Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

The line that divides us, as people of Indo-European descent, is an unspoken division between a public illusion and a private realism. The former is the language in which our politicians and public figures transact their manipulation of their constituent voting or consumer base, and the latter is what we know ourselves, and if we are lucky, among small groups of the like-minded. To cross this line in public is seen as an assault on the very civilization that protects us all from what we perceive is an otherwise dismal, feral existence. For this reason, people take it as a personal assault as well, and turn viciously on anyone who thus transgresses illusion with realism.

Those who have experienced this counterattack find themselves ostracized, ridiculed, cut out of opportunity and even facing legal action, depending on what area of the line they breach. Since public discourse depends on this illusion, to violate any part of it - and it does have many branches - is to be seen as having violated the whole of it, and thus to be an enemy of society; an uncivilized one. For this reason, few who, in the innocence of assuming concepts are freely discussed, stumble over one of the many manifestations of this divide, are able to forget what happened; most become, in a subtle way, paranoid, as they are thrust into a role of being rejected by socialization itself. In turn, they assume that all of society is opposed to them, and that their ideas can only take hold through extremity such as terroristic violence or revolution.

Refreshingly, the situation is not this bad; society is not composed of equal individuals, and those who scream the loudest tend to be those with the least actual influence on the progress of change in the physical world. Instead they deal in the easy gratification of arousing outrage in the like-minded, and create plenty of bluster about moral and social taboo, but rarely are effective except among those who have been given public roles in which to drop out of society, such as journalists, academics and political activists. These alarmists will create public outrage, but that is their only weapon, and they are powerless thus against those who do not need to solicit for future work, social partners or mates. Since few of us are in that enviable position, most of us try to avoid setting off their handwringing alarm, but that does not mean that our thoughts are as controlled as our speech.

Equal individuals would react in the same way to a certain idea, but as our society is composed of people unequal in intellect, character and strength, not all people succumb to these fits of delusional anger when reality is introduced to the world of pleasant illusion. In contrast, there are many out there who depend not on illusion but reality, and they recognize to varying degrees of articulation the truths that society would banish for being disturbing or offensive to the bovine mentality of self-interested crowds. These are pragmatists at heart, and for this reason they will almost never speak in public about their ideas, but will seek out others who can handle reality for their private discourse. However, they survive in part by recognizing the reality hidden behind the marketing, so to speak, and therefore they are always aware of the other side of the taboo line.

In theory, our society is "free," meaning that you can have any opinion you want; in reality, only those opinions which do not offend those likely to buy products or mark chads are permitted, and that this is known to those with even a margin of critical analysis skills implies a grim future. A thinking person can never have faith in a society where pointing out reality is a ticket to alienation by the crowd; therefore, these people resist wherever they can the delusional public reality forced upon them by the need of pacifying the consumer-voter crowd. Yet there is a further modifier to their scope of activity, and it is thus: they also seek to get along with their friends and neighbors, no matter how deluded, and therefore impose upon themselves a practical filter of the possible in their belief systems. Thus they have one foot on either side of the banned divide between reality and "social reality."

When modern society replaced traditional society, it brought with it two components: a technological-economic structure, and a motivational system based upon the undifferentiated masses being able to acquire power and personal wealth that had previously been of limited quantity as accessible to them. Traditional society recognized the grim truth that not all are capable of leadership decisions, and thus that populist democracy is insane; it also acknowledged that we, as physical selves, are not absolute, and our character and ability is mostly determined by breeding. Even more paralyzingly taboo-breaking in the present time, it recognized that airy concepts of morality and politics were not of a self-sustaining order, but were illusions used to manipulate the crowd of those who are not capable of leadership decisions. With the seeming victory of modern society, all of this became banned knowledge.

Since traditional culture, with culture being defined as any value system appropriate to a certain population as a whole, is also realistic, these people - the silent majority among those who can both think and act - are inclined to favor its ideals, but not the methods of those who, alienated and thus paranoid, become increasingly shrill, reactionary, defensive and extremist when faced with outrage. The embittered revolutionary is tempted to lash out at them for what is seen as complacency as disaster looms, but this only further complicates the issue. Further, since most revolutionaries tend toward seeing a single issue out of many, and having this issue made clearer and more urgent by the response of the outraged, they further distance these normal and pragmatic people from that viewpoint. If traditional culture is to survive, it needs to cultivate adherents among these people by looking past the neurotic responses of those fearing deprivation of illusion, and to appeal to the pragmatic.

This form of political change is called a "soft" revolution, in that instead of running toward the weapons closet and unleashing social anarchy and destruction, it operates within a society and, by changing attitudes, ensures that those who are effective as agents of change can understand its values and implement it slowly. A soft revolution is not as emotionally satisfying as burning government buildings, shooting informers and weeding out the undesired, but it preserves the raw materials of civilization - its people and their learning - without embarking on a violent, single-minded path. In this we can see the difference between extremists such as Ted Kaczynski, Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler, and the silent majority among thinkers, which is that the former favor direct action, while the latter wish to modify the existing society to bend to their demands - even if their demands include its revocation and replacement, piece by piece, with a traditional society.

Among the functional parts of the American and European people, most are to some degree allied with the mindset of traditional society. They have experience enough, and are sage enough, to realize that most of what goes on in politics and society is designed to pacify the mass revolt by convincing them that they, too, are important, even though that importance is contingent upon buying products and votes. They therefore wish to avoid unleashing the specter of destructive mass revolt, and favor soft revolutionary means, if for nothing else in order to preserve their own families and livelihoods. They differ in methods, but not ideals. To soft revolutionaries everywhere the truth must be proclaimed: those who matter among "the people" are not opposed to you; in fact, for the most part, they agree with you. They are willing perhaps to take your ideas farther and apply them more broadly than you would ever dream of doing.

For this to happen, however, revolutionaries and soft revolutionaries must come together to articulate those ideals and to begin to implement them within the system as it stands. We do not have time to try to cram square pegs into round holes. The thinking, pragmatic people want the same basic change, but they are unwilling to adopt methods that will not work. One aspect of methods that fail can be found in the Green Parties; these have attached themselves to one great error of humankind, and believe that by government regulation alone, they can correct this and get us back on track. The lack of a comprehensive plan, and the reliance on airy rhetoric, makes these parties unpalatable to real-world minds. Similarly, the neo-Nazi parties tend to focus on one attribute of change, race, while ignoring everything else and simultaneously demanding a wide scope of change; both of these groups may achieve their aims, but those gains will be erased because the system as a whole will not have changed to include them as long-term values.

The thinking, pragmatic people do not want starry-eyed dramatic revolutions, but a reassessing of modern society, and a comprehensive plan that will replace its failings with something better. They are not responsive to boots-n-braces justice, nor to fiery revolutionary rhetoric, but to clear thought and plans which are both realistic, and thus cross the taboo line, but practical, and thus do so without jarring shifts and violent, threatening pronouncements. This is not a call to simply dress up one's propaganda as something more neutral, or to give ground regarding ultimate needs, but to recognize that for the people who matter to support a political agenda, it must be more firmly grounded in reality than violent revolutionary impulse can manage to be. The same goals will be achieved, regardless of method. To make this happen, we who are the awakened thinkers among modern society must consolidate values by what we have in common, agree on a simple and comprehensive and gradual plan for change, and then implement it according to the rules and laws of our society.

Already, the more extremist readers have stopped following this article. They believe such an approach is neutered and effete; they may be right. However, we must ask ourselves: what is more important, the goal or the means? - and clearly the goal wins out every time. One neutered success is worth uncountable fiery spirits who are ineffective. Some of the more law-abiding readers have stopped paying attention long ago; to them, the idea that any compromise can be made with extremist elements is "reprehensible" and "offensive," even if it would bring about the results that are needed. This is clearly delusional, as one compromise that achieves the right goal is worth uncountable peaceful protests and media education campaigns and interpretive dances. We have the same needs, and the same eventual goal: to return the mechanisms of modern society to their place as means to goals of a traditional type. This is how one lives a good life, even if it means fewer profits or disposable plastic products and lifestyle conveniences.

Interestingly, both right and left, extreme and passive, agree on this and agree on the general framework of what must replace unchecked modern society. It has taken some centuries for modern society to show its damaging effects - by modern society it is meant the collaboration between industrial technology and a mass-empowerment political movement, usually manifested in liberal democracy - but the writing is now upon the wall: we have consumed almost all of the best land on earth, have irrevocably changed our climate and eliminated much of the beautiful natural surroundings valued by our ancestors, have replaced our culture with corporate mass media, have bred ourselves into raceless averages with fewer geniuses than ever before, and not least of all, we now live in cities that resemble machines and behave like machines in our bureaucratic, micro-functional jobs. Right and left, passive and extreme, all agree that this is the case, unless they are so firmly opposed to reality that they cannot correlate enough observations to see this.

The process of modern degeneration is continually getting worse. What this means to the activist is that those you once considered enemies, or fence-sitters, and rapidly coming around to your point of view, if you can avoid alienating them with extremist behavior or narrowmindedness in picking only one issue of many as your rallying point. Should an alliance be formed between extremists and passives, left and right, the divisions that keep us fighting each other, and thus by default the status quo in power, will have lost their numerical superiority. The people who actually matter in life - those that write books, start businesses, form local governments and educate our children - will be in agreement on what must be done, and thus will bring that weight to bear on those who, profiting from the disorganization of the status quo, are opposed to change and will do anything they can to keep the silent majority fragmented. The overthrow of this comfortable ignorance and delusion will be the soft revolution.

For the activist, there are three major steps toward reaching the critical mass for soft revolution:

1) Replace negative rhetoric with self-interest. What you see as the blight of your civilization is more likely a symptom of its inner lack of consensus and desire for something better; to target the Other, in the form of the symptom of the blight, is to let go of the wheel where steering is most needed, namely in working on the productive elements of our own groups. People find it convenient (and it is thus popular) to blame corporations, whites, Jews, blacks, liberals or priests for our downfall, but what makes a downfall is not an external evil but a lack of inner good. Self-interest allows each group to assert what it believes to be good without having to "prove" the negativity of the Other, and encourages people in that group to work on the whole of its philosophy and operations so as to reach a state of good.

2) Create a broad platform with moderate methods. Where neo-Nazis create a singular platform with extremist methods, and Greens create a singular platform with passive methods, a new approach will find success by having a broad platform, or one that addresses all facets of society's decline, and using moderate methods to apply it. One suggestion is to look historically at humanity, and to realize that we diverged from a sensible course of action when we left traditional society for modern society, and thus to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to begin re-introducing means of traditional society into the modern. This community-based, common-sense approach appeals to every pragmatist and does not fall into the trap of being wholly passive, or wholly aggressive; it is an assertion of preference for something better, and thus can be understood as not only natural but just.

3) Abandon insular, dogma-oriented groups and find commonality with the mainstream. It is tempting to feel rejection and thus to reject in kind, but mainstream society is not composed of identical individuals. Appeal to those in the world at large who can still think, but are pragmatic, and one achieves more instantly than one will in ten thousand years of extremist dogma and fist-waving. These are your people; embrace them. They will not equally understand the reasons for what must be done, nor will they agree on all aspects of it, but they will find hope in a message of positive change without radical, destructive upheaval.

These three tenets lead an activist from alienation toward integration with the community, and connection to the silent majority of functional people who - unlike the morally outraged, or the extremists, or the passives - keep the system running. They are supportive of sensible ideals, but have been estranged from extremist methods for too long. Politics has changed since the last days of the Old Empire, and we must change with it, as what matters is not some emotionally-gratifying demonstration of belief, but achievement of real-world goals with the means at hand. There is no reason to be alienated from our own people, as their best interests match with ours; however, it requires a change from a paranoid and defensive posture to one of responsibility, and one that covers more issues than token emotional hotpoints. When this happens, we will achieve something more important than crossing the taboo line between socioeconomic public image and reality; we will have obliterated it. In this alone is this future.