Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

In modern politics, one is known by which issue one picks to unify a political vision. For Greens it is the environment; for Republicans, the family; for Democrats, civil rights. However, this can be destructive to achieving the goal one desires, in that a single issue without a comprehensive political platform behind it results in either a failed revolution, or a political party disregarded by the majority because it is impractical. The former describes the Soviet revolution in Russia, and the latter the failure of Greens in the West to gain any kind of significant power, although they are well-represented enough to sabotage some of the ideas they find most threatening. Neither of these motions succeeded in radically changing the political outcome of their times, and when the dust has settled, they have both failed in creating a system which does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

This runs contrary to our perception, which holds that if one finds an extreme and holds it up above all else, it will unify other political issues by its dominant principle; while this is true, it may not be a good thing, as if that dominant issue is not broadly-conceived enough, what results is illogical and thus rapidly descends into chaos. One ends up swatting at flies while the horse carcass in the next room remains unmoved, and thus there is a nearly infinite supplies of flies that eventually tires the swatter, and at such point the parasites consume another carcass. If one does not address the basic idea behind our modern society, and replace it with a better basic idea, no amount of fixing symptoms will amount to anything but a delay in the decline. This article studies two groups that are plagued by this problem, and focuses on the dominant issue each has chosen and its lack of dominant factors.

On the surface, the Greens and the New Right seem like radical opposites; after all, in our current political spectrum, environmental preservation is seen as a Leftist issue and cultural preservation, a Rightist one. Nevermind that this denies the role of National Socialism in promotiong Green ideas, or that the writers who look most deeply into Green issues find themselves endorsing some kind of authoritarian society to counterbalance the individual selfishness which otherwise results in increasing consumption and pollution of natural resources. Equally dismissed is the realization that Greens and the New Right emerged from the same impulse, which was a recognition that conventional politics, whether or not it "represented" the people, did not and would never address issues not recognized by the self-interest of individuals. It takes some self-sacrifice to opt for a less opulent lifestyle and fewer people to satisfy Green issues, and to give up some personal "freedom" in favor of a society united by cultural values. Both Greens and the New Right will take away much of that license to do nothing constructive, and replace it with an order held in common for the preservation of the whole.

In that we find the first similarity between these groups: while others waggle tongues endlessly about individual rights, wealth, and lifestyle freedoms, the Greens and New Right alike hold that there is something of higher importance. In both cases it is something that does not directly benefit the individual, but indirectly and in the long-term benefits all individuals: a saner society, a less toxic planet, fewer cancers, and perhaps a culture to run to when one, being sharper than the turnip-picking mass, desires something more stimulating than television. They hold, in contrast to the undercurrents of liberal democratic society, that there must be a goal in common, and that in order to make that omelette more than a few eggs need be broken. So far, so good; yet neither group has achieved notable political success, although both seem to attract around 10% of Europeans and 2% of Americans. What is their mistake in common, and how can it be corrected?

Presenting an issue that is either invisible to the average person, such as predictions that take place beyond the next paycheck cycle, or that requires an uncommon degree of caring about the qualitative aspects of life, such as having forests, or culture, or low cancer rates, is generally a losing proposition in a populist government. Few will be attracted, since they will be occupied with "bread and circuses"; a smaller percentage of people, being essentially unstable and thus prone to claim power by finding reasons to draw attention to themselves, will howl and scream about how your view will deny some their piece of the pie (interestingly, both Green and New Right groups come under fire from minority rights groups for this reason). Fortunately, the broadest mass and the screamers are not the focus of any sensible political activist. The thinking "silent majority" of functional people, whose daily labor and hard-knocks common sense keep society running, are. These factor heavily into what happens to perceived single-issue groups like Greens and the New Right.

The secondary problem of introducing a controversial idea, meaning one that requires individual sacrifice for the greater good, is that the outrage and apathy tends to produce in the activist an extreme polarization, since the basic task becomes a thrust toward hammering home at least one solid, basic, central point about what they believe and thus achieving, as it seems, some form of political power or at least - not losing political ground. However, this polarization in turn hurts the chances of such groups, as they are seen by the "silent majority" as impragmatic, since all that is communicated is this single, intensely radical issue. When one brings up environmental concerns on the order that will actually address the proble, the screaming drowns out all but the basic message, and the well-meaning but ill-educated activist begins to parrot that like dogma; the pragmatist who must maintain home, local community, family and income, naturally, will look at this askance. How is "save the trees" a unifying principle for a working society? they ask, and their question is more than legitimate - it designates the major fault Greens must overcome if they ever wish to be more than a margin group sabotaging the "dangerous" ideas of more mainstream parties.

Similarly, the New Right - a hybrid of Nationalist, Traditionalist and Green interests itself - draws fire for its belief that countries should be able to limit their citizens to those of only one racial-ethnic group, recognizing correctly that without both ethnicity and culture in common, their society succumbs to pluralism, which amounts to a large group having no culture but that of the lowest common denominator: television, products, and politics. The screaming on this issue is intense, as the mass interests of society are so adamant that the right to live anywhere for anyone be preserved that they would gladly sacrifice every native ethnic group into a mixed population like those left behind by fallen empires; this screaming focuses New Right activists on race, in a well-meaning but misguided sacrifice of their entire platform for its one most controversial item. This removes any hope of debate of the platform as a whole, and replaces that discourse with a partisan battle over whether or not racial science can be "proved," even though we lack knowledge to fully prove or disprove it.

Both of these groups, thus, have lunged forward with their shoelaces tied, and the knot that sends them crashing to the floor is their singularity on one part of a platform, which because it absorbs their energy, exhausts them before they can complete a comprehensive platform. The result is that they gain some ground, but to anyone except a fanatic, it is clear they are not yet gaining enough ground to have significant impact on the political outcome of the next decades. The solution, somewhat obviously, is to backtrack to the point of error, which is the focus on the singular instead of the comprehensive, and to begin from these principles instead to project a bolder vision of society which is noticeably different from our current political systems - not a small modification to it centered around a single issue. In the case of Greens, this would be a society that had some reason to value its land and nature over self-interest; in the case of the New Right, it is the same for culture.

Observant readers will have noticed that these two interests dovetail. After all, it is impossible to have culture without a native land and its health; similarly, it is impossible to justify preservation of nature without consensus on what is culture, as culture is literally the shared values of a population. What must be done is to gain this consensus by appealing to commonality with a better vision of society, and that society, if each group abandons its partisan interests, will resemble a hybrid of the more forward-thinking Leftist and Rightist groups, as both are targetting the same need: a collective will to place the future of the whole society above the immediate gratification of its individuals. This is a philosophical change, on a grand degree, from the assumptions of both liberal democratic and industrial social organizations; it in fact reverses the change from traditional to modern societies, which exhibit both of those pillars, while maintaining many of the advances of modern society.

For example, a society of common will toward the collective interest will both preserve its culture and its land; in contrast to the former methods of the Right, this can be done peacefully and without rancor or belittlement to those who will be displaced. In contrast to the former methods of the Left, it is clear that "education" and good intentions are not enough; what is needed is a strong government to clear aside those who are not with the plan that the "silent majority," if presented with it in a sustainable way, will elect. Further, in contrast to both groups, this new society needs to have an economic model that both places the collective before individual greed, and guarantees that people are not displaced from their jobs, and that they have a certain amount of what is commonly called "freedom": the ability to pursue any ideas they wish, even if they cannot implement them without leaving the society in question, and some degree of flexibility in lifestyle choices. Do we need to repeat the errors of Stalin or Hitler, or for that matter, Clinton?

If change occurs in such a way that a single issue does not dominant the need for social and economic infrastructure, the "silent majority" of effective people out there will choose it, because even if they appear to be blind to the issues of both of these parties, they are not - they simply refuse to elect single-issue parties, knowing that chaos and loss of sustenance tend to occur when revolutionary thought outpaces common sense. They would like to do something about both of these issues, but when given the option of radical change of all of society to fix only one of its parts, they turn it down, because they know that will not address the underlying problems, and will exchange security for extremist fixes that in the end will crush a society, much as that of Soviet Russia died under its own weight. Only a unifying and comprehensive vision that replaces the detached single issue politics of today can achieve that vision, and if those who implement it are thinking, they will opt to bridge the gap between these two seeming extremes and create a more realistic future vision for humankind.