Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

  Nature
  Civilization
  Philosophy

Goals

  A sustainable environment

Environment

The deep ecology movement restated what the NSDAP believed: that in order for humans to exist without destroying their environment, it had to be placed on equal footing with humans, recognizing in addition that its space requirements were greater as while humans are one species, nature is uncountable interlocked species, creating a codependent, eternal whole.

For this reason our goals regarding the environment are to decrease the human land-use footprint, decrease our use of resources and reprocess our waste so that we do not introduce it to the environment. These are simple goals with complex implications.

There must be a leadership factor other than profit-motive.

When our guiding principle is profit, nature and our own integrity take second place and are pushed aside by the need to use more, sell more, buy more. A National Socialist government returns leadership to the culture and people, and relegates money to its role as a mechanism for achieving those ends. Land use should be a question of a logical use of the land to benefit the society as a whole, not whose profit can be made from another fast-food restaurant or discount store. Further, without excessive profit motive, products will be designed to last longer and thus produce less eventual waste.

Population must regulate itself.

If we do not check our breeding, we will overrun the earth. There are two factors in managing population; the first is quantitative, the second, qualitative.

There are literally too many humans on planet earth. Every generation begets another, and thus population grows exponentially despite natural and social (poverty, warfare) factors. Our current population occupies too much space and even if placed on vegan diets, too many resources, and produces too much waste, to avoid irretrievably damaging our ecosystem. Although there is in theory space for more, earth is treated best by a population of under a half-billion people, which provides enough for every nation on earth to have a reasonable population.

Second, our population has bred dysgenically, in that there are many people capable of little but having jobs and buying things at discount stores, and few who have a creative impetus and intelligence and character to match. If we are to limit our population, it does not make sense to do so in some egalitarian fashion like a lottery, but to pick from among us those who have excelled and encourage them to breed while others do not. This ensures that every future generation will be stronger, smarter and of better character than the last. These people by their inclination will be respectful to nature, as intelligent people of good character tend to be.

To a modern mind, this policy seems inhuman and threatening, but considering that overpopulation and degeneration of our breeding stock will ensure us all an equal apocalyptic fate, or worse, an life of ongoing boredom and failure, these inhuman concepts provide for a better future for all people. Those who cannot contribute are spared the burden of breeding, and given more time and money to focus on their own wants; those who are born in the future will be of a higher quality. The reduced human population will coexist with nature and, by breeding more stable and capable individuals, begin again to approach the heights of culture and meaningful life experienced by those in ancient populations.

There must be government which can act quickly and decisively on environmental issues.

No democracy will act to offend its citizens, who for the most part are composed of people who see only their own lives and, being unable to balance the whole in their decision-making (most can barely handle themselves), will act for themselves first and by that decision, exclude the collective and our environment from the equation. Further, democracies move slowly because they are forced to state every decision in terms of the lowest common denominator, provided oversimplified, incremental changes which are as often as not reversed by the next elected official. No dictator could be so incompetent as to reach a par with democracies in terms of environmental and cultural damage.

This will reverse both the selfish individualism that has gotten us to this state in history, and the domination by money of government resulting from the tendency of people to vote for what they think gives them the highest degree of income. A saner political system will subsidize those who have need and are worthy, and will guarantee a living for the average person so they are not forced into economic competition with others, and can focus on being better at their livelihood, at being friends and parents, and members of the community.

Our livelihoods must not rely on exploiting existing resources.

We view natural resources as products in a store: something we purchase, use, and discard. We simply find it, pay for it, and then consider the transaction over. A more sensible view is to see natural resources as an ongoing process, for example the forest that grows and produces timber: we can selectively take trees, but we cannot cut too many down, or the forest dies. Similarly we must view our food sources such as fish and game as living systems in their own right. The correct way to use these is not to exploit existing resources, but to determine what we need and cultivate independent systems for producing it in an ongoing and humane manner.

This also applies to the animals that are currently kept in tiny spaces, fed chemicals and the remains of their own kind, and used to generate vast profits. The industries and people who currently make their living from these tasks will continue to do so, but in a more logical fashion that is less destructive to the environment and to their personal spirit. What pride and self-respect is there in slaughtering caged animals with bolt-guns and electrocution ponds?

Aesthetics of our society must reflect the natural ideal.

When we build boxy plastic and steel empires to replace the rolling and diverse natural landscape, we are stating as clearly as any philosophy or political propaganda that we are opposed to nature and want to assert our own deathless order in response. This is not only a fantasy, but also cultivates in us an alienation from nature, such that we fear dirt and defecation and death and cannot deal with them on a psychological level. Any future civilization must have architecture that emphasizes the diversity and structural beauty of nature, and must integrate its dwellings and offices and shops with truly natural space, instead of a few planted trees surrounded by miles of concrete, glass, plastic and metal.

Our spiritual system must harmonize with nature.

Modern spirituality operates by defining death as alien, and by creating forms of intellectual compensation, by which one considers an eternal life or a moral absolute as superior to the order of nature. By thus avoiding the issue of death, such religions become dominated by it, and are correctly called death-religions, in no small part because they bring death to nature and thus to the original soul within each of us. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism seek to dominate nature, while Buddhism and primitive superstition seek to submit to it. It is better to find a balance, and to find for ourselves a place within nature as independent spiritual and moral agents, according to its principles.

This does not mean that we wish to wholly exclude religions such as Christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism from our belief, but that we believe it must be recognized that what we have now are interpretations of an original colored by the prejudices of our society, and that therefore we can return to the original interpretation and place it in a correct light. Nature and tribe and family come before abstract spiritual values, especially those which promise things not observable here on earth, and religions must be re-interpreted to reflect these values, which are most likely closer to the original state of those religions.

  Indo-European living spaces
  Aryan cultural revival
  Rational political systems
  Personal liberty
  A logical society
  Education as a priority
  A classless civilization

Issues

  Racism
  Conspiracy
  Utilitarianism
  Judaism
  Force
  Behavior