From Deep Ecology to Neo-Nazism: A Modest Proposal
by Evelyn Wright Beekman
This new addition to our “Spurious and Dubious” section seems to have first appeared on the web in 2002 on the Reader Mail page of the Vanguard News Network. Although the article claims not to be a satire, it seems to be a rather masterfull attempt to cast Savitri Devi in the worst possible light: as the inspiration for a kind of James Bond villain, pampering cats and plotting the extermination of most of the human race on an orbiting space station or in some secret subterranean lair.
What makes this article dubious is that it ignores Savitri Devi’s entire philosophy of history. Beekman envisions a “final solution” to the dysgenics, overpopulation, and environmental destruction of the late Kali Yuga. But during the Kali Yuga, nobody could attain the power necessary to put Beekman’s plans into action. And when the Kali Yuga comes to a close, the crash itself will put an end to the problems Beekman laments. So, when the new Golden Age dawns and people might be inclined to think Beekman’s proposals wise and grant him or her the power to put things in order, the problems will no longer exist.
—R. G. Fowler
In France there is a place called Saint Chamond, twenty kilometers from my native town. . . . Up till 1875, they had a custom . . . they tied a poor cat by its tail above a fire. And the string burnt, naturally. . . . The poor cat would fall into the flames and then run away. And they would run after the burning cat, through the streets . . .
I heard of all that when I was a child. It put me absolutely against mankind. And when I started hearing of some movement in Germany, the National Socialist movement, “It’s inhuman!”
“Inhuman?” I said, “Goodness me. I’m going to go in it. If it’s inhuman, I like it.”
“Well, well, very good. I wouldn’t have touched if it was human. It’s inhuman? All right.”
—Savitri Devi, Interviewed in New Delhi, May [actually November—Ed.] 1978
A couple of years back I was a Jew-loving extreme Leftist. The only racist attitudes I had were toward Whites. Like the Jew Susan Sontag, I believed that the White race is a cancer on the planet. Now I am a pro-White, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi.
What makes me a “neo” Nazi? First, the Nazis mixed an inclusive White nationalism with divisive elements of Nordicism and German Nationalism, whereas I reject anything that divides Whites. Second, the Nazis did not aim at global or even European hegemony, but simply wanted all Germans in one state and later some Lebensraum in the East, whereas I believe that decisions must be made for the common good of the whole planet, and such decisions can only be made by a world government—a White world government. Third, the Nazis did not believe in genocide, but I do—genocide on a far bigger scale than merely ridding the world of a few million Jews. To quote the old Garbo movie “Ninotchka,” this planet needs “fewer but better” people—billions fewer.
So what changed my mind? Surprisingly little.
You see, before my conversion, I was a “deep” or radical ecologist, a supporter of Earth First! and other such organizations. I was—and still am—a deep ecologist because I believe that our present form of civilization is leading to a biological apocalypse. Human beings have always been filthy and destructive creatures. Using nothing more than herds of goats and sheep, prehistoric men created the Sahara desert. Using nothing more than spears and bows and arrows, primitive men hunted countless species to extinction. Modern science has made it possible to understand what has happened and how to change it. But modern technological civilization has only exacerbated the problem by making possible an ever-increasing world population and giving it ever more powerful tools to ravage the natural world. Man-made climactic change, pollution, erosion, habitat encroachment, and the destruction of healthy biodiversity will—if they are not halted soon—lead to a global ecological collapse every bit as catastrophic as the asteroid impact that some scientists hypothesize caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Countless species will disappear and billions of human beings, whose lives were made possible by the technological system, will starve.
What is the solution? We need to create a new, sustainable form of civilization, a civilization at peace rather than at war with the ecosystem on which we depend. We need to stop sawing off the branch on which we sit.
In his book The Fatal Conceit, the Austrian-school economist F.A. Hayek argued that such deep ecological schemes are immoral because the modern technological system supports billions of human lives that could not be supported by a different system. I used to find this argument compelling. But in the end I rejected it for two reasons.
First, billions of people will starve anyway when the system eventually breaks down, and they will take countless other living things with them. Thus our choice is not whether billions of people die, but merely how they will die, which ones will die, and whether they will take other creatures with them.
Second, I just do not value human life as much as Hayek does. I do value human life, but I do not value it any more than animal life. In fact, most human beings are less loveable than animals. Animals simply do what comes naturally, and one cannot blame them for that. Human beings have free will, and most of them choose to act badly, which makes them less loveable than animals in my eyes. Furthermore, even if all human beings were as loveable as animals, the human population is growing at the expense of other creatures. More Africans mean fewer lions, fewer elephants, fewer rhinos. More Chinese mean fewer pandas. More Indians mean fewer tigers. Given the choice between a million Africans and one lion, I would take the lion. Given the choice between a million Chinese and one panda, I would take the panda. Given the choice between a million Indians and one Bengal tiger, I would take the tiger. Human beings are in no danger of extinction, whereas all too many animals are—because of human beings.
So before I came to neo-Nazism, I had already decided that, in order to save the whole of nature, it is necessary to reduce the human population by billions. What brought me to neo-Nazism is the question “Which people?”
The radical environmental movement is not free of racism. Quite the contrary. It is filled with racism of the stupidest kind. First of all, the environmentalist and animal rights movements consist almost entirely of Nordic Whites. One simply does not find Negroes, Mestizos, and Jews in National Parks or in environmentalist groups. (In California, at least, one does find a few Indians and Orientals.) Yet radical environmentalists are almost all anti-White racists. I certainly was.
Now, there is some basis for this anti-White racism. After all, the technological system that has to be changed is almost entirely a creation of White people: White scientists who unlocked the secrets of nature, White inventors who used science to increase our mastery of nature, White businessmen who created mass-production techniques, and White imperialists who made the system global. Because of these crimes, quite a few goofy White people chuck biodiversity and think the White race deserves extinction. After all, none of this would have happened in a world populated with Australoids or Papuans.
But then I learned five things.
First, featherless bipeds of all races have been filthy and destructive—not to mention cruel, warlike, and imperialistic—Australoids and Papuans among them. The great sin of the White man is that he has simply been more successful than the other races. So in fact Whites are not being condemned for their sins, but for their virtues.
Second, a world without White people would also be a world without environmentalists and animal rights activists. It would be a world without the technologies necessary to clean up the environment. It would be a world that never develops, eventually, “Jurassic Park” technologies to restore extinct species to the earth.
Third, I read the Unabomber’s manifesto and “Ship of Fools” parable and found his critique of Leftist environmentalism to be compelling. Leftists really are oversocialized and devitalized people who are physically and spiritually unhealthy. They also blur the environmentalist message by linking it to all sorts of traditional Left-wing causes, like improving standards of living in the Third World and sending food to starving people—measures that can only contribute to environmental devastation.
Fourth, I realized that the dogmatic Leftist egalitarianism of most radical environmentalists leads them to chuck biology when it comes to human beings, but a consistently ecological outlook would require the scientific study of man, which reveals that there are radical differences between the races that are biological and not merely cultural.
Finally, I had never really been bothered by the fact that Hitler supposedly slaughtered six million Jews and twenty million Russians. In fact, I was never really bothered by the millions slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. As Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.” Had all these people survived, the planet would be even more over-populated and over-stressed than it is today. And as for the stories of Nazi medical experiments on human beings, I thought that this was scientifically and morally more defensible than tests on innocent animals. But then I read some attacks on radical environmentalism that tried to smear it by pointing out that the most radically environmentalist regime in history was Nazi Germany. That only raised the Nazis in my estimation and piqued my curiosity to read further. I read David Irving’s The War Path and Hitler’s War, Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on the Jewish problem, and Savitri Devi’s important manifesto of neo-Nazi Deep Ecology Impeachment of Man, and many other books besides. I was converted.
So what is to be done? What would I do if I ran the zoo?
First, what deep ecologists need to learn is that we do not merely need to control the quantity of the human race, but the quality as well. My objection to Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot is not that they murdered millions of people, but that they chose to murder the best people in their societies, not the worst. Hitler, by contrast, was a eugenic rather than dysgenic killer. That is to his credit. That makes all the difference in the world to me. Since the best people on the planet are White, we should maintain the present White population and then slowly reduce it over time with a eugenically directed birth control program. As for non-Whites: they should be eliminated in mass as quickly as possible.
Second, I admit that I am something of a moderate when it comes to mass killing. Unlike some neo-Nazis out there who dream of exterminating every non-White on the planet, I really do believe in biodiversity. (Although I admit that a world without Negroes would be terribly appealing.) Thus I am all for drastically reducing the non-White population and keeping it within strict limits. And since the Jews really aren’t a race unto themselves, but merely a mongrel population that thinks of itself as a race, there would be no harm in eliminating them altogether. Besides, it is the Jews more than any other group who are responsible for the anthropocentrist folly at the root of the ecological crisis, not to mention their other mischief.
Third, it would be folly to turn our backs on modern science and technology, because without them it would be impossible to undo the ecological damage that we have already done. Without them it would be impossible to improve the quality of the White race. Without them it would be impossible establish and maintain the global regime necessary to reduce and then maintain the world population. Finally, as Savitri Devi points out, without them it would be impossible to eliminate the suffering and exploitation of animals endemic to more primitive societies. V.S. Naipaul makes a valuable point in mocking the dogmas of primitivism in one of his books on India. He notes that the traditional Indian bullock cart has been improved in all sorts of ways: wheel bearings, springs, rubber tires, etc. Then he wonders if they might find room in it for a small motor as well so the poor bullock can ride in the back rather than pull the cart, goaded constantly by a stick shoved into its anus. Science and technology are not inherently bad. They are only bad if used foolishly. Used wisely, they can be a great boon to all living things, not just mankind. They can allow mankind to assume the role of steward of nature, not just its exploiter.
Fourth, I think that the far Right has a lot to learn about organizing, activism, and self-sacrifice from the deep ecology, animal rights, and anti-globalist movements. Unlike most people on the Right, the members of these groups are quite ready to engage in protests, sabotage, terrorism, and even, in the case of Pim Fortuyn, assassination, in order to advance their cause. If more people were willing to the take risks for the survival of the White race that others take for the survival of lab rats, the Right would be far more effective than it is today. In fact, I urge Rightists to infiltrate these groups in order to learn from them and even to subvert them into advancing our cause.
How do I respond to the charges that what I propose is cruel and inhuman? Given how rotten most humans are, I will gladly accept the charge of inhumanity. I do not think that human beings are the be-all and end-all of the universe, and if that is inhuman, then so be it. Other creatures have just as much right to live as human beings—more right in some cases. I am not the only person who, if given the choice between saving my dog and saving a rotten human being—or a million rotten human beings—would choose the dog. As to the charge of cruelty: I do not propose that billions of people be tortured, I simply propose that they be killed—“put to sleep”—in as “humane” a manner as possible, which is far more consideration than they give to lions and tigers and elephants and rhinos and whales. To those who think that even humane killing is cruel, I ask: Which is crueler, allowing the system to collapse of its own weight, causing indiscriminate mass death of human beings, including the best human beings, not to mention the extinction of countless other species—or avoiding this apocalypse by selectively killing the least valuable human specimens? My way, in the long run, is far less cruel.
Finally, to those who think that this essay is merely an exercise in Swiftian satire: Just try me.