“Hardly anyone in Latvia today knows that a major role was assigned to national romanticism and the close bond between the Aryan race and nature and its forces in the development of Nazi ideology. Some of the pioneers of nationalist ideas include the poet Ernst Moritz Arndt and the writer, journalist, and folklorist Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl. A current of biocentrism can be detected in their works as early as the beginning of the 19th century, combining ethnocentric populism with natural mysticism. These ideas were later used in Nazi propaganda, particularly to appeal to the youth.”
“I would like to know if other countries also have such a strange national quirk as Latvia does. People call and ask: ‘Where are our factories, where are the institutions? We have no jobs, people are leaving.’ As soon as someone wants to build something, there are immediately hundreds of letters: ‘They want to poison us! They want to destroy us! They want to sell us out!’ This was already evident on the programme 1:1 – we don’t need anything, we want to be on our own, we are fine, no factories, no companies, just as long as they don't finish us off!” (Latvijas Radio, “Krustpunktā”)
“For those whose salaries are regularly deposited into their accounts from the state budget, regardless of whether or not there is a state of emergency in the country, it is easy to speculate about extending a 3-month quarantine. Those who no longer have work or whose business has ground to a halt have entirely different worries and a different mood” (Bens Latkovskis, Twitter)
Changes to understandable and familiar routines force us to think, to adapt, to accept. An unusual situation, of the kind one might previously have read about in books or watched in a film that was definitely fictional in nature, creates different anxieties or a different kind of calm for everyone. But it is also a time for expressing various ideas that have not gained wider traction until now. The question, however, is whether we have been prepared for such ideas step-by-step, accidentally and unintentionally.
“It is time to understand that there are serious differences between today's so-called environmental (ecology) advocates (movements) and activists with similar views in the 70s. There are quite a few thinly veiled racists, survivalists, machos, and purveyors of extremely reactionary views who are happy to use the word ecology (environment) to express their views. Likewise, there are deeply committed natural scientists, social radicals, and feminists who use the words ecology and environment to express their views. The difference between the 70s and current trends is not just in disputes over theory, understanding, and ethics. These differences reveal far-reaching practical goals and political consequences. This applies not only to how we see or understand nature, humans, and the environment, but it should be considered a certain recommendation on how and by what means to change society.” (Bookchin, Murray, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge of the Ecology Movement, 1987)
Parallels can be drawn here with a practice clearly noticeable in Latvian journalism – it was once started by a newspaper, mentioning a city leader it disliked out of place and out of context; this tradition is being continued by others, always reminding us out of place and out of context of some president’s “wrongful acts”, the “misdeeds” of the leadership of a city by a river, the “unacceptable attitude” of a publisher’s editor in the past. Currently, the “refined tone” is to mention a sawn-off branch or tree, a mown meadow, or a ploughed field out of place and out of context, definitely emphasising that the listener or reader should perceive work in the fields, forests, bogs, or lakes as critically as possible! In general, it is about our – Latvia's – people who work there – in the fields, forests, bogs, and… It is permissible that a recipient of project funding, to whom a farmer brings a crate of farm produce to their doorstep, has not thought that the farmer “does not buy this in a shop or order it online.”
“There are increasingly frequent cases where the forest owner’s economic and society’s social interests are ignored in the name of defending environmental interests. Forest management is a process where humans influence the state of the forest. It is in the interest of every individual (forest owner) to ensure the sustainability of forestry because their existence depends on it, just as it is in the interest of society to preserve the forest's functions. Limiting individual or societal interests must be linked to compensation. The forest owner must comply with the requirements set by society for preserving the forest's ecological, social, and economic functions in accordance with regulatory acts, while society must compensate the forest owner for the benefits that cannot be obtained in the name of the interests and prohibitions set by society. The interests of society cannot be anthropocentric or biocentric. They must be balanced, filtering out ecofascist ideas and ideas that promote the disproportionate use of resources.”
The discussions about environmental issues in Latvia in recent years have created two camps. Irreconcilable in their cooperation. On one side, those who write projects and constantly publicise their own work, who rarely work in the productive (read – profit-making) sector (see B. Latkovskis’ statement in the introduction). On the other side, those who work, produce, and, relatively speaking, feed us (for now, in Latvia, one can quite successfully buy local vegetables, milk, meat, bread, etc.). I have not happened to hear the latter categorically deny the work of the former – the rare mushrooms found, rare plants, nests of protected birds are not considered non-existent, or as if they were being stolen from us all intentionally, like stubble burning in spring. But!
“…as revealed by ornithologist Māris Strazds on the portal "dabasdati.lv", there were no prior suspicions about the actions of such a predator, but this situation can be explained by the disproportionate clear-cutting of forests, which ensures the prosperity of a few people” (lsm.lv)
Opponents of the Latvian national economy employ a peculiar tactic: they come out with claims that often have no basis or are loud assertions, yet those who object must argue their points in extensive, double-blind, and long-term studies. The forest industry provides Latvia with about 1/5 of its export revenue, and calling these the interests of a small group of people is… We, in Latvia, have quite a strong agricultural, forestry, and peat extraction and processing industry – sectors that provide us with jobs, finances, and the necessary end result – whether it be a wheel of cheese, a log cabin, a bag of peat substrate, or a board. In discussions about morality a few years ago, for some reason (or deliberately), the work ethic, which is still alive in the genes of locals and is often mentioned in our dainas (folk songs), was forgotten. Our experience, however, says nothing about the ethics of “projects, sofas, chairs, or positions.”
“Ecofascism. Environmental historian Michael E. Zimmerman has defined it: ecofascism is totalitarian power (government) that demands the individual sacrifice their interests for the ‘good of the earth (nature)’, by this meaning the ‘wonderful miracle of life or the organic whole of nature, including humans and the states they have created’.”
Zimmerman believes that ecofascism has not existed in a direct form until now, but significant traces of it can be found in one of the slogans of German National Socialism: “Blood and Soil”.
In the developments in Latvia over recent years, “the human being is the most important” has effectively ended up on the side of a catering van. It is about a situation where, operating with “emotional data”, society has been forced to look out a window (in one place, a car or a train – it is unknown), look at Google Maps, and… listen to public media. But, of course, one hears… quite little there about what foresters or farmers have achieved. Instead, the aforementioned project people (reminding you of what B. Latkovskis said) are frequent guests on public media. And that is enough! There would be no tragicomedy in all this if… those who listen would delve deeper and ask: “Where and what exactly indicates that there are changes in terms of biodiversity in Latvia?” “What specific study indicates that a certain sum of money must be invested there, rather than elsewhere?” And it is precisely here that the natural balance of sustainability is disrupted – those who manage the land are forced to spend the money they earned themselves and the time meant for themselves to prove it! Those who write projects only talk! And over the years, a situation has arisen where the talkers are believed more than the doers! Because it is enough to look out of a window that is not in motion!
And as a result of all this, the virus is tearing the veil off the oddballs.
For example:
“I have much greater fear that our planet is dying. The fact that humanity is dying out, even if half of it were to die, does not scare me as much. I am ready to die with others, just so that our planet survives. Viktoria Bonya, Twitter”
Yes, a forced time-out will provide respite for many, but… no one has created the ability to live without eating. No one has implemented a fairy tale in real life where you open your wallet and there is always money in it. No one has abolished a sacred thing in many places – private property, which in Latvia is already becoming the joint property of a past we want to forget. And no one has said what place is being allocated to the human being in Latvia in the current situation. Because – budget and project money flows into other pockets, not those of the doers.
“In my opinion, it is clear that we have become accustomed to the construction of ‘good nature’ – beautiful landscapes, interesting animals. We regain strength, rest, gain peace of mind, and whatever else in ‘good nature’, which helps us and is always at our disposal. But then the pandemic ‘arrives’ with the message that it is not quite the case that ‘nature is our home’ – ‘nature’ couldn’t care less how we are doing. Yes, from time to time we see the ‘terrible power of nature’ in the form of hurricanes, floods, or other disasters, yet this opponent is visible, the damage it causes has a clearly visible beginning and end. It is a completely different thing to live in suspicion that ‘bad nature’ is lurking for us – some pangolins or the already mentioned bats – to unexpectedly attack with invisible weapons and kill. What to do?” (Māris Zanders, “Nost ar sikspārņiem!” satori.lv)
(Photos by Konsta Punkka and zemeunvalsts.lv used)