are reading this essay in the light of the 20th century, which I clearly wasn't expecting. I actually thought this would be a fairly uncontroversial piece: ok, the world is overpopulated, so people should have fewer babies; nothing super controversial there. I think there were definitely parts that I could have been clearer, and some of the criticisms you are making would be rendered null by later essays, but they haven't been published yet. Later on I will elaborate exactly what kind of politics I would espouse and it is small, local, and anti-Machine. Something along a mix of primitive communism, guild socialism, and direct democracy, with some aristocratic elements built in. It is sort of hard to sum up in a few lines, but it would preclude any sort of eugenicist policies.
Also, as I made clear in this article, I said the population should be reduced. I stand by that. I never, once, said that only certain portions of the population should be reduced. Population should be reduced across the board. I did state, very clearly, that the methods to be used, should not utilize the means of the Machine, and should be compassionate. I didn't want to go into details, because frankly I don't know what will work, but I was thinking along the lines of education, birth control, and abstinence. Ideally, I would hope that the overpopulation of the planet would be self evident and that all people would voluntarily choose to have fewer babies, for the good of the world.
Next week will be back to normal, but then it will be quite a few really negative criticism based weeks. The first half of these essays are designed to tear things down. I do promise that the second half will be positive and solutions focused, along with putting forth an entire philosophy and theology. But first I must grind this whole modern edifice down.
By the way, in addition to what I just wrote to you, if you are so inclined, I would love to have you flesh out what parts of this essay suggested eugenics. I just don't see it. I never said only the so-called desirable elements in society should be left. I find racialist policies reprehensible. FYI, I also find abortions of children just because they will have down syndrome reprehensible. I hope that clears things up, but I would still like to hear from you what you think the problem areas are so that I may clarify those parts in the final book. Thanks again, and I truly value your feedback!
And as for the draconian measures I mentioned, it is not what I think you were reading into it. In the Middle Ages if a child was unable to get their libido under control, parents would often send that child of theirs to a monastery or convent. I am thinking something similar: namely if the voluntary measures don't work, that there is a society built around the very ancient concept of shame, and that the parents or village elder would send that child, male or female, off to a separatist community so they couldn't reproduce until they meditated on the harm they had done. Now, this would not be limited to a specific group of people, but would ideally apply to everyone. I know I am not helping my case here, and I know this all probably sounds ridiculous, insane, etc. to you, but it is the very antithesis of machine-based or modern; it is wholly traditional in its own way. Ideally, once technology is gone and the population has been reduced to a normal level, the population levels would be self-sustaining, as they were for tens of thousands of years. The problem is what do we do now. It is a big problem, and at least I am trying to think of solutions. Pentti Linkola said the United Nations should have controlled nuclear explosions above all the major cities. I personally think that is insane, and I also think Linkola was indulging in some hyperbole to make an intelligent point that we need to do something. Wars could theoretically help, but I and Lawrence are vociferously against all modern warfare. I don't think only the rich, only the intelligent, or only people from a certain background, religion, or color of skin should survive, It shocks me that two people now would impute these sad, pathetic views to me. Perhaps it is because of my stance on liberal immigration policies? I have those views for simple, practical reasons having nothing to do with far-right groups: simply the birth rate in some countries is exorbitantly high and if countries with lower birth rates keep letting in people from countries with high birth rates, the high birth rates in those countries will stay high.
Thank you. I do, truly value this feedback. The points you raise are important points that I definitely will need to clarify in the final text. I am not only here to speak out from the top of a soapbox, but to learn. Whatever the future has in store, it has to be collaborative, otherwise we will end up in another authoritarian, utopian disaster, just like last century.
I have spent probably half of my life in "underdeveloped" countries, and many aspects of life in those places, particularly in the smaller towns and villages is far better than anything we have in the West, but modern media and the unceasing propaganda machine have colonized the minds and hearts of people everywhere to think that modern life is great.
I don't lay claim to coming up with the "right" solutions, but I hope my essays provoke some thought about what solutions could work, because right now we are heading for a disaster, and in some ways the disaster is already here.
1. I am not pro-solar or wind power; I am against electrical power as such. I would prefer that we discarded the entire history of technological innovations of the last 300 years. That being said, given that we live in this mess we have collectively made, I am absolutely, vehemently against all forms of nuclear power. The Book of Revelation describes events eerily similar to what happened at Chernobyl, and Chernobyl itself in proto-Slavic means wormwood. I am also against systems, and would prefer that the water, air, and land be as little polluted as possible, so I am not in favor of centralized power of any sort. Probably the best short-term solution is a massive cut-back in individual power use combined with individual use of the least destructive form of renewable energy for a particular environment, such as off-grid solar in deserts.
2. I am a staunch supporter of the vast majority of ideas of Pentti Linkola, who was influenced by Malthus. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but to call them "insane" is both off the mark and unfair. All it takes is for one to look around at the state of the world to realize we have massively overpopulated the planet and destroyed much of the natural beauty in this world. I do believe that we should reduce the population to reasonable levels through strict control of the birth rate. That may not be a popular opinion, and it may cause much suffering, but it is better than the alternative.
3. Later on in this series I will elaborate a political philosophy, but suffice it to say it is not democracy. I am not going to repeat what I will write in future essays, but I will say that the system I will elaborate will not be a copy of Plato's political doctrines, but it will have a deeply aristocratic character.
4. Yes, it is sad, but humans today have become "sad" and "sick". Humans are the only species that have been given the free will to choose to rise up to theosis or to sink lower than anything else in Creation. I believe humans are capable of great things, but have been led into mechanism and automatism through a number of factors, leading many of them to make Faustian bargains with the Beast / Machine. These fallen humans are essentially machine-robots.
I see that you approach things from a Protestant perspective. I doubt you will like much of what comes next in these essays. I approach things from a mix of universalist, pagan, and esoteric Christian and Muslim lenses, and I believe that institutionalized Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, has been responsible for a great deal of our contemporary morass. I follow Max Weber in this. I am an unapologetic anti-capitalist (though I am also an unapologetic anti-Marxist, and I will be elaborating a system of economics most closely related to primitive or Biblical communism, because, guess what, Jesus was a socialist). But, I do thank God for Protestants such as William Blake.
I did back up my comment. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the world is insanely overpopulated. You don't have to be a Malthusian to notice that. Lawrence saw it over 100 years ago, and it is visible everywhere today. To a person whose eyes are so veiled that he or she cannot see that, I have very little more to say. You seem to think I am approaching this from a resource perspective. If so, you are wrong. Humanity may or may not be able to go on indefinitely expanding on this planet, but qualitatively, life for all other species, and humanity itself will continue to dwindle to a shadow of what life used to be. Look to the polluted air, water, and ground; look to the destruction of habitats and extinction of species. It is all due to human hubris. Since you seem to be a proud partisan of human egotism and hubris, I will not try to convince you otherwise, but I will pray for your soul.
I am not anti-human, nor anti-natalist, nor misanthropist. It is out of my deep love for humanity that I want humanity to lead healthier, saner modes of life. Almost 10 billion people on this planet is neither healthy, nor sane.
And then you start some ridiculous criticisms. Congratulations on having an active imagination, but I am not advocating anything you accuse me of. Go back and reread the article. I very clearly stated that population should be reduced through a reduction of the birth rate, using sane and compassionate means, such as education. You are accusing me of advocating for racialist politics, wanting to send people off to gas chambers, and forced sterilization, none of which is true. When I spoke of draconian measures, and that only as a last resort, I was referring to sending people who couldn't get their libidos under control, off to separatist communities: monks on one side, nuns on the other.
Regarding Chernobyl, I simply presented you with an interesting fact. I am against nuclear power because it is insane, Satanic, demonic, etc.
Your last paragraph veers off into the truly insane. None of what you accuse me of has the least basis in my article, nor in my beliefs. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks without justification. If am willing to engage in a healthy debate with people who do not agree with me, but if you continue these unjustified and unprovoked attacks that have no basis whatsoever in reality, then I will ban you from this forum. Please keep all future comments limited to the realm of reality. My advocating for birth control is in no way tantamount to the vile things you accuse me of, so please get a reality check.
Have a nice day, and I pray that the Gods open your eyes and heart.
I am not backpedaling. Yes, there are too many people. Yes, there needs to be a reduction in population. But, no, I never advocated the things you accuse me of. My dearest friends are Bosnian, and I spent many years of my life in Bosnia, so your accusations of advocating genocide are deeply offensive. I specifically stated that population should be reduced "but /not/ through the means of machines and mechanism, but through sane, compassionate means." War, genocide, mass murder, extermination camps, abortions, forced sterilization, etc. are all machine-methods, and hence I am vociferously opposed to them on that count and all other counts. I was being specifically vague as to my recommendations, because, frankly, I don't know exactly what will help or work, but I assumed that my readers would follow my line of thought and see that I am referring to voluntary birth control, education, chastity, etc.
The state of the world today is sick, just like the state of a heroin addict is sick, and just like the addict, the world needs to recover from its addiction (to technology), but there are no easy roads. The addict who wants to get healthy will suffer on the road to recovery. The world that gradually and humanely reduces the birth rate through education and voluntary abstinence will also suffer, but it is a better option than the techno-hell that is on the horizon.
As for methods, I will reiterate that I recommend education, birth-control and abstinence. It is nothing so radical, as these methods are already working in many northern-European countries. Realistically, I don't think that most people will abide by these recommendations, just as I, sadly, don't think most people will give up their phones, which is why I will be advocating for communities separate from modern society, namely Rananim. It is basically my take on the Benedictine option, but I approach it from a universalist angle.
Thank you. Makes sense. I really have to clarify this in the final book. When I refer to governments, I am not referring to modern governments, but the government I would propose in the coming chapters, namely 10 people choose a leader from among them, and 10 of the leaders choose a leader from among them, and 10 of those leaders choose a leader from among them. So, each political entity would be composed of not more than 1000 people, and most of the decisions would be made at the lowest level, sometimes that of the family. I think way of governance that I propose would exclude the possibilities you are referring to. I do agree with you that any existing government or large entity of any sort including corporations, etc. should not have that power. I am a believer in "small is beautiful". If political groupings should be fewer than 1000 people, there should be no companies so to speak, save for small, traditional crafts shops. Mass production is a disease, and overpopulation leads to the mass production of automaton workers churned through school factories.
Regarding your second point, again, I don't think of this in the modern sense but in the context of medieval guilds and ancient city-states. I think guilds were an ideal way of elevating people without the modern pitfalls.
I do hope this clears things up somewhat.
I think you will enjoy the essay on education, which is coming up later.
I taught for some time at a university, but I left that because the emphasis was always on preparing people to enter the work-force rather than in getting a good liberal (in the classical sense of the term) education. It was shocking for me to see students in their first year of college who had no exposure to art, crafts, or poetry, who could not think logically, and who were functionally illiterate. And yet, we professors were told to pass students with at least a "C" despite not deserving it. These people will leave with their degree and go on into some technical work, never really being able to write well or think for themselves, but that works great for the employers.
I was teaching in a Religious Studies program. The irony is that is the one place you can not say the word "believe". Think about it this way: a violinist who doesn't play the violin would be a contradiction in terms, but they expect professors of religion to have no religion. That and the "current orthodoxies" you speak of. I could deal with the Marxists, and refute them easily, but the new group of critical gender theorists who believe the main focus of the university should be writing books about how poets, prophets and saints were products of mental illness caused by sublimated desires related to their repressed sexuality was just too much for me to put up with. Now that I am out of academia I don't have to even abide by that trash any longer and can read people worthy of being read.
Colin, thank you for your comment. I want to make it absolutely clear: I am not espousing eugenics, and I am not espousing anything that comes even close to that foul smelling doctrine. I think you and Brian are reading this essay in the light of the 20th century, which I clearly wasn't expecting. I actually thought this would be a fairly uncontroversial piece: ok, the world is overpopulated, so people should have fewer babies; nothing super controversial there. I think there were definitely parts that I could have been clearer, and some of the criticisms you are making would be rendered null by later essays, but they haven't been published yet. Later on I will elaborate exactly what kind of politics I would espouse and it is small, local, and anti-Machine. Something along a mix of primitive communism, guild socialism, and direct democracy, with some aristocratic elements built in. It is sort of hard to sum up in a few lines, but it would preclude any sort of eugenicist policies.
Also, as I made clear in this article, I said the population should be reduced. I stand by that. I never, once, said that only certain portions of the population should be reduced. Population should be reduced across the board. I did state, very clearly, that the methods to be used, should not utilize the means of the Machine, and should be compassionate. I didn't want to go into details, because frankly I don't know what will work, but I was thinking along the lines of education, birth control, and abstinence. Ideally, I would hope that the overpopulation of the planet would be self evident and that all people would voluntarily choose to have fewer babies, for the good of the world.
Next week will be back to normal, but then it will be quite a few really negative criticism based weeks. The first half of these essays are designed to tear things down. I do promise that the second half will be positive and solutions focused, along with putting forth an entire philosophy and theology. But first I must grind this whole modern edifice down.
By the way, in addition to what I just wrote to you, if you are so inclined, I would love to have you flesh out what parts of this essay suggested eugenics. I just don't see it. I never said only the so-called desirable elements in society should be left. I find racialist policies reprehensible. FYI, I also find abortions of children just because they will have down syndrome reprehensible. I hope that clears things up, but I would still like to hear from you what you think the problem areas are so that I may clarify those parts in the final book. Thanks again, and I truly value your feedback!
And as for the draconian measures I mentioned, it is not what I think you were reading into it. In the Middle Ages if a child was unable to get their libido under control, parents would often send that child of theirs to a monastery or convent. I am thinking something similar: namely if the voluntary measures don't work, that there is a society built around the very ancient concept of shame, and that the parents or village elder would send that child, male or female, off to a separatist community so they couldn't reproduce until they meditated on the harm they had done. Now, this would not be limited to a specific group of people, but would ideally apply to everyone. I know I am not helping my case here, and I know this all probably sounds ridiculous, insane, etc. to you, but it is the very antithesis of machine-based or modern; it is wholly traditional in its own way. Ideally, once technology is gone and the population has been reduced to a normal level, the population levels would be self-sustaining, as they were for tens of thousands of years. The problem is what do we do now. It is a big problem, and at least I am trying to think of solutions. Pentti Linkola said the United Nations should have controlled nuclear explosions above all the major cities. I personally think that is insane, and I also think Linkola was indulging in some hyperbole to make an intelligent point that we need to do something. Wars could theoretically help, but I and Lawrence are vociferously against all modern warfare. I don't think only the rich, only the intelligent, or only people from a certain background, religion, or color of skin should survive, It shocks me that two people now would impute these sad, pathetic views to me. Perhaps it is because of my stance on liberal immigration policies? I have those views for simple, practical reasons having nothing to do with far-right groups: simply the birth rate in some countries is exorbitantly high and if countries with lower birth rates keep letting in people from countries with high birth rates, the high birth rates in those countries will stay high.
Thank you. I do, truly value this feedback. The points you raise are important points that I definitely will need to clarify in the final text. I am not only here to speak out from the top of a soapbox, but to learn. Whatever the future has in store, it has to be collaborative, otherwise we will end up in another authoritarian, utopian disaster, just like last century.
I have spent probably half of my life in "underdeveloped" countries, and many aspects of life in those places, particularly in the smaller towns and villages is far better than anything we have in the West, but modern media and the unceasing propaganda machine have colonized the minds and hearts of people everywhere to think that modern life is great.
I don't lay claim to coming up with the "right" solutions, but I hope my essays provoke some thought about what solutions could work, because right now we are heading for a disaster, and in some ways the disaster is already here.
1. I am not pro-solar or wind power; I am against electrical power as such. I would prefer that we discarded the entire history of technological innovations of the last 300 years. That being said, given that we live in this mess we have collectively made, I am absolutely, vehemently against all forms of nuclear power. The Book of Revelation describes events eerily similar to what happened at Chernobyl, and Chernobyl itself in proto-Slavic means wormwood. I am also against systems, and would prefer that the water, air, and land be as little polluted as possible, so I am not in favor of centralized power of any sort. Probably the best short-term solution is a massive cut-back in individual power use combined with individual use of the least destructive form of renewable energy for a particular environment, such as off-grid solar in deserts.
2. I am a staunch supporter of the vast majority of ideas of Pentti Linkola, who was influenced by Malthus. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but to call them "insane" is both off the mark and unfair. All it takes is for one to look around at the state of the world to realize we have massively overpopulated the planet and destroyed much of the natural beauty in this world. I do believe that we should reduce the population to reasonable levels through strict control of the birth rate. That may not be a popular opinion, and it may cause much suffering, but it is better than the alternative.
3. Later on in this series I will elaborate a political philosophy, but suffice it to say it is not democracy. I am not going to repeat what I will write in future essays, but I will say that the system I will elaborate will not be a copy of Plato's political doctrines, but it will have a deeply aristocratic character.
4. Yes, it is sad, but humans today have become "sad" and "sick". Humans are the only species that have been given the free will to choose to rise up to theosis or to sink lower than anything else in Creation. I believe humans are capable of great things, but have been led into mechanism and automatism through a number of factors, leading many of them to make Faustian bargains with the Beast / Machine. These fallen humans are essentially machine-robots.
I see that you approach things from a Protestant perspective. I doubt you will like much of what comes next in these essays. I approach things from a mix of universalist, pagan, and esoteric Christian and Muslim lenses, and I believe that institutionalized Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, has been responsible for a great deal of our contemporary morass. I follow Max Weber in this. I am an unapologetic anti-capitalist (though I am also an unapologetic anti-Marxist, and I will be elaborating a system of economics most closely related to primitive or Biblical communism, because, guess what, Jesus was a socialist). But, I do thank God for Protestants such as William Blake.
I did back up my comment. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the world is insanely overpopulated. You don't have to be a Malthusian to notice that. Lawrence saw it over 100 years ago, and it is visible everywhere today. To a person whose eyes are so veiled that he or she cannot see that, I have very little more to say. You seem to think I am approaching this from a resource perspective. If so, you are wrong. Humanity may or may not be able to go on indefinitely expanding on this planet, but qualitatively, life for all other species, and humanity itself will continue to dwindle to a shadow of what life used to be. Look to the polluted air, water, and ground; look to the destruction of habitats and extinction of species. It is all due to human hubris. Since you seem to be a proud partisan of human egotism and hubris, I will not try to convince you otherwise, but I will pray for your soul.
I am not anti-human, nor anti-natalist, nor misanthropist. It is out of my deep love for humanity that I want humanity to lead healthier, saner modes of life. Almost 10 billion people on this planet is neither healthy, nor sane.
And then you start some ridiculous criticisms. Congratulations on having an active imagination, but I am not advocating anything you accuse me of. Go back and reread the article. I very clearly stated that population should be reduced through a reduction of the birth rate, using sane and compassionate means, such as education. You are accusing me of advocating for racialist politics, wanting to send people off to gas chambers, and forced sterilization, none of which is true. When I spoke of draconian measures, and that only as a last resort, I was referring to sending people who couldn't get their libidos under control, off to separatist communities: monks on one side, nuns on the other.
Regarding Chernobyl, I simply presented you with an interesting fact. I am against nuclear power because it is insane, Satanic, demonic, etc.
Your last paragraph veers off into the truly insane. None of what you accuse me of has the least basis in my article, nor in my beliefs. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks without justification. If am willing to engage in a healthy debate with people who do not agree with me, but if you continue these unjustified and unprovoked attacks that have no basis whatsoever in reality, then I will ban you from this forum. Please keep all future comments limited to the realm of reality. My advocating for birth control is in no way tantamount to the vile things you accuse me of, so please get a reality check.
Have a nice day, and I pray that the Gods open your eyes and heart.
I am not backpedaling. Yes, there are too many people. Yes, there needs to be a reduction in population. But, no, I never advocated the things you accuse me of. My dearest friends are Bosnian, and I spent many years of my life in Bosnia, so your accusations of advocating genocide are deeply offensive. I specifically stated that population should be reduced "but /not/ through the means of machines and mechanism, but through sane, compassionate means." War, genocide, mass murder, extermination camps, abortions, forced sterilization, etc. are all machine-methods, and hence I am vociferously opposed to them on that count and all other counts. I was being specifically vague as to my recommendations, because, frankly, I don't know exactly what will help or work, but I assumed that my readers would follow my line of thought and see that I am referring to voluntary birth control, education, chastity, etc.
The state of the world today is sick, just like the state of a heroin addict is sick, and just like the addict, the world needs to recover from its addiction (to technology), but there are no easy roads. The addict who wants to get healthy will suffer on the road to recovery. The world that gradually and humanely reduces the birth rate through education and voluntary abstinence will also suffer, but it is a better option than the techno-hell that is on the horizon.
As for methods, I will reiterate that I recommend education, birth-control and abstinence. It is nothing so radical, as these methods are already working in many northern-European countries. Realistically, I don't think that most people will abide by these recommendations, just as I, sadly, don't think most people will give up their phones, which is why I will be advocating for communities separate from modern society, namely Rananim. It is basically my take on the Benedictine option, but I approach it from a universalist angle.