You just described why I introduced by home-schooled children to Juliana Butterfly Hill via the documentary https://butterflyfilm.net/ AND to the Oregon Public Broadcasting series on loggers and activists, which portrays both sympathetically: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLytPuJnaUvWDtLUPg1fWO9cQvaR07V3tN. For me, it's not just about whose position is "right"—conservationist vs. neoliberal globalist… or neither. It's about teaching love of the local, and what flows from there. —Mꟲ
This appears to be a distinction that makes no difference in practice. For example you write:
> We see this kind of local and deeply embedded in the landscape activism for wilderness preservation in the movement led by Lakota Sioux Native Americans at the long standing camp to stop the Standing Rock pipeline project.
> This website site says “we stand together for tribal sovereignty,” can you imagine some deracinated leftist environmentalist soy jack saying that in a heartfelt fashion? It is a deeply reactionary and localist sentiment, good!
Are you a Lakota? If not, why do you care about their reactionary and localist sentiment? Is it out of some sense of reactionary solidarity? If so, congratulations, you've just become a universalist environmentalist.
False, you can support other reactionaries fighting their own unique and particular fights to save their homes, without having some grand universal plan that is applicable to all people for the world.
You back all fights against the machine that is trying to impose that which is globally culturally uniform and change and technique driven, over that which is local, particular and in homeostasis.
Any other easy questions I can answer for you?
Note backing them does not mean you move yourself and become involved in person, but you consider their local fight to be on the same side as your local fight.
Because the airline industry is part of the machine that is dedicated to destroying nature and human nature. And in the hypothetical I outlined also destroying old trees and a local church that are of tremendous value to the community.
Thanks for the clarification. What is good for the community will always be debated. As long as the debate is within the community I support the process.
Intact eco-system are in homeostasis in regard to things like nutrient cycling and C02 to 02 exchange and back in a continuous cycle, and they are very much alive so your are mistaken. While biological evolution does take place it is at a pace of taking millions of years for substantial changes to take place. The rapid pace of advancement of machine based societies overwhelms this delicate balance between homeostasis of of chemical cycling in eco-systems and gradual evolutionary not revolutionary change, and in doing so endangers both all life on planet Earth and our psyches as well which are not adapted to such rapid change.
I shall quote a classic of fascist thought here, if I may.
《Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations–this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism. Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation.》
In what way was the Hitlerian NatSoc "localist"? Or was it not "right-wing"? And moral constraints certainly did not stop the Hitlerians from the mass-murder of Jews and Russians. Unless you account for a manufacture of a new morality - effectively making the point moot, as the so-called "leftist" liberals are equally as fanatic in their thinking (in fact, it is the liberals who adhere to the old Christian morality of egalitarianism, not the Hitlerians).
You just described why I introduced by home-schooled children to Juliana Butterfly Hill via the documentary https://butterflyfilm.net/ AND to the Oregon Public Broadcasting series on loggers and activists, which portrays both sympathetically: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLytPuJnaUvWDtLUPg1fWO9cQvaR07V3tN. For me, it's not just about whose position is "right"—conservationist vs. neoliberal globalist… or neither. It's about teaching love of the local, and what flows from there. —Mꟲ
Excellent essay, thanks!
Thank you.
This appears to be a distinction that makes no difference in practice. For example you write:
> We see this kind of local and deeply embedded in the landscape activism for wilderness preservation in the movement led by Lakota Sioux Native Americans at the long standing camp to stop the Standing Rock pipeline project.
> This website site says “we stand together for tribal sovereignty,” can you imagine some deracinated leftist environmentalist soy jack saying that in a heartfelt fashion? It is a deeply reactionary and localist sentiment, good!
Are you a Lakota? If not, why do you care about their reactionary and localist sentiment? Is it out of some sense of reactionary solidarity? If so, congratulations, you've just become a universalist environmentalist.
False, you can support other reactionaries fighting their own unique and particular fights to save their homes, without having some grand universal plan that is applicable to all people for the world.
Without something resembling a universal philosophy, how do you decide which side to back in distant quarrels?
You back all fights against the machine that is trying to impose that which is globally culturally uniform and change and technique driven, over that which is local, particular and in homeostasis.
Any other easy questions I can answer for you?
Note backing them does not mean you move yourself and become involved in person, but you consider their local fight to be on the same side as your local fight.
How do you know the airport proponents are part of the machine and not local folks trying to improve the life of their community?
Because the airline industry is part of the machine that is dedicated to destroying nature and human nature. And in the hypothetical I outlined also destroying old trees and a local church that are of tremendous value to the community.
Thanks for the clarification. What is good for the community will always be debated. As long as the debate is within the community I support the process.
BTW, do you know what another word for something that's in homeostasis is?
"Dead".
Intact eco-system are in homeostasis in regard to things like nutrient cycling and C02 to 02 exchange and back in a continuous cycle, and they are very much alive so your are mistaken. While biological evolution does take place it is at a pace of taking millions of years for substantial changes to take place. The rapid pace of advancement of machine based societies overwhelms this delicate balance between homeostasis of of chemical cycling in eco-systems and gradual evolutionary not revolutionary change, and in doing so endangers both all life on planet Earth and our psyches as well which are not adapted to such rapid change.
> You back all fights against the machine that is trying to impose that which is globally culturally uniform and change and technique driven
Except that it's not globally culturally uniform, that's why there are different cultures for it to impose on.
So? No one claimed it was uniform. Each fight is particular to both the eco-system and cultural context it occurs in.
I shall quote a classic of fascist thought here, if I may.
《Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations–this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism. Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation.》
© Kim Jong Il -《On having a correct understanding of Nationalism.》
https://kkfonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/On-Having-A-Correct-Understanding-Of-Nationalism.pdf
In what way was the Hitlerian NatSoc "localist"? Or was it not "right-wing"? And moral constraints certainly did not stop the Hitlerians from the mass-murder of Jews and Russians. Unless you account for a manufacture of a new morality - effectively making the point moot, as the so-called "leftist" liberals are equally as fanatic in their thinking (in fact, it is the liberals who adhere to the old Christian morality of egalitarianism, not the Hitlerians).
I am not quite getting your point here, sorry.