On Race and Racism

On Race and Racism

Pertinence dictates that race and racism ought to be discussed within any wider treatise that purports to diagnose the modern world’s evident sickness. Not, though, because this demanded by apparatchiks of globalisation – which it invariably is – but precisely because questions of anthropology and its relation to the ecological sphere are not raised with adequate frequency. Ironically, given their eco-focused pretences, mainstream environmentalists appear to forget that man is of nature, not detached from it. They conveniently fail to recognise Natural Law’s jurisdiction over the human sphere, presumably because of the socially uncomfortable conclusions they will be compelled to draw from it – or rather, plainly, that their hypocrisies and insincerity might be exposed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon genuine, dissident environmental thinkers to posit the pertinent queries on this issue, and then to elucidate their conclusions without deference to feeble notions of social convention or pre-existing prejudices. That dismissal of convention is ever more crucial within our zeitgeist, one which demands not only the exposition of this topic but also that the exposer aligns himself with predetermined conclusions brought forth by the aforementioned apparatchiks of globalisation. The honest thinker must be intransigent in his opposition to such dogmas.

It is frankly staggering, bemusing bordering the absurd, that those concerned with questions of nature may implicitly recognise omnipresent naturogenic biodiversity, whilst stubbornly asserting no such anthropogenic diversity exists – ironically a mistake frequently made by those for whom diversity is their favoured word. We look upon the natural world and, with our advanced cognitive skills, quite comfortably differentiate members of a genus based upon myriad factors, most commonly including environmental adaptiveness relative to its members’ geographical distribution. Our consciousness appears fond of categorisation, means we employ in abundance with all genera bar Homo. We are quite prepared to attribute the colouring of one subspecies to environmental adaptivity, yet entirely unprepared to use the same empiricism in our analysis of humanity. Perhaps such displays of absurdity motivate thinking people’s natural inclination to discard the mad ramblings of mainstream environmentalism? In any case, it’s imperative that said absurdity is mocked for that which it is by a more holistic approach. For we know, instinctively, that such biodiversity exists within the human species. This instinct is then confirmed by mainstream biology, however much its conclusions are suppressed; we are well aware of how skin colour, height, muscle fibre composition and relative pilosity, amongst many other features, vary widely within our species for perfectly good, natural reasons. We might even suspect cognitive and temperamental variation between Homo sapiens, a suspicion that is, of course, confirmed, albeit with muffled voices, by mainstream biology. However, there is no requirement to provide an ad litteram description of what can and cannot be discerned from existing biological research. Rather, we must examine how the reality of this human biodiversity affects (or, should affect) the way in which we understand the concept of race against the backdrop of a deep ecological outlook. For it is implicitly the responsibility of genuine environmentalists to examine societal issues, such as race and racism, in this context; that humanity is of nature, rather than above it, permits us to apply naturogenic theory thereto. It is also the case, as we shall examine shortly, that Industrialism and its illegitimate child, globalisation, are intimately intertwined with issues of race and racism – a critique of Industrial Society is invalid should it not contain an examination of these topics.

The basic position on race and racism held by the pro-Industrial, mainstream environmentalists is the standardised leftist position, namely that peoples of European descent negatively affect peoples of the Third World by contributing to Climate Change, thereby making their countries uninhabitable due to extreme weather. Even if we overlook the fact that there are obvious scientific problems with this theory, it is clearly false; the overwhelming majority of carbon emissions emanate from other Third World countries, notably China and India. European nations are relatively cleaner. Furthermore, this theory actually fails to recognise that race and racism is a much more substantial issue that stretches far beyond sustainable energy consumption, or lack thereof. How would mainstream environmentalists address racism within OECD countries, or within Third World countries? Its position would painfully expose its watery foundations. Moreover, any solutions derived from this faux theory would fail to address the long-term issues surrounding race, or redress the consequences thereon caused by Industrialism. The reality is, to even the briefest observer, that racial tension isn’t in short supply; animosity between various groups around the world is arguably higher than at any point in recorded history. This is especially true in markedly heterogenous territories, exemplified by those so-called tolerant liberal democracies of the west which have become lands of the now-infamous racially charged undercurrent.

The racial manifestations of Industrialism are manifold and require careful extrication. Firstly let us ask; does racism exist? The answer is most certainly yes. The form in which it exists is a slightly more complex question that can be broken down geographically. There are racial problems both internationally and within territories. Internationally, we may witness racism on display, generally speaking, between territories considered highly developed, and those considered underdeveloped. The primary mode of this is economic; the occident has expanded its system of global finance – enabled by mass production and Industrialism – which now exerts great pressure upon underdeveloped territories, entrapping them within a pernicious debt spiral in order to ensure their conformity to international standards of Industry (including ‘business’). Additionally, developed territories of the east are increasingly outsourcing menial tasks of mass production to the Third World, thereby taking advantage of their extremely low labour costs. Territories in which Industrialism reigns supreme have snared the Third World and redesigned it as their factories, ensuring compliance by way of international finance – that unscrupulous, shameless system through which Industrialism exerts malevolent soft power.

Racial turmoil is becoming increasingly fraught internally, in heterogenous territories – most notably the ‘multicultural’ territories of the western world. Such problems exist in two forms, both born of resentment for the other within a negative relationship of economic structure. Those of Third World extraction frequently find themselves in a position of economic disadvantage, relative to their European counterparts; as a result, the latter questions the motives and integrity of the former, whilst the former resents the latter’s relative success. Thus, there exists an increasing degree of mutual resentment between two core groups within territories. This is exacerbated by cultural differences that cause a clash of attitudes on a range of social issues. Racial tension is further potentiated by the importation of what effectively amounts to a labour force from the Third World to the First; this is predicated on Industrialism’s demand for perpetual growth (The Myth of Progress §2 1.5) which, as we have discussed elsewhere, can be achieved by two means; either through further optimisation of the relevant mode of production or, should there be no further optimisation possible, the expansion of the labour force which increases raw output. Therefore, Industrialism dictates that new peoples – whom it views not as people at all – ought to be imported, regardless of the cost to existing populations or the newcomer himself. Moreover, it further demands that peoples within existing countries that are not yet integrated into the Industrial System be assimilated thereby. This can be seen most notably in political territories with an indigenous population separate from that which is dominant.

The foremost cause of the aforementioned manifestations of racial tension is Industrialism’s enforcement of inauthentic modes of living. For reasons amounting to cynical exploitation of natural resources, territories of the north which designed the Industrial mode of production compel nations of the Third World to adopt its rigid structures which are anathema to their national sensibilities. Internally, territories in which European-descended peoples are predominant expect their compatriots of Third World extraction to live within the Industrial system; expectations inherently possess two dimensions, namely the consequences of both meeting and falling short thereof. Should the latter eventuality transpire, a state of resentment brews between he who sets expectations and he who cannot meet them. This perpetuates racial tension on both a national and international basis. We are generally prevented from acknowledging this, for it implies – at least to the mainstream mind – notions of hierarchy amongst races; a race must be inferior if it cannot achieve similar results to another in Industrial Society. But this is based on fallacious assertions. The inability of a race to conform to the constructs of another race has no basis in value, but rather it is a question of adaptability. And the maladaptivity of a race to an alien environment and mode of living suggests not that said race is inferior, but rather that it is attempting to live in environs to which it is simply not suited. Indeed, racism occurs when the politically dominant race attempts to compel others to conform to its mode of production and, thus, society.

This notion has been perpetuated by universalists for centuries. Starting in the colonial period, the plutocrats of European political structures made their way to “primitive” territories and compelled their inhabitants to change their modes of living to suit the invader. It is perhaps unpopular to assert this, but it cannot be denied, morally speaking, that this is a genuine act of racism; the inference that an environment is inherently inferior because the “primitive” peoples inhabiting it do not subscribe to the plutocrats’ ideals of economy. This set in motion a predetermined conflict between races, based primarily upon modes of production. The Industrial Revolution heightened the disparities between modes of production, but it by no means revolutionised them. It did proliferate the expansion of the west’s methods, for the perpetual search for expanding profit pressured corporate entities to continually seek new lands with new natural and human resources to exploit. This relationship that began in the early colonial period and was entrenched by the Industrial Revolution remains extant to this day, as we have discussed with the internal and international tensions that are so evident in our epoch.

How do we solve this problem? It would be no mean feat to do so. The deconstruction of Industrial Society necessarily precipitates the reduction in tension between peoples; we cannot achieve harmony whilst attempting to enforce alien modes of production on peoples not adapted to it. Furthermore, the destruction of Industrialism shifts our perspectives from profit-driven exploitation to a more anthropocentric approach to society – humanism, in a secular sense. Once this deconstruction has been achieved, we must conceive of a new society (The Myth of Progress, Part 3 §10-11) based upon authentic modes of living – which are naturally variable based upon what a people is most suited to. This is a strictly voluntary process that ought not attempt hegemony. It must not be forgotten throughout this process that Europeans, too, are unsuited to Industrial Society – they just happen to possess attributes that enable them to fare marginally better than their Third World counterparts. Nevertheless, it is essentially inauthentic for any people of any race or creed to live as Wage Slaves in mass societies of overpopulated concrete structures and endless steel monstrosities. Thus, the solution to the problems of race and racism must necessarily be universal, and so engendering a pluralistic outcome.