top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Nature versus nature


Both left and right claim to be natural. The neo-hippy who lives in a canal barge decorated with Indian feathers, a dream catcher, and a little Buddha statue (grubby) says, “Capitalism destroys the environment, it’s unnatural—just let the forest be, just let people do what they want. If we didn’t have all these unnatural chemicals we wouldn’t have climate change!”

The conservative says, “It’s unnatural to say a man can have a baby—only women, a biologically female human, can have a baby.” A few decades ago, they would have said “sodomy is unnatural” but they’ve given that up now—anyway, the point remains the same (how long before they give up on “the female mother”, though?).

So both sides of the political divide claim to be “natural”. The difference reflects the feminine and masculine positions. Women are more natural than men (Mother Nature) but they are unconscious of themselves as nature. Men are also natural, part of nature, but we are that part of nature that knows it is nature—in other words, we are nature knowing itself.

This clarifies how both sides in the political debate can claim to be “natural”. The left claims to be natural in the sense that you should let nature carry out its processes without interruption, just let the garden overgrow—don’t shave your armpits, don’t wash (deodorant is so artificial, it’s like poison). Don’t make any civilisation, it’s unnatural—it destroys the natural world.

This sounds benign, until you realise it means “just let criminals out of the prisons, let it naturally work itself out”—it turns out that what this means in actuality is “the law of the jungle”, or “the law of the gulag”; and, of course, that is what women like—the most barbaric, ruthless man imaginable (the thug). Hence it’s “natural” to let violent prisoners out, it’s natural not to discipline miscreants—just “let them be”.

This is, in fact, a corruption of a spiritual principle, the Tao—it’s the reduction of a spiritual principle (non-interference, resist not evil) and its transfer to the material level.

Meanwhile, the masculine position is that since we are the part of nature that knows it is nature we can make laws and take actions to trim back nature qua nature. This is equivalent to the Christian idea of “stewardship”.

The masculine principle is mysterious because it is based on reduction—it’s about what you remove, what you strip out. The feminine principle, by contrast, always wants to add—it wants to add more babies, more lush untamed rainforest.

Of course, growth that is unconstrained is cancer—hence the male principle must intervene to strip back this raw chaos. Just like the sculptor, the male removes in order to create.

It is not the case that either side is “correct” or “incorrect”, but one side is higher—the side that is higher is the masculine side, because it is conscious of itself. Unconscious nature just “doing her thing” is monstrous to behold—and easily becomes evil, because it is excessive (just think about the fecundity of the Amazon and the horrors that lurk within to understand nature “just doing her thing”).

Broadly, the two principles could be called “descriptive” and “normative”. The feminine left sees something happen and says, “It’s just natural, man—just let it happen,” the masculine right sees something happen and says, “It must be stripped back”.

The abuse of the Tao occurs because this is a principle of consciousness where you control by observation alone; it is the highest form of nature knowing itself, it develops from spiritual discipline (true anarchy comes from absolute discipline, per magical reversal)—but it is perverted in a material way, especially by anarchists, as “just let everyone do whatever they want (even if it contains a hidden malevolence).”


You sometimes see people, like Robert Anton Wilson and Grant Morrison, who present a libertarian version of “let nature be” that can seem like it is on the right. So they say things like, “Nuclear power is natural, it’s all from naturally occurring chemicals—and we’re part of nature too, so nuclear power is natural. No problem.”

The fallacy, the leftist fallacy, is that “natural” is the same as “good”. Water is also natural, as natural as uranium, but it can be very bad for you in large quantities—and even, like uranium, in small quantities (if, for example, you collapse facedown in a half-inch puddle and drown).

The same is often said as regards drugs, like cocaine and cannabis—these are “natural” and, therefore, “benign”. It’s a fallacy—just as evil and good depend on the amount, so does whether or not a substance is poison or not. The problem with nuclear power is that the waste it produces can be fatal in very small amounts and remains in existence, in a form invisible to human senses, for centuries—and the problem with drugs is that a small amount of, say, heroin can easily kill someone or derange their normal abilities to function.

It’s a conflation of the descriptive and the normative. Wilson and Morrison are not awake, no matter what they think—they’ve just found a means to justify their hedonism and worship of technology (which can appear, in its libertarian aspect, on “the right”—nuclear power and decriminalised drugs).


This division also applies to the philosopher Spinoza—about whom there is disagreement as to whether he is an atheist or not. Spinoza has two elements to his God, natura naturans and natura naturata—the former relates to nature in the feminine sense, to the natural world and its laws (a process); and the latter refers to the unchanged God in the traditional sense (which I would identify with nature knowing itself, consciousness).

Because Spinoza identifies God in an almost exclusive way with natura naturans he is an atheist—and he later inspired that other great atheist, Nietzsche. This is because he only identifies with the natural world as unconscious of itself and as understood through scientific regularities; but he does not consider that nature knows itself and knows itself through what is eternal—through the spirit.

As is common among Jews who leave Judaism, Spinoza became ultra-atheistic—though he denied it, presented his idea that the material world was sacred as a novel theory about God.

This is why the Jews are an anti-fragile people: they are “natural” in the feminine sense, being anti-fragile nature “just doing its thing” (like a souk with its dynamic vitality derived from chaos).

However, they are the most unnatural people in the masculine sense, because they are like nature “just doing its thing” with no masculine awareness, like an unpruned garden—hence Jesus attempted to return them to nature in the masculine sense, and the Jews are the natural allies of women (both being unconscious of themselves).

Today, we live in a largely “Spinozistic” world, one where everything is thought to be determined by the laws of nature (with no room for miracles)—and this view has informed many negative trends, from Freudianism to Marxism to Nietzsche’s destructive philosophy (a philosophy of chaos, of “the law of the jungle”—of femininity). It is in this sense, the sense of natura naturans, that most people understand “nature” today—and it is atheistic, feminine, and materialistic.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page