To believe in a system of thought or government is to accept that no
system will be perfect, and that every system will have difficulties
in defining itself over several generations of design. As we approach
a record year for nationalist and fascist parties worldwide, it is
essential that we take stock of our goals so that we continue the
evolution of our concept and do not fall into the pitfalls of
hastily-conceived political logic.
The period from 2000-2005 was definitive, in that several events
happened in sequence: we saw the future of the "world policeman," the
USA, as being besets by enemies without and within and being unable to
stay on top of them; it was finally shown that not only was our oil
supply diminishing in accessibility, but that our years of growth and
pollution have produced dramatic and damaging effects on our
environment - effects that will revisit us in the future. Further, we
saw that despite fifty years of liberal attitudes toward
multiculturalism in Europe and the USA, differences persist and cause
ongoing, insoluble problems.
Part of our problem as a species is that we are divided not so much by
national borders but by political alignment into "right" and "left."
The right defends traditional values, but has scarcely leant support
to the idea that we must preserve and nurture our environment. The
left accepts environmentalism, but is on a crusade to exterminate
traditional and national values. While the right offers protection for
our traditional ways of life, it also defends large businesses and
threatens an increasingly uptight, financially-motivated society.
While the left will liberate the individual from government, it
increasingly defends blind idealism toward an egalitarian conformity
that will result in Stalinesque totalitarianism.
The Evolution of Fascism and Nationalism
Fascism, a nebulous philosophy based on strong governmental power in
support of indigenous populations, and nationalism, or the idea of
identifying political entities by indigenous population, are on the
rise despite being taboo and illegal in most "civilized" countries.
However, the LNSG thinktank has spotted a danger on the horizon, and
it is the danger the people will see fascism as an "off the shelf"
solution, and try to implement it within the boundaries of our current
political concept. That will end in failure, as fascism will then
become like our left and right parties, another flavor of the
predominant idea and thus prone as well to its failings.
Borrowing from the works of traditionalist thinkers like Julius Evola
and Rene Guenon, we can see the fundamental difference between
modernity and tradition as the reliance of modern societies on
"individualistic materialism," while ancient societies were
"transcendental idealists." The materialist individual system claims
that society exists to provide for the material comfort of its
citizens, and that there is no other goal to society; all modern
systems, including democracy, capitalism, utilitarianism, communism
and socialism arise from this principle. Multiculturalism and "the
civil rights struggle" are a natural extension of this idea to include
internationalism, or the idea that national boundaries and
distinctions between indigenous and foreign populations are
artificial.
In contrast, fascism and nationalism depose individualistic
materialism in favor of not simply collectivism, or working together,
but the idea that civilization is an organic entity with a higher goal
than its immediate state; its goal is to constantly improve, much as
in nature all creatures are subject to natural selection. Like our
thoughts, all orders both physical and abstract benefit from this
principle, by which the thought or creature is defined to adapt to a
circumstance, and those that are more efficient, hardier or (in human
terms) more noble are promoted over those that are relatively less
effective. Civilizations themselves rise or fall by their degree of
adaptation to reality; success is not determined by abstract moral or
economic principles but by how well the civilization functions in its
surrounding environment.
If we are self-confident, and have thought out our belief in the
system we have chosen, we can accept criticism of it by recognizing
that no thing is born complete, and may have to go through several
revisions before it is adapted. Fascism must also undergo natural
selection, not the political kind determined by a single war and the
censorship of the winners of all things fascist, but by its own
adaptation to reality. While the LNSG has no end of respect for Adolf
Hitler and the NSDAP, we believe that Adolf Hitler would castigate us
for not subjecting his own system to the constructive principles of
natural selection.
The American writer Thomas Wolfe, a strapping giant of Dutch-German
extraction, wrote a balance sheet for the fascist society he observed
in 1930s Germany and correctly tallied its strengths and advantages:
Fascism
For
Physical clean-ness
Healthy people
Effective relief
A concentration of natural energy
Against
Suppression of Free Speech
A Cult of Insular Superiority
With this, a need for insular domination
All information from "Thomas Wolfe: A Biography by Elizabeth Nowell,"
Doublebay & Company, Inc, Garden City, New York, 1960.
Wolfe's perceptive eye misses nothing. He is accurate in his
assessment of the tradeoffs undertaken by selecting fascism; what he
does not compare in the chart above is long-term benefit, which can
only be measured on the level of a society as a whole in the context
of its adaptation to nature, and therefore do not come under his
critical eye. Those who endorse fascism, however, should realize that
much as no system is perfect and every system has its weakness,
fascism can succumb to a form of egomania illustrated by Wolfe as "A
Cult of Insular Superiority - With this, a need for insular
domination" and revealed by his final experience in Nazi Germany:
"They had him. Far down the platform the passengers heard the shrill,
sudden fife of the Belgian engine whistle. The guard cried warning.
All up and down the train the doors were slammed...At a creeping pace
it rolled right past the little man. They had him, all right. The
officers surrounded him. He stood among them, still protesting,
talking with his hands now. And the men in uniform said nothing. They
had no need to speak. They had him. They just stood and watched him,
each with a faint suggestion of that intolerable slow smile upon his
face. They raised their eyes and looked at the passengers as the train
rolled past, and the line of travelers standing int he corridors
looked back at them and caught the obscene and insolent communication
in their glance and in that intolerable slow smile." (Thomas Wolfe, I
Have A Thing to Tell You)
The little man is a Jew; it is clear that to preserve nationalist
populations, internationalists such as Jews should be relocated. The
author may not have had a quarrel with this. What he opposed was the
smugness and insularity of the Nazis. How does a fascist learn from
doing this? While what they were doing was right, their methods were
wrong, and their motivations were wrong: they were not joyfully
carrying out the work of forging a new nation, but vindictively
recriminating against the symbol of its antithesis. This is the line
between nationalism and bigotry, between love and hate; while one must
assert national sovreignty, this can rapidly become a crusade against
the Other that, being distracted by such a simple task, forgets the
larger task and rapidly turns authority into abuse of authority. We
must remove impediments to the safety of our cultures, ethnicities and
languages; however, this must be carefully done, or it becomes
destructive. In the case of the NSDAP, a complicated truth was
distilled to a few appearances which were carried out overzealously by
people who did not understand the whole of the philosophy, and thus
rendered it weaker. How many able men who could have been fighting or
improving infrastructure were wasted on chasing down Jews?
Much as in 1936, in 2006 what plagues nationalism is those who would
make it bigotry. While we aspire to a goal higher than individual
humanity, our object is not to become inhuman, but to become a greater
form of human. The smugness of an identity cult - we are Us and the
Other are the enemy - must be replaced by a knowledge that for the
better of all humanity we do what we do. The "obscene smiles" of those
guards were probably fairly represented; what they were doing was not
done for the goodness of the act, but the personal reward they felt in
being better than some Other. This attitude became destructive for the
NSDAP and sidetracked it from more important tasks; it is easier to
fight an enemy than it is to take on the backbreaking work of
reconstructing a nation, and while some leaders of the Nazi party
understood this, they were surrounded by people who did not, and who
used Nazism as a license to make themselves feel better by preying on
others.
To idealize nationalism is to recognize that it is not a magic
solution. It can be misapplied, and can fail. When smugness runs amok,
the good people are not safe, and the revolutionary mindset takes
over; as happened in France, in Russia and even in America,
revolutions have a tendency to organize the dispossed for revenge
against those who are in power, and often end with mass slaughter of
good people alongside the bad. Removing Jews might be necessary, but
it can happen without smugness and the corresponding bad mental health
that introduces. We can turn to one of Europe's greatest thinkers,
Friedrich Nietzsche, for some correction to this outlook:
"For in laughter all that is evil comes together, but is pronounced
holy and absolved by its own bliss; and if this is my alpha and omega,
that all that is heavy and grave should become light; all that is
bdoy, dancer; all that is spirit, bird." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus
Spoke Zarathustra, Penguin Books, New York, 1954.)
After Wolfe's essay was published, the Nazi government banned all of
his books, unnecessarily. It was not that he disagreed with their
ideals, but that he found their methods to lead to a form of bad
psychology, a "cult of insular superiority," and he saw in this the
same kind of undoing that earlier made him rage at black insolence in
America and Jewish elitism in New York. The disease was one and the
same, and Wolfe recognized that until the Nazis transcended this form
of individualistic materialism, a comforting of the self by
denigrating others, there would be no rising to a higher state of
order for them. While the NSDAP was in ideal superior to any other
government then or since, it had in with its great strengths some
great weaknesses, and the greatest of these weaknesses was a
psychological virus of replacing higher ideals with a grotesque human
failing. This failing not only distracted from the goal at hand, but
turned Nazi liberators into thugs, and reduced in the eyes of most
people a grand philosophy to a meagre one: oppress the Other and
achieve victory.
Earlier in his career, Nietzsche wrote a formative essay called "On
Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense," and through it warned about the
dangers of absolute categories like good and evil. To his mind, these
categories short-circuited human thought and replaced assessment of
the situation as whole with a simple ruleset. This process can be seen
in modern society where we have a near holy contemplation for
economics and science; if someone connected to economics says some
idea or event is a good one, normal people back off as if to say, This
was the definitive Word, like that of God, and cannot be argued with.
When certain misinformed geneticists came out with the statement that
race did not "exist," most people looked at the source and came up
with a simple formula: genetics = the highest extreme of scientific
progress, therefore if genetics says it is right, it is right. (The
geneticists made several errors in other disciplines, such as
statistics and anthropology, that allowed them to make erroneous
politically-motivated conclusions.)
As Nietzsche noted, people defer to "proof" in an absolute category
and do not stop to think that things belonging to that category vary
internally; not all geneticists are equal, and not all proclamations
are 100% correct. Neither is any government correct, or any hardline
interpretation of an ideology always correct; such thinking leads to
knee-jerk thinking that distracts from the goal. When a community has
moral fracture within it, small minds burn witches because it is
easier to destroy than to do the hard work of re-creating a moral
fabric to a community; when a government is asserting nationalist
ideals, misinformed people find it easier to destroy the signs of its
decline than to work to counteract those signs by strengthening
language, culture and ethnicity. Removing Jews may be necessary, but
it's not the complete solution, and letting small minds run amok means
that Jews will be removed zealously and the harder tasks of internal
rebuilding forgotten. Such could be a metaphor for the Nazis, who
after securing their borders through initial invasions of Poland and
France should probably have focused on rebuilding Germany internally,
and producing less desperate, better educated, better bred Germans,
leaving the larger geopolitical situation for the next generation.
Instead, small minds dominated the Nazi party much as they dominate in
any democracy, and the Nazis fell prey to the same philosophical and
psychological error that afflicts individualistic materialist
societies like the United States and Soviet Russia.
Much as we defer to absolute categories such as Otherness or the
perceived supremacy of science over logic, in individualistic
materialist societies we defer to one overarching category of supreme
importance: the individual. We are paralyzed by an inability to act if
there is a human loss, whether loss of life or of jobs or of
"freedoms," even if those are destructive. We tolerate obscene and
pedophiliac pornography in the name of free speech; we tolerate waves
of criminality in the name of freedom; we tolerate a society driven by
profit in the name of our own right to earn; we tolerate a lack of
culture so that no one work of art be discriminated against. Until we
get over our tendency toward smugness and petty removal of the Other
in lieu of fixing the situation, our people will be too afraid of that
smugness to approve of any kind of strong power based on shared
values. Nationalists, by not overcomign this tendency toward bigotry,
damage themselves and their own future beyond measure, and its a
wonder that supposedly "intolerant" people are so tolerant of small
minds.
What Nietzsche noted in "On Truth and Lies" applies equally to liberal
democracies and nationalist fascism; the same principle of deferring
to an absolute category, whether belonging to a group such as Germans
or Europeans or belonging to same vague category like genetic science,
leads us to petty implementations of grand ideas that cheapen and soil
those ideas. By the same token, we view individuals as sacrosanct, and
refuse to tell some people "no" because what they are doing is crazy
simply because we fear that that "no" will later be misapplied to
rational courses of action. We cannot trust small minds. What
afflicted the Nazis was a vestige of the individualistic materialism
they sought to destroy; it is through heredity of the concepts of
individualistic materialism that we think of absolute categories,
because the original absolute category was the individual, not vice
versa. The force that nationalism hopes to overcome is the crowd of
individuals each clamoring for their own material comfort and freedom
despite the negative consequences; in order to have that kind of
system, the crowd must set up an absolute in the individual and
enforce through law a system that never tells an individual "no"
regardless of the destructive consequences. Nationalists must do
better than this, and prevent small-minded smug and petty campaigning
against the Other, before they will be accepting by the thinking
people of the West. Oppression can come from liberal democracies,
which drown out all good ideas with popular but delusional ones, but
can also come through individualistic material principles applied to
nationalist and fascist states.
Why Nationalism Is Gaining
People in the current time like nationalism and fascism because they
will end the problems we are experiencing in the age of liberal
democracy. Selfishness leads to overpopulation and pollution of all
good things with the greedy hands and "me too" demands of an
undereducated, underintelligent, and far-less-than-noble population at
large; liberal democracy, by its focus on the individual, not only
endorses but nurtures selfishness. Globalization has shown us that
unless we have a local culture strong enough to be preferred to
cheaper products and flashy but empty entertainment, our culture will
be replaced by those transient things, and soon people from all over
the world will be moved into the midst of our people and breed us into
a uniformity of mixed elements. Those who read history have seen
instances of consumerism, democracy and multiculturalism guiding
thriving republics (Greece, Rome, India) into third-world nonentities.
National culture is the only known successful opposition to
globalization and loss of values and uniqueness as a people.
In the eyes of most people, fascism is government in the style of the
hapless musician in the movie "Spinal Tap" who had an amp that "goes
up to eleven" - when amplifiers normally only go to ten. It is the
idea of super-government, of a power that does not tolerate bad
behavior, destructive acts and mediocrity. While this has a powerful
appeal, it is also a dangerous ideal in that if misapplied, it is of
greater strength than other governments; like Promethean knowledge of
fire, it is both our salvation and a possibility of great accident.
Most nations, like the city of New York, go to an extreme of
"tolerance" and then realize that they have invited bad behavior into
their midst. At that point, strong leaders like Rudy Giuliani arise;
the question is whether these leaders can see their ideas to a logical
conclusion, and abstract it to society as a whole. The Americans have
discovered this through the "broken window theory":
Broken Windows was the brainchild of the criminologists James Q.
Wilson and George Kelling. Wilson and Kelling argued that crime is the
inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left
unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no
one is in charge. Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of
anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces,
sending a signal that anything goes. In a city, relatively minor
problems like graffiti, public disorder, and aggressive panhandling,
they write, are all the equivalent of broken windows, invitations to
more serious crimes:
Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe
they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they
operate on streets where optential victims are already intimidated by
prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome
panhandler from annohying passerby, the thief may reason, it is even
less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to
interfere if the mugging actually takes place.
This is an epidemic theory of crime. It says that crime si contagious
-- just as a fashion trend is contagious -- that it can start with a
broken window and spread to an entire community. (Malcolm Gladwell,
The Tipping Point, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2000).
People like fascism because it stops this cycle, both in terms of
crime and social degeneration as a whole. It sends a firm message that
destructive behavior, or simply useless existence, is not wanted, and
that we all must work together and pull the load of society in the
same direction. In this it is a restatement of the fundamental
principle of society, which is that we sacrifice some freedoms for the
benefits of collective labor and economies of scale. The logic behind
fascism is sound: intolerance for destructive behavior leads to a
better society. Even more, by promoting healthier behaviors over
nonproductive ones, fascism leads to a society which is forever
increasing in ability and nobility of outlook. Nationalism is also
essential, in that it preserves diversity by ensuring that each and
every population is protection from globalism and the greed of
international corporations and finance. By being intolerant of greed
and values which are alien to a culture and hence will dilute its
outlook, substituting confusion for agreement, nationalism protects
the people - in part from their own lack of long-term wisdom about
what in the short term seems like a good idea (cheaper goods at
Wal-Mart, easier sexual partners, television and apathy). However,
both nationalism and fascism can be misinterpreted and become
oppressive, much as the example from Wolfe illustrates. There are
other examples of where Hitler's Reich failed: Gauleiters bickering
among themselves, Hermann Goering using his position to enrich himself
through the arts, industrial capitalists stealing from the people,
leading Nazis building personal empires at the expense of Germany,
military leaders failing to fully secure armed fronts. These are
natural human failings but to succeed, fascism most overcome most
examples of them.
Where Nationalism is Failing
Transition from the ways of the past is rough. It is hardest to
overcome the abstract knowledge and expectations of the former
dominant paradigm, and most revolutionaries fail because although they
assume power, they do not change these expectations and thus re-create
the system they hoped to depose. The German National Socialists got
many things right, and some things wrong; they did a better job on the
whole than our current society, but did not succeed in part because
among their people were too many expectations of the past, and in part
because of poor design to some aspects of their ideology, and the
unstable need of individuals to seize personal power, they usurped
themselves from within. Our goal is to replace modern society in
concept and deed with a better one; we cannot do this while retaining
the values of individualistic materialism. Bigotry, or the "in-group"
that is formed by external membership in a category like "Germans" or
"white people," and the consequence disparagement and sadistic revenge
upon those who do not meet that requirement, is in fact a step back
toward individualistic materialism. Nationalism and fascism depend on
a population unified by language, culture and ethnicity, and in
"culture" is included the values of that civilization; all three are
needed. If someone is externally a German or a white person, but
internally, acts with lower or incompatible values than those desired
by that civilization, that person does not meet the requirement for
membership. This is the difference between nationalism and bigotry:
nationalism separates ethnic populations and then works to get
everyone together on shared values and culture, but is not concerned
with forming a clubhouse for people according to their external
factors. "If it's white, it's alright" is a lower form of logic, and
represents a step backward from the natural selection that
nationalists naturally desire for their own people. The "insular cult"
described by Wolfe has no place in a successful nationalist/fascist
implementation.
The individualist infiltration of nationalism has us assume that all
who meet external requirements are OK, and everyone else is the enemy,
and by crushing the enemy, we leave only the "pure" indigenous people
of a land, and of course all of those people are excellent. This is
destructive logic in that it does not take into account that any
population, no matter how excellent, will produces perverts,
criminals, opportunists and degenerates, and that these are as
unwanted as people from alien societies. These people do not meet the
tripartite requirement - language, culture and ethnicity - required by
a nationalist society. Small minded and authority-abusive types are
included in this desired removal. Since we come from an
individualistic materialist society, we think in terms of the
individual by external qualifications, and are thus inculcated toward
acceptance of people on that basis and exclusion of others.
Nationalism is complex in that while it excludes others because they
will dilute and divide the indigenous population, its goal is not to
create a clubhouse for all the people no matter how defective who are
externally among that indigenous population. Only those who meet all
three requirements are desired; this is a fine distinction but an iron
wall between nationalism and bigotry.
Although nationalism is on the rise, it is hampered by the nature of
most "nationalist" and "conservative" and "neo-Nazi" organizations.
They are simultaneously too extreme to fit into and not distinctive
enough from conventional politics. Unlike the German National
Socialists, the modern "nationalists" of this misbegotten type do not
have a comprehensive plan; their agendas begin and end with race
alone, sometimes partnered with vestiges of the American far right,
such as the gold standard or fanatical Christianity. Their racial
doctrine, far from being one that encourages natural selection,
endorses the mixture of all white nationalities into one holy "white
race." When pressured, they revert to dogmas of "Might is Right" and
Social Darwinism. In short, they are nationalist in name only: Marxist
in their fellowship of white races, and conservative in all other
views. They do not understand National Socialist, Fascist or
nationalist views of race, and into that void of ignorance comes
bigotry, or as Faulkner put it, a "hatred of black skins" replacing
some concept of a social order or hierarchy. Numerically, they are the
largest group of nationalists, but not surprisingly, they account for
few of its triumphs.
While quasi-nationalists have grabbed headlines with protests and
distribution of literature, the real gains for nationalism have been
made by mainstream groups which, while unswerving in their dialogue
about preserving the indigenous peoples of Europe, have put their
emphasis behind a workable political platform for rebuilding the
tripartite essence of civilization, namely language, culture and
eugenics. The NPD (German Nationalist Party) in Germany and the BNP
(British Nationalist Party) in the UK have made great gains, shadowed
at a distance by the Front National in France. A pan-nationalist think
tank, the LNSG (Libertarian National Socialist Green) has witnessed a
doubling of its web traffic every quarter year. These parties
represent the future because they communicate a holistic nationalist
view, and have separated themselves from the bigotry and extremism of
"neo-Nazi" and "pan-Aryanist" organizations. They are both moderate,
in that they aim for non-revolutionary change within the current
system, and renewing, in that they openly hope to replace modern
society with a traditional world order.
Why Nationalism?
We should not mince words when expressing our goals: Nationalists wish
to replace modern society, starting by changing our conception of a
nation from a political one to an organic one. Nationalists consider
the nation to be made of its indigenous people, and to exist for the
wellbeing of that whole, and not for political, economic or moral
ideals.
What drives the modern false conception of nation, and its
corresponding systems of consumerism and democracy, is the fear and
instability of the individual who fears that collective action will
exclude him or her because of a lack of internal traits. Internal
traits are intelligence, nobility and strength; external traits are
popularity, income and adherence to law and morality. Modern society
measures us by external traits alone, but traditional societies have
recognized the danger in this: one can obey all of the rules, be
popular and successful, and still have a resentful and dangerous
spiritual outlook or corrupt intelligence.
Modern society and the ideals of modernity are driven by a desire for
equality of the individual so that it can be measured by external
traits alone; modernity hopes to replace nature, including natural
selection, with a system of advancement based on the compatibility
between an individual's outlook and the social mores surrounding them.
The idea is that the most popular things, whether in a social context,
or as products, or in a political sense, are the best, because the
most individuals approve them. This does not take into account the
quality of those individuals, nor the fact that most people cannot
make the complex decisions required to steer a nation. Government by
the most intelligent has been replaced by the most popular idea, and
as early democratic organizers who put out kegs of beer at the polling
place found, the most popular idea often has nothing to do with the
tasks in question and can be easily bought with either direct monetary
award or fantastic promises and grand visions that may or may not
correspond to reality.
External values are favored for two reasons: first, they are popular
among all individuals, because they allow the individual to think of
himself or herself as being beyond the rule of nature and thus "in
control" of the individual life; second, because in order to maintain
an industrial society, a large labor pool which is motivated by
personal achievement is needed. This way workers are held in check by
the competition of other workers, and should discontent occur, they
can be reminded that it is within their power to secure personal
wealth and therefore they have no reason to complain. This method of
control is obviously superior to that of Communism, which relies on
dogma and external force to coerce the population; this way, the
population coerces itself.
This system, which in philosophy is referred to as "individualistic
materialism," is the root of all modern problems. It places the
individual at a higher level of importance than nature, or humankind
as a whole, or the local community, and therefore encourages them to
think in selfish ways. Our system rewards those who profit from the
misfortune of others, or encourage that misfortune in order to profit
from it; we consider them to be wiser for having achieved profit where
others did not. It encourages internationalist values, or those which
replace national culture with a desire for international commerce;
with trading across national lines comes the idea that profit is more
important than local culture. The community and its practices, even
its language and indigenous ethnicity, come second to making enough
money to avoid falling prey to the byproducts of international
capital, including vast numbers of impoverished urban workers who
steal, assault and vandalize when the opportunity arises. Our modern
society with all of its conveniences is indivisible from the system of
individualistic materialism and the selfishness and crime it
encourages.
Modernity has brought us greater technology and thus comfort, but at a
price. We work longer hours, live in ugly cities, face constant
pollution and disease, and are ruled by the whims of the masses and
the manipulators they select as their politicians of choice. This in
turn results in a population that will never deprive itself of
comforts for a higher ideal, thus the citizenry breed out of control
and fail to keep up culture, philosophy and learning; individual
wealth and comfort are their only goals. It is for this reason that
now and not before humanity menaces our entire planet through
overpopulation, growing at unchecked rates. More disturbingly, since
those who thrive in such a soulless system are the ones who breed, the
quality of our population - its internal traits - are declining
rapidly. The fair-minded and noble polymath of previous times is being
replaced by the greedy, narrow-thinking office worker who would dump
toxic waste in a lake to increase his personal wealth.
The intent of nationalism is to replace this system by reminding us
that we are part of an organic whole comprised of both nature and
humans, in which the individual is a single unit much as the body is
composed of cells. When the nation is a large family, it gains
strength by standing together against predators such as consumerism,
which replaces all finer things with plastic products, and democracy,
which elects leaders based on empty promises. These ideas - democracy
and consumerism - may be called predators because on the surface, they
sound positive for the individual, hiding the long-term damages they
will bring upon the people as a whole. And for what? For the profit of
the weakest and most fearful among them who devote themselves to
earning money instead of doing what is honorable by the whole
community; earning money is one aspect of life, but under
individualistic material societies, it becomes the whole. It is a
mental virus that gradually takes over all areas of life and at that
point, many centuries later, the society is irrevocably in decline. We
can see this from the experience of the Greeks and Romans.
Nationalism is not limited to ethnocultural separation; that, in
itself, is not a philosophy. Nationalism separates ethnicities so
local cultural values can take a higher position than commerce. It
does not mean nationalists are anti-commerce, only that they believe
it should have a lower position in the values hierarchy than it
currently does, where it occupies the top spot and overrides every
other value. One does not survive in a modern society by pointing out
what is right by humankind and nature alike, but by making a product
or service that many people want, and by doing so appealing to a
single thread of life's many considerations, namely their desire for
greater wealth or comfort.
Our choice is simple: we can replace modern society with some pain
now, or endure the much greater pain of having our society collapse
into infighting, pollution, overpopulation, cancer, and political
control. Already democracies are showing their willingness to spy on
their own citizens, lock them up without trial, and sell their labor
for far less than its fair value. Cameras proliferate on the streets
of America and Europe, allowing government controllers to watch the
citizens, eventually, as in Marxist Russia, using these same methods
to remove dissenting voices. Nationalist societies have a less
oppressive outlook in that while they remove those who do not match
the cultural values and ethnicity of each local community, all others
are tolerated (when nationalism is implemented correctly - see above).
Our goal is not to remove those who impede profit or the desires of
the masses, but to protect our people from poor ideas whose
consequences they cannot visualize.
The masses favor democracy and consumerism because it takes their
word, and lets them selfishly enjoy greater wealth and comfort despite
the negative consequences to environment and civilization, against the
wishes of those who might have greater intelligence or nobility. The
masses fear internal measurements because they are afraid they might
not make the grade, or might not be able to go on buying SUVs and
plastic junk with no one to tell them when they have become abusive.
While nationalist societies limit these tendencies of their citizens,
they avoid the inevitable collapse into a polluted and overpopulated
world that democracy and consumerism - philosophies of individualistic
materialism, but in the common language a form of mass revolt, and
control by the crowd of unthinking simple people - will without fail
bring upon us.
The Future Nationalist
Contrary to what is said in the current media, nationalism is neither
left nor right; it does not support the rich or the poor; it does not
support the individual or the collective. Its goal is establishment of
an order for both humanity and nature which is compatible with the
methods and designs seen in nature and over time. Nationalism rejects
Social Darwinism, or the idea that the best people will earn the most
money and thus outbreed the rest, and replaces it with a sense of
natural selection according to the cultural standards of the community
and the internal traits of the individual.
Our goal is to be in harmony with both thought and nature, making
higher degrees of order wherever we go. Higher degrees of order are
recognizable by their simple unifying principle and greater variation
in detail; a nationalist society is united around a single ideal, not
a different ideal for each individual, but it grants a safe and
nurturing space in which the individual can spend time developing him
or herself instead of competing against others ceaselessly. Modernity
has no organizational principle, and therefore each individual must
reinvent a values system for him or herself, but lacking time and
education and in most cases natural ability, the individual is
flailing. We can see this by the continual high crime, emotional
emptiness, boredom and perversity of modern societies. They are not
good places to raise families, or to spend one's time on the finer
things in life, including learning and culture (the one exception is
technology, because it makes money, of course).
Nationalists favor traditional values because nationalists view
populations as indigenous, organic wholes instead of individuals roped
together by political concepts. Worldwide, traditional values are on
the rise; people are seeing that globalization means that every place
will resemble every other, and have a few corporate businesses instead
of a good local living for all; further, it is slowly dawning on our
populations that globalization means mixing of all ethnicities into
one gigantic monoculture of no specific traits. The "grey society," as
it may be called, would destroy all diversity and replace each unique
ethnicity with people whose culture is limited to their jobs, their
televisions and the products in their local Wal-Mart. Money and
popularity are not the best ways to assess our lives, or our futures,
as we will end up with such a "lowest common denominator" society.
Popularity does not determine the best idea, only the most appealing
to the widest segment of the population; financial success does not
determine the best product or service, only the one that seems best
when considered by the majority of buyers. Does anyone seriously think
Coca-Cola is better than milk, or Enron is better than a sensible
energy policy?
The obstacle to worldwide traditional and nationalist values forming a
union is those who misinterpret nationalism. Because of the great
taboo in talking about race, and prevalent liberal opinions regarding
the equality of all individuals regardless of fitness for a local
culture or other internal traits, nationalists feel marginalized, and
as such, like beggars they reach out to anyone who seems
pro-nationalist. This creates a problem in that it attracts an
audience of alienated, unsuccessful, angry people who then clog
nationalist parties with their own form of mass revolt, one that
wishes to equate nationalism with racism. Nationalism is not racism;
it is separation of ethnicities more than races, and it does not do so
from a superior/inferior judgment but from a desire to preserve all
nations from becoming part of the "grey race." Nationalism is not
bigotry; our goal is to with mutual respect separate ethnicities and
preserve our own peoples. However, this mass revolt in nationalism is
composed of people who see neither distinction.
Allowing these hordes of angry people into nationalism results in a
reduction of public perception of nationalism to the point where it
becomes equated with gutter bigotry. It is one thing to say that all
foreigners and people of other races and ethnicities be excluded from
a local community so that its culture and ethnicity may thrive, but
entirely another to classify whole races of people as "bad" or
"inferior" and thus to lay claim to their extermination. Further,
because the hordes of angry people in nationalism see only bigotry,
they ignore or delete all other tenets of nationalism, including its
environmentalism and desire to preserve traditional culture. Even
worse, because the bigots equate nationalism to race, their goal is to
obliterate our local ethnicities by breeding us together into a
"whitish race" and thus to destroy local ethnicity! This insanity is
deleterious in two ways: first, it renders nationalist organizations
impotent; second, it drives away those sane and normal people who are
by nature accepting of nationalism, but want no part of bigoted, angry
nationalist organizations without any plan other than racial loyalty.
We must reinforce in the public consciousness the advantages of
nationalism. We are not right-wingers, but those who defend
traditional values; this includes replacing capitalism with a social
system that has a higher value than money, yet still allows the
motivated individual to earn a better living than the amotivated. We
seek to defend and nurture nature, and to stop overpopulation before
we consume so much land that natural ecosystems are irretrievably
disrupted. In America, there is the additional problem of
Christianity; nationalists are not anti-Christian, but we are opposed
to any individualistic materialist system of belief, including that
form of dualism which is centered on the individual and on individual
(not holistic) morality. Our enemy is not other races but the system
of thought that places popularity before wisdom, money before culture,
and empowers the masses to fulfil their own greed at the expense of
both culture as a whole and nature (a greed they will defend with
individualistic morality, as it is a subset of individualistic
materialism: the individual is the material, and such morality ranks
not harming/restraining the individual as more important than doing
what is right by humankind and nature). Our enemy is modernity, and a
nationalist system would do away with the problems of modernity and
create a healthier, safer society. This is what we must reinforce in
the public consciousness regarding nationalism.
"Anyone can invent a myth and lead us away from reality with it. While
we are busy chasing the illusion, profit is made behind the scenes, at
our expense. Governments get more powerful with no clear benefit to
us, and fear of violence escalates. This all occurs because we have
abandoned practical thinking for theories of what "should" be done.
These theories have little to do with reality, and none of our best
interests at heart. They're a smokescreen that allows theft and power
struggles to tear apart our society and enslave us to distant,
powerful, invisible controllers.
Pragmatism as a political view begins when we realize that government
exists to serve the people, and money is only a method of getting
things done. Neither government nor wealth should become goals in
themselves, because that way a select few are made rich while the rest
work to make those few wealthy. Any society that behaves in this
fashion will make enemies for its people, but those who profit will
never face the consequences. How does this path to error begin? When
people abandon pragmatism for myths. " - Pragmatism Party Manifesto,
www.pragmatism.us
Nationalism does many advantageous things. It preserves and defends
local populations and their unique cultures and ethnicities, as many
have been for millennia. It does not tolerate destructive acts, even
subtle ones, in accordance with the "Broken Window theory." It gives
people a stable place to raise their children by decreasing crime and
protecting them from commercially-motivated predators. It ensures that
instead of cheap products, there are quality products made locally,
and thus encourages a greater number of skilled jobs instead of
factory jobs in some distant city. Most of all, it restores reverence
for nature, and through it, for life itself. Natural selection is seen
as a gentle way of raising the quality of creatures and ideas alike;
natural beauty is again recognized; we accept our own mortality and
suffering as part of the eternal cycle between death and life that
allows us to have life and consciousness in the first place. This is
what nationalism does: it dispells what the Pragmatism Party calls
"myths" but should more accurately be called abstract illusions, and
replaces them with realistic plans for our survival and betterment.
Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber," is most commonly known for blowing up
17 people who valued profit more than what is good for both
civilization and nature. However, he also wrote "Industrial Society
and Its Future," a manifesto which illustrates how leftist theory has
replaced realistic thinking:
"Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict
with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an
accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles." (28)
"Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the
foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the
concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that
modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one
thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings
of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. " (18)
"Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another." (26) - "Industrial Society and Its
Future"
Other thinkers have noticed this downward spiral as well. Ecofascist
Pentti Linkola, from Finland, describes how consumerism and democracy
are a single ideal that is replacing the concept of working in harmony
with nature:
"A fundamental, devastating error is [having a] political system based
on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an
individual wants, not on what is good for her...Just as only one out
of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few
are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or
humankind... In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly
hanging onto democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are
the most mindless and desperate experiments of humanity...In
democratic coutries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological
disasters has accumulated most...Our only hope lies in strong central
government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen." -
"The Year 2017 Will Never Come," by Pentti Linkola, Suomen Kuvalehti
issue 19
One famous naturalist agrees with Linkola:
"Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It
is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer . . . . Should we
eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not
a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases
to endanger the future of our species. This is a terrible thing to
say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad
not to say it." - Jacques Costaeu, Interview in November 1991 UNESCO
Courier
The furthest-thinking elements of left and right alike have agreed
that localization, or government by people who inhabit land over
generations and are familiar with each other on a regular basis, is
superior to government by distant bureaucratic entities that have no
grasp of the local situation. Linkola is asserting the need for
fascism on a local level to assert higher values over personal
weaknesses empowered by technology which guide the majority of people
toward destructive acts because they cannot comprehend the
consequences of what they do. We do not allow children machine guns;
why is it that we allow government based on what the majority of a
population, who lack the education and native intelligence to see its
consequences, make popular?
Our problems, ethnic and otherwise, can be expressed by this simple
formula: it is our civilization, and no one else's, that has
encountered a decay of meaning and values and thus is prone to
illogical acts. It is our responsibility, and no one else's, to fix
ourselves; the only way to do this is to fix our values and the type
of social order we expect. Nationalism is such a fix because it
replaces a society motivated only by wealth and popularity with one
that holds actual values such as heroism and holistic moral right. One
of the most insightful authors of the last century described the clash
of races as a consequence of our material greed and a spiritual
corruption that allows us to be sadistic in the name of wealth and
then blame others (in this case, Africans) for our self-constructed
prison:
"Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees leaning against the
trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effaced within
the dim light, in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair.
Another mine on the cliff went off, followed by a slight shudder of
the soil under my feet. The work was going on. The work! And this was
the place where some of the helpers had withdrawn to die.
They were dying slowly -- it was very clear. They were not enemies,
they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now--nothing but
black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the
greenish gloom. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the
legality of time contrast, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on
unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then
allowed to crawl away and rest." - "Heart of Darkness," Joseph Conrad
This situation was not visited upon us from outside; we became
corrupt, following the course of money and assuming that it would
bring power, in part because money can be proven to a crowd of
expectant people where truth cannot. Guilt is not useful here; we can
only fix the situation or move on. The large, capital-driven,
democratic societies are symptoms and implements of this decay. So
long as they exist, they will make disasters like colonial Africa and
pass the rot on to the rest of us, white and black alike, to fight it
out in ineffectual enmity.
The Nazi party in Germany used the formulation of "Blood and Soil" to
explain its platform, and this has been the forerunner of localization
in modern government. The concept is that each local population knows
its land best and will do nothing to harm it, where for some distant
bureaucracy the land is another resource to be exploited for profit.
When individuals rule, they do what benefits them and not what
benefits a local community, in part because they will opt to own parts
of distant communities and will move into places in which, lacking any
heritage there, they have no allegiance to the community or its land.
Any system of government that is not individualistic materialist is
naturally fascistic, as it will regulate individual desires. Two
reasons dictate this: first, that individuals vary in ability,
including ability to see the long-term consequences of their actions;
second, the individual does not see the whole picture of what
constitutes a community, and by operating together in disunity will
carve it up and own pieces of it, which in turn dismantles the local
community as an organic whole. The regulation of individuals includes,
but is not limited to, separating foreign-blooded and foreign-cultured
people from the local population so to preserve local culture and
avoid external ownership.
W.E.B. duBois, the farsighted African-American thinker and writer,
touched on this in his writings on racial sustenance:
"[T]he history of the world is the history, not of individuals, but of
groups, not of nations, but of races, and he who ignores or seeks to
override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the
central thought of all history. What, then, is a race? It is a vast
family of human beings, generally of common blood and language, always
of common history, traditions and impulses, who are both voluntarily
and involuntarily striving together for the accomplishment of certain
more or less vividly conceived ideals of life.
The forces that bind together the Teuton nations are, then, first,
their race identity and common blood; secondly, and more important, a
common history, common laws and religion, similar habits of thought
and a conscious striving together for certain ideals of life. The
whole process which has brought about these race differentiations has
been a growth, and the great characteristic of this growth has been
the differentiation of spiritual and mental differences between great
races of mankind and the integration of physical differences." - The
Conservation of Races by W. E. B. Du Bois
Nationalism is not a protection racket for white people; it is a
preservation of local culture, which includes ethnic (and not just
racial: separate the French from Germans, even though both are
"white") separation. We must maintain our internal quality, and the
best way to do so is to strengthen local communities, but this
requires that each have its indigenous ethnic and cultural makeup
intact. Genetics determines most of who we are, and this system allows
local communities to select the best people for that small society,
thus breeding the best of their people. It is impossible to take
someone of imprecise or confused or poor breeding and turn them into
an upstanding citizen through education; better people must be bred
through natural selection, and in civilization, the vectors of
selection involve holistic adaptation to the local community. Although
this will make some individuals fear they are inferior, they must
realize that they will have a place, even if they are not encouraged
to breed, and that the process as a whole will make the community a
stronger and better place for any of their relatives that persist. The
removal of focus from the individual, and renewal of focus on holistic
concerns, is the death-knell of individualistic materialism and the
watermark of all successful, rising civilizations. The whole including
nature is more important than the individual; by accepting the whole,
including death and suffering, we can see the beauty of nature and the
cosmic order, and thus instead of needing an individualistic
philosophy, we can turn toward a transcendent one based on our
reverence for the natural world.
All higher civilizations - Greeks, Romans, Germans, Indians, Zulus -
have embraced this form of transcendental idealism as it is an
inherently superior philosophy than individualistic materialism.
"Materialism" in this context denotes preservation of the individual
at all costs; transcendental idealism is less afraid of death, and
promotes instead the preservation and ongoing development of the
organization of civilization and nature alike, at all costs. Even if
we die in the pursuit of some heroic goal, the ideal for which we have
died perseveres, and becomes something larger than any individuals but
beneficial to all. For a civilization to have the will toward higher
things, it must turn toward this philosophy from the selfish and
greedy dogma of individualistic materialism.
Conclusion
The problems of the modern time are not insoluble, but only are
insoluble within the context of modern civilization and its ideals. We
can solve these problems. The nationalist ideal of civilization seems
complicated and alien to someone educated, indoctrinated and raised in
a modern time, but as modern society collapses into pollution,
overpopulation, warfare, climate change, crime and selfishness, more
people are turning to nationalism as the source of an organic and
intelligent organizational principle of society.
The MAVIN organization, an advocacy group for mixed-race peoples,
estimates that in America up to 5% of the people are racially mixed.
This includes all races, so if "white" peoples account for 60% of the
population, only about 1.7% of white people are ethnically mixed;
there should be a place for these to go and found their own nation as
best they can. Nationalists - those who fully understand nationalism -
recognize the natural imperative toward racial separation, but know
this must be done without scorn or hatred. Racial enmity is a bad idea
not because of what it does to others, but what it does to the self;
like all resentful, impotent, negative and frustrated emotions, it
corrupts the soul of its bearer. The LNSG accepts all peoples as valid
and our members have purged their hearts of any ill-will toward people
of other races; our knowledge is that all peoples come from nature,
and all are part of the sacred order of the cosmos, thus all must be
not tolerated but loved, and we love other races. We recognize that a
love for all humanity must do whatever is best for the cosmic order as
a whole, and this includes (but is not limited to) ethnic separation,
and it is our commitment to do this with compassion, understanding and
respect.
This will make us no friends among the bigots who pretend to be
nationalists, but our eyes are on the future, and on achieving a
positive and sustainable world order, no matter if both left and right
oppose us. We envision a society of manageable size, without pollution
and litter and wasteful businesses cluttering the landscape with
trashy storefronts, in which each local population is granted autonomy
and the right of self-definition. We recognize that some of these
populations will choose to be of a modern sort, including of
mixed-ethnicity and commercial culture, but because we are sure this
is error, we have no antipathy to them; our goal is to create better
lives for our own populations and to let others face the judgment of
nature if need be. In our view it is always positive to have some
"lawless zones," or frontiers in the sense described by Jim Morrison,
so that individuals and ideas can be tested against the most ferocious
adversity. Even these "exceptions" fit into the nationalist worldview.
Through this course of action we see a path to not only political but
philosophical healing of our species. Nietzsche's concept of the
superhuman, or human who has overcome what it is to be human, guides
us here; it is not a racial concept, as per Nietzsche's ideal, it can
occur in all races although it will differ according to local cultural
ideals. The superhuman is one who, recognizing life and death as
necessary to continue the cycle of life, overcomes a fear of mortality
and inferiority in order to do what is right each time. This is the
heroic spirit that motivated the ancient Greeks, the German National
Socialists, Arjuna on the plain of Kurukshetra, and Jesus Christ on
the cross. We must do what creates a better organization to our world
regardless of personal penalty, and upon this all members of the LNSG
have sworn a blood-oath. This philosophical extension to nationalism
is its ultimate goal and gift for its populations, that we might
overcome what doubts we have in order to see the beauty of life and
its possibility of attainment for us. We must leave behind our human
fears, and become a superhuman: not inhuman, but a higher level of
human.
At the current time, these ideas will seem disturbing and alien to
most people, as they have been indoctrinated with modern ideas, but as
the last few years have shown, more are seeing the wisdom of our path.
Nationalism is the only plausible end to the morass of modern society,
and one that will allow us to continue living in respect for nature
and ourselves. It will enhance populations, including learning and the
arts, and reduce our petty fighting over money as well as our tendency
to destroy our natural world. Our actions begin first with attempting
to bring other "nationalists" to see this truth alongside those of
undecided political alignment, because we believe nationalism must
clean its own house in order to become a sensible political
alternative. We do this because regardless of what we have been told
about Adolf Hitler, we believe this is what he and all other sane
nationalists desire, even if our methods surpass his own.
staff (02/09/06)
http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006/
Copyright 1997-2006 Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
.
|
