Nationalism 2006

[infoterror]

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.

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006/

[ Best article I've ever seen on the topic of why nationalists are such fuckups. ]

[Sulla the Dictator]

Please stay on topic. Posters are invited to address Infoterror's post or ignore the thread.

[Anchorage Activist]

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.

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006/

[ Best article I've ever seen on the topic of why nationalists are such fuckups. ]

I would agree in part with this analysis. The right does indeed excel at protecting traditional values than the left. The left does indeed have a stronger environmental emphasis that the right.

But I think characterizing the right as anti-environment is inaccurate. They may appear to be so simply because the environmental lobby is so extremist. Instead of advocating conservation, or wise use, the professional environmentalists preach prohibition, or denial of use. I can cite an excellent example from right here in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest, located in the southeast (near Juneau), has been designated a roadless wilderness. Yet those creating this designation did not consider that properly designed and constructed roads can actually serve as firebreaks in case of wildfire. Roads can also permit less expensive firefighter access by road than the more expensive airborne access by smokejumpers. The earth was meant to be judiciously used by man, not to be preserved as a museum artifact in an airtight glass case.

Furthermore, many environmental measures disproportionately victimize the working class. When the Feds placed some of Oregon's woodlands off limits to lumberjacking because of the spotted owl, I didn't see any $300,000 per year lawyers lose their jobs. Instead, a bunch of $30,000 lumberjacks, with fewer economic alternatives and less of a financial cushion, lost their jobs. Same problem in Ketchikan when a pulp mill shut down. The left's predatory environmental policies combined with the right's predatory economic policies makes neither effectively responsive to the needs of the working class.

The biggest reason why nationalists, and in particular, white nationalists, appear to be fuckups is denominationalism. Too many WN leaders subject each other to impossible litmus tests of ideological purity. And when the other guy invariable fails the test, he is promptly labelled a "crypto-Jew" or "kike-alike" and excommunicated from the movement. We will never take the next step, which is the organization of actual political parties and the election of actual candidates, until we can overcome this denominationalism. We need to be flexible. In his ADV broadcast delivered on June 4, 2005, NA Chairman Shaun Walker discusses the possible relationship between racial nationalists and racial populists, at this link:

http://www.natall.com/adv/2005/06-04-05.html

[Sinclair]

The issue of democracy aside for a second, I don't know if nationalism and environmentalism go together that well. Pollution is inherently an environmental problem. Due to the way that water, air, etc circulate, people in one country can be affected by the actions of those in another country, far away. What can nationalism do about this, aside from tariffs which could make companies operating in other countries less popular, and perhaps keeping companies within the nation from outsourcing?

EDIT: The reason that the environmental lobby can be a bit extreme is that, well, that's what happens when there's no money holding them down. They're not a bit more moderate because that wouldn't help them: Even if they were relatively close to the mainstream, they probably wouldn't be more successful.

A major problem is the corporate system. It's what means that a company will pollute if the chance of getting caught and the cost of getting caught end up meaning less losses than the cost of not polluting, and what means that a company that's kept from polluting will lay off workers instead of absorbing the costs somehow.

[Anchorage Activist]

The issue of democracy aside for a second, I don't know if nationalism and environmentalism go together that well. Pollution is inherently an environmental problem. Due to the way that water, air, etc circulate, people in one country can be affected by the actions of those in another country, far away. What can nationalism do about this, aside from tariffs which could make companies operating in other countries less popular, and perhaps keeping companies within the nation from outsourcing?

I see your point. The contribution of a nationalist government by itself towards pollution reduction would tend to be little more than anecdotal. However, there's nothing about nationalism that precludes contracting sensible international agreements like the Law of the Sea Treaty to deal with these issues. The idea behind the Kyoto Protocols wasn't bad; the problem was that the disparity between the First World's obligations and the Third World's obligations was considered to be too great. It may have been a good idea poorly expressed.

EDIT: The reason that the environmental lobby can be a bit extreme is that, well, that's what happens when there's no money holding them down. They're not a bit more moderate because that wouldn't help them: Even if they were relatively close to the mainstream, they probably wouldn't be more successful.

And this is characteristic of nearly all of these types of lobbies. In Anchorage, the American Cancer Society representative addressed an Assembly Meeting and shrieked about the "social costs" of tobacco usage, failing to mention that many smokers pick up much of those costs by paying higher premiums on life and health insurance. They exaggerate negativity to promote maximum publicity and funding.

[Faustian Dreams]

The issue of democracy aside for a second, I don't know if nationalism and environmentalism go together that well.

A homogenous community will have a greater sense of responsibility for their immediate surroundings.


Pollution is inherently an environmental problem.

No it isn't. It is a human problem. The environment/ecosystem is doing everything it can to regulate itself.

Due to the way that water, air, etc circulate, people in one country can be affected by the actions of those in another country, far away. What can nationalism do about this, aside from tariffs which could make companies operating in other countries less popular, and perhaps keeping companies within the nation from outsourcing?

Pollution isn't some form of warfare. ("Hey, you fart into this bag, and we'll throw it over the border onto the queen's front yard.") National solidarity implies that most--if not all--industries are internalized. If Germany understands that polluting the Danube affects its citizens, Budapest, Hungary will not need to worry about the quality of its water, propagating this respect for land. To that end, perhaps environmental issues will become the only source of argument in nationalist states?


EDIT: The reason that the environmental lobby can be a bit extreme is that, well, that's what happens when there's no money holding them down. They're not a bit more moderate because that wouldn't help them: Even if they were relatively close to the mainstream, they probably wouldn't be more successful.

Green building and sustainable living can be implemented into any community.


A major problem is the corporate system. It's what means that a company will pollute if the chance of getting caught and the cost of getting caught end up meaning less losses than the cost of not polluting, and what means that a company that's kept from polluting will lay off workers instead of absorbing the costs somehow.

Corporations wouldn't exist in a true nationalist state; they are antagonistic to its values and incentives.

[Sinclair]

A homogenous community will have a greater sense of responsibility for their immediate surroundings.

No it isn't. It is a human problem. The environment/ecosystem is doing everything it can to regulate itself. Dammit, my bad. I meant to write ''international'' instead of ''environmental''. I am not at my best today. I think I'm going to go to bed early, as soon as I finish the homework I should be doing right now. Guh. Environmental? Huh? I come off sounding like some Republican... What was that quote of Reagan's about how most pollution was caused by trees, or somethign?

Pollution isn't some form of warfare. ("Hey, you fart into this bag, and we'll throw it over the border onto the queen's front yard.") National solidarity implies that most--if not all--industries are internalized. If Germany understands that polluting the Danube affects its citizens, Budapest, Hungary will not need to worry about the quality of its water, propagating this respect for land. To that end, perhaps environmental issues will become the only source of argument in nationalist states?

And thus the biggest enemy of national solidarity is probably those with the most money to lose: The multinational corporations.

Green building and sustainable living can be implemented into any community.

Of course, I am a proponent of better urban design and architecture, and more sustainable living (F'rinstance, living in Toronto, I've realised I need not own a car). The only problem is, what of the current interaction between business and government? If people could have their attention attracted towards the massive problems caused, then maybe some good could be done. That people aren't already paying attention is one of the problems of democracy. Etc etc.

Corporations wouldn't exist in a true nationalist state; they are antagonistic to its values and incentives.

There is a reason they call economics ''the dismal science'': Values are just a stumbling-block when it comes to the quest for profits. I agree entirely on the subject of corporations... Even in a modern non-nationalist liberal democracy, they need to be fixed. Fixed as in neutered or spayed might be best, eh?