[Rei Murasame]

What are your views on the environment and its place in Third Position ideologies? Is there truly common ground held between the environmentalist movement and the Third Position? How far back would you say that the overlap goes?

This topic is just to sound out your opinions on it, which is why my opening post is so short, I don't want to colour your responses by saying too much.

[Chill]

To break the silence:

Third Position
Third Position is a revolutionary nationalist political ideology that emphasizes its opposition to both communism and capitalism. Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right", instead claiming to syncretize radical ideas from both ends of the political spectrum.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Third Positionists tend to advocate for the ownership of the means of producing goods and services to be distributed as widely as possible among the "productive members of society", seek alliances with separatists of ethnicity and race other than their own to achieve "separate but equal" ethnic and racial segregation, support national liberation movements in the least developed countries, and have recently embraced environmentalism and reconstructionist paganism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Political scientists, such as Roger Griffin, dismiss Third Positionist claims of being "beyond left and right" as specious. They argue that Third Positionism is in fact an ideological mutation of the neo-fascist right, which rejects both Marxism and liberalism for an ultranationalism that seeks to achieve a national rebirth by establishing a confederation of ethnically and racially homogeneous communities where ownership of productive property is distributed among all members. The main precursors of Third Position politics are National Bolshevism, a synthesis of nationalism and Bolshevik communism, and Strasserism, a radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism.

Actually never heard of 'Third Position ideologies' before.

[Corinth]

The government has a obligation to both the people and the very land itself to protect the environment.

[Amanita]

I should think the environment is very much an integral part of the 'Third Position' or whatever you wanna call it. Just a couple of quick points:

- The well-being of humanity is obviously linked to that of the planet and natural environment. That this has to be brought up and argued for reflects just how insane our present civilisation is.

- Nature reinforces healthy ideologies that base themselves upon natural reality instead of the resentful morality invented by those to whom nature was not kind enough.

- The Dialectic of Nature and Civilisation must be preserved. Civilisation is a double-edged sword. It strengthens humanity but weakens humans. It is beneficial for civilised humans to periodically retreat to the natural world in order to temporarily abandon the physically and mentally debilitating comforts of civilisation. In this Gilgameshian way, civilisation can perpetually renew itself and not succumb to exhaustion and degeneracy.

[Rei Murasame]

I should say ahead of time that I have some serious disagreements with some of the things that people have been entering into the "Third Position" wiki article, and how they've chosen to word them, but I suppose it at least gives a general idea.

Running parallel with that is "Nouvelle Droite" which is headed up by Alain de Benoist, and together those two strands (which sometimes diverge) I think are where the thinking has been going on in Europe in this area of the spectrum. Really Third Position is supposed to be a broad tent and so Nouvelle Droite is in reality part of that tent.

Actually never heard of 'Third Position ideologies' before.

It's one of the things that arose out of the post-1968 reshuffling. It is very robust and alert, I think, particularly because it is able to accept new information and reformulate the Far Right in a way that makes sense for this era.

The government has a obligation to both the people and the very land itself to protect the environment.

I agree.

- The well-being of humanity is obviously linked to that of the planet and natural environment. That this has to be brought up and argued for reflects just how insane our present civilisation is.

- Nature reinforces healthy ideologies that base themselves upon natural reality instead of the resentful morality invented by those to whom nature was not kind enough.

- The Dialectic of Nature and Civilisation must be preserved. Civilisation is a double-edged sword. It strengthens humanity but weakens humans. It is beneficial for civilised humans to periodically retreat to the natural world in order to temporarily abandon the physically and mentally debilitating comforts of civilisation. In this Gilgameshian way, civilisation can perpetually renew itself and not succumb to exhaustion and degeneracy.

I also agree with you absolutely on this as well, a bit like having a holiday and a 'pilgrimage' to sacred spaces within one's own country, right?

[Daktoria]

Could go for or against. The more conflict prone third positions are, the less environmentalist they'll remain since conflict will inherently degrade the environment.

On the other hand, third positions could be ecocentrist in using the environment as a guide for pragmatism. That said, ecocentrist pragmatism doesn't make sense without either a) natural rights, or b) admitting to a state of nature.

If it's A, then third positions will become socially (but not economically) liberal over time. If it's B, then third positions are de facto anarchic.

- Nature reinforces healthy ideologies that base themselves upon natural reality instead of the resentful morality invented by those to whom nature was not kind enough.

This kind of condescension is exactly why environmentalism cannot be trusted.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Actually never heard of 'Third Position ideologies' before.

Generally speaking, Third Positionists are racist leftists.

[grassroots1]

Could go for or against. The more conflict prone third positions are, the less environmentalist they'll remain since conflict will inherently degrade the environment.

On the other hand, third positions could be ecocentrist in using the environment as a guide for pragmatism. That said, ecocentrist pragmatism doesn't make sense without either a) natural rights, or b) admitting to a state of nature.

If it's A, then third positions will become socially (but not economically) liberal over time. If it's B, then third positions are de facto anarchic.

This type of weird, formulaic thinking is common among libertarians.

Any ideology that has the intention of developing a social order that can survive on a long-term basis will have to come to terms with the issue of the environment.

- Nature reinforces healthy ideologies that base themselves upon natural reality instead of the resentful morality invented by those to whom nature was not kind enough.


This kind of condescension is exactly why environmentalism cannot be trusted.

Care to explain?

[Il Duce]

It can very much vary between different far right ideologies.

The Italian Fascists were far more concerned with futurism and praised industry. Many did not care too much about the environment. There was not much of a connection to the land. I'm sure they romanticised about Italy to a degree, but one thing Italy lacked was a proper modern industry. I believe its one of the reasons why they were so concerned about futurism.

Nazis on the otherhand loved the natural environment. They promoted green policies and wanted to preserve the green forest and fields. They even had stronger animal rights than most countries. They had a strong admiration for the old Germanic tribes and the old Germanic way of life which hints why they were very connected to the land.

Most far right now generally do care for the environment since they embrace the nation. This even means its flora and fauna. However, I'm sure they'll easily sacrifice that for the good of the state if needed.

[starman2003]

By now, there's no alternative but to care for the environment--otherwise we're finished. No credible movement in today's world can be indifferent to the environment. In fact, the ability of authoritarianism to address environmental issues--contrasted with democratic impotence--is one reason why I think authoritarianism is bound to win out.

[Daktoria]

This type of weird, formulaic thinking is common among libertarians.

Any ideology that has the intention of developing a social order that can survive on a long-term basis will have to come to terms with the issue of the environment.

I agree with this.

However, a competitive social order among other social orders will have to consider environmental degradation (and surviving for a shorter period of time) in order to win the contest of power (and survive at all).

If you had to choose between another nation living for a longer period of time or your own nation living for a shorter period of time, which would you choose?

Care to explain?

Even from a totalitarian perspective, some nations will be built upon overcoming nature, not upon harmonizing with nature.

(From a libertarian perspective, nature does not define "who you are" so much as it defines "what you are". That said, "you" are irrelevant if "you" are relegated to the status of an object.)

Most far right now generally do care for the environment since they embrace the nation. This even means its flora and fauna. However, I'm sure they'll easily sacrifice that for the good of the state if needed.

This is only because they've had the comfort of liberally induced technological growth. Once liberal technology becomes insufficient to accommodate population density and information economy, the environment will become compromised in defense of hierarchy.

Corporatists will not want to live in an environment beyond their own control. Therefore, they will have to appeal to property rights and industrialism (if not outright militarism) in order to accumulate and consolidate it.

[Amanita]

You're more or less highlighting the shortcomings of ideology in practice. You cannot abide by ideological principles against an enemy that will stop to nothing to achieve victory, which is true but irrelevant when it comes to having an ideological stand.

[Daktoria]

"Practice" isn't something you can really discuss (in a virtual environment no less), so what do you want?

Unless we're going to play some sort of game to represent who we are, the type of exchange you're asking for is impossible.

Aside from that, there really isn't a point to winning a game against an enemy who will stop at nothing since that destroys the meaning of the game.

Coincidentally, an enemy who stops at nothing wouldn't exactly be environmentalist, right?

[Amanita]

It wouldn't be anything that jeopardises victory. And having principles jeopardises victory. You've presented a scenario that's really the shortcoming of any ideology, insofar as ideology means having and abiding by a set of principles, and used it to undermine an ideology of your choosing as if it didn't equally apply to others.

[Daktoria]

Victory isn't a principle? It sounds to me that you're saying the best way to become victorious is to not care about becoming victorious.

I'm not really sure where you believe I presented a scenario either. Nowhere have I yet suggested a particular game to play.

Also, isn't environmentalism a set of principles as well? Now, you're really confusing me since because that would mean environmentalism jeopardizes victory just as much.

[Rei Murasame]

Environmentalism is simply box used to describe and subsidiary-ise a section of ethnic-nationalism's objectives, and so their correct implementation is a precondition to victory.

[Amanita]

Meh, we're having communication problems, Dak. Environmentalism is a principle and that's the reason nations at war will have to discard it. Other principles have to be discarded: freedom of action and speech, probably everything libertarianism stand for. Sure, victory can be considered a principle in and of itself but that practically consists of having no absolute principles and being 100% pragmatic.

[Daktoria]

I have no clue how corporatism and environmentalism can be compatible then.

Victory and pragmatism come first, so unless a corporatist society decides to assimilate nature... I'm just gunna have a mindfuck all day about this.

Thanks........

[grassroots1]

However, a competitive social order among other social orders will have to consider environmental degradation (and surviving for a shorter period of time) in order to win the contest of power (and survive at all).

That's the problem of our world, is trying to pursue some kind of sustainability while there are power plays going on. That's why the unification of the world, or some level of cooperation between nations, is inevitable if we have hopes of actually confronting this problem. Ultimately these power plays are games of the elite, which is why the people of the world need to take control of their own governments. There's no other option as far as I can see.

So I agree with you, I don't see how corporatism and environmentalism are compatible, unless it has hopes to unify the world.

[starman2003]

..unification of the world..... is inevitable if we have hopes of actually confronting this problem.

Sure. But it is precisely because the people of the world already have much control over their governments that it's nearly impossible to solve environmental problems. It's no accident that the nation with a 1 child policy is authoritarian.