Eco-Nationalism: A coalition for the future

Announcement: Since you clicked on this link it is obvious you are interested in what I am talking about. Before you form any conclusions I want you to enter this thread with an open mind to new ideas which you do not have to subscribe to or even agree with in any form, just that my work is given a little respect. That is all I ask and thank you for venturing into this thread, please enjoy!




All the time we hear people discussing ‘coalitions’ whether it is newly elected parliamentary parties who need to form a majority or just people getting together to unite under a single banner yet hold different ideas. Alone these beliefs may drift away from relevance yet are very important. It is unfortunate this happens too often but I think by building coalitions we can propel ideas to the forefront of discussion. That is why I created this thread, to share a few of my ideas on what could be a possible coalition of ideas and to gauge opinion.

Let me begin by listing the four ideas that would create this coalition: Deep Ecology, Libertarianism, Traditionalist Conservatism, and Nationalism. Now naturally none of these ideas seem like they are unique matches for even a two-part coalition, but you are thinking within a present-day context of these ideas. Alone they cannot be allies but underneath, buried within the heart and soul of each lies certain beliefs which inherently unite them.

Deep Ecology: The belief that all beings have worth aside from their utility. Earth’s environment has a right to live and flourish, just as man does. It is a belief that we must go further than science and government to solve our ecological problems and that the only answer is within ourselves and our connection to this world. It subscribes to the view that all of nature including man is interconnected and reliant upon each other for survival. Politically it supports decentralization, ecoregions, breakdown of mass industrialism, and ending all forms of authoritarianism.

Libertarianism: An ideology which is dedicated to the full development of liberty for all of man. Individual liberty is viewed as the basic moral principle of all society and should never be infringed upon by foreign forces. Unique in the fact that it is a movement which regards authoritarianism in all its forms as destructive, believing individuals who do not harm others should be left alone.

Traditionalist Conservatism: This is a philosophy more than an ideology that argues in defense of culture, values, ethics, morals, and religious beliefs. It is rooted in the ideas of Edmund Burke but have a meaning which transcends government itself; a devotion to culture, localism, tradition, agrarianism, natural law, organic unity, and hierarchy. These beliefs can be added in because it is not an ideological force but rather a philosophical one and being as such it would fit in as an ethical point of view to argue in defense of traditions, culture, and conservation.

Nationalism: This is not nationalism in the sense of glorification of the state but rather a staunch defense of the nation itself. The culture, traditions, environment, history, ethnicity, and preservation are the key points of this idea which is dedicated to protecting and preserving a national identity. A strong belief in self-determination, limiting immigration, protecting cultural/national interests, and safeguarding non-governmental institutions should be viewed as a core idea for all peoples.

Now that the defining of each term is over we can get down to the basic tenets. On Deep Ecology its founder, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss’s philosopher was explained as, "For Arne Næss, ecological science, concerned with facts and logic alone, cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live. For this we need ecological wisdom. Deep ecology seeks to develop this by focusing on deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment. These constitute an interconnected system. Each gives rise to and supports the other, whilst the entire system is, what Næss would call, an ecosophy: an evolving but consistent philosophy of being, thinking and acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and harmony."
Harding, Stephan (2002), "What is Deep Ecology"

The principles of Deep Ecology are explained in 8 points:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
Devall and Sessions, op. cit., p. 70.

As you can see it is a more philosophical and ethical approach to environmentalism which rejects the rampant corruption, degradation, radical individualism, and globalism. This is more than a simple view of preserving the environment, it is about our interconnectedness and ethical requirement to treat nature as it is more than just something for our mere usage for gain. A view of our environment like this corresponds to the anti-authoritarianism of Libertarianism, adherence to cultural traditions of Traditionalist Conservatism, and protection of the nation of Nationalism.

Traditionalist Conservatism holds in high regard ideas that are usually rejected by Liberal principle. Natural law and transcendent moral order are the foundations for its belief, arguing reason and divine revelation inform natural law and faith. It is through the universal truths of faith that man forms his ethics, morals, and lives his life. A belief that tradition and custom guide man and his worldview because each generation inherits within it the experience and culture of the generations preceding it; this gives man a sturdy foundation from which to organize his world. As Burke said, "The individual is foolish, but the species is wise."

.... CONTINUE IN NEXT POST

Other core beliefs are that of human society as naturally hierarchical, meaning it always involves interdependent classes, degrees, and inequalities that are natural to human nature thus are organic. They believe in preservation of small family farms and ranches, conservation of all natural resources, and stewardship of the land. A stern shunning of popular and low culture is also a cornerstone as they revere high culture and argue education should be centered on Western civilization’s literature. One last important concept is patriotism towards the local community and region, subscribing to decentralization and especially subsidiarity.

Since all of these views maintain an ethical, personal, communal, and specifically non-governmental philosophy it is perfectly compatible with Libertarianism. Since liberty is the most fundamental and basic concept of Libertarian, Classical Liberal, viewpoint it is compatible with the above and is actually a good ally because freedom, natural rights, and anti-authoritarianism are critical for preserving the environment, culture, traditions, and the nation.

While equality is often held in high regard, which contrasts with traditionalism, it does not believe in enforcing equality at the barrel of a gun. This permits society to function as it otherwise would just without allowing intrusions into personal life through legislation. Community would dictate the rules which are permitted and people would be free to live their own individual lives but with the inclusion of the other ideas it would complete the human existence rather than leaving one lonely and isolated.

Nationalism would be in the most direct conflict with Libertarianism but there can be a common ground found. Since the real enemy of all four ideas is globalization, for each respective reason, then nationalism and libertarianism can find mediation on the issues. Since nationalism directly opposes individualism, like traditionalist conservatism, it believes in a collective identity but since I am arguing this from an American point of view Nationalism in our sense can be collective overall but allowing freedom of the individual as directed in the US Constitution.

Nationally it would be designed towards protecting and preserving national interests such as limiting immigration, protecting our environment, defending our trade, and fighting against multiculturalism. These views would overall be designed as foreign affairs rather than domestic affairs approach. While immigration would be drastically limited to protect of workers, environment, and culture domestically people would be guaranteed their individual rights and freedoms without federal government intervention. This way libertarian can keep their individualism, traditionalists keep their community and hierarchy through control over local rather than national government, nationalists can maintain the nation’s identity, and ecologists can protect the environment.

Alright now that all of the above is covered we can discuss a few policy issues which would be necessary when creating such a coalition.

• Reduce all tax rates across the board to a flat 10% rate while eliminating all deductions and right-offs.
• Eliminate all federal welfare programs redirecting them unto the states to individually manage if they so choose to continue the programs.
• Require a strict following of the US Constitution for the federal government.
• Return education, environmental regulations, and policing in all forms to the city or county level.
• Enforce strict anti-trust legislation at the state level.
• Appropriate all laws concerning personal behavior to the state governments for control.
• Protect all current national parks, reserves, forests, and others by returning it to control by the states.
• Implement a war policy of ‘Just War’ where we only intervene militarily if we are directly threatened or attacked first.
• Reduce all immigration by requiring new immigrants have a current resident sign for them, pass health exams, be literate, have proof of a job before arrival, be under the age of 30, do not have a past criminal record, be morally/ethically acceptable, and be willing to quickly assimilate.
• Implement education which focuses not only on current studies but also environmental stewardship, morality, and civics.
• Encourage reduction of population by voluntary means.
• Take personal responsibility for energy conservation through investment in green projects, growing personal gardens for food, limiting our consumption, and buying smaller.

Obviously this is just an idea and could be further elaborated upon. So… what do you think?

Giving this thread a bump.

Come on folks!

reply to post by Misoir


I like it. Although I myself would go for a 15% flat tax. While 10% may be enough to run things at a National governmental level, I think war or a natural disater would suck up any funds in no time.

Maybe add to the list that a surplus fund must be maintained at least 5-8% of the annual GDP and may not be touched except in times of war or natural disaster.

I'll take your dare Misoir though I'm not fully functional at this time of morning yet. In many ways I think you may have described my own personal philosophical/political outlook, let's see what you think. I often describe myself as a "gun-toting, treehugging, pro-constitutional fiscal conservative peacenik with a Jeffersonian/agrarian land ethic" who advocates for freedom, personal responsibility, decentralization, developing a new scientific ethic, limited population growth, cultural awareness and appreciation, emphasis on creativity and individualized curriculum in education. democratic principles, non-interventionist foreign policies, the free market, progressive tax rates to discourage obscene levels of wealth accumulation, and last but not least developing a personal relationship with nature for establishing a deeper sense of morality and ethics.

What party represents my interests?

Our greatest problem seems to be that technology has given people the tools to institute radical change at the stroke of a pen or push of a button. We keep making the same mistakes over and over and the obvious problems are the ones that political parties use to create and maintain constituencies for themselves. If they actually solved problems they would lose their relevancy. It serves their financial base to do not only that but to create new problems as well. It's become a tired cliche of political interests that much of the public is now beginning to see through, e,g; the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, etc. This is why nothing gets solved because it does not pay them to do so.

We are also seeing naked socialism through governmental takeovers of key industries which leads me to believe that final stages of the destruction of the Republic are upon us. Traditional politics and parties have failed the people but served wonderfully the elect few who now sit higher than ever at the top of the economic pyramid. We are on shaky ground to say the least so far as the future is concerned. If we cannot radically alter the public's perception of what the reality of our current situation is the pyramid will topple due to the weakening of the base and the obscene weight of the capstone.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


You and I are pretty much the same then in most regards. However we probably differ in that I place special emphasis upon tradition, religion, culture, and identity alongside what you described. I believe in scientific advancements but also that science is only one part of a two part world, we need the spiritual/philosophical side of humanity to be treated as an equal in societal development. For example we cannot simply say that evolution is right then throw out biblical texts, we should try and balance the two as equal partners in our ethics and development.

I also am against rapid technological advancements and anything which is non-gradual in change. Like for example a revolution or the culture revolution of the ‘60s. Just as it says in my comments section so too I believe:

"The fair mansion of civilisation which we enjoy was not built with our hands, and our hands must refrain from polluting it. Being mere life-tenants, we have no business to cut off the entail, or to commit waste on the inheritance." - Edmund Burke

There should be a dramatic, yet voluntary, reduction in population and a departure from urban life. Like Thomas Jefferson I feel cities are corrupting to what would otherwise be a moral and interconnected people. Government is a necessary evil which should be restrained to the maximum possible degree yet we must accept what Edmund Burke and John Adams said:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” – Edmund Burke

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.” – John Adams

reply to post by Misoir


Are you against rapid technological advancements or just want to see them managed at a slower pace which allows them to be implemented in society once they have been proven to be feasible? Tech, such as Solar and Wind.

It's just my opinion, but managing others creativity actually contradicts much of what you are saying. You can’t rein in imagination.

But there also valid points as well such as cities. They are fast becoming a blight which produces little as many companies are moving operations to smaller towns. Where people will work for less, smaller tax rates and even a sense of community pride.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Misoir

 

Are you against rapid technological advancements or just want to see them managed at a slower pace which allows them to be implemented in society once they have been proven to be feasible? Tech, such as Solar and Wind.

Yes it is about slowing their growth until we know it is compatible with our world and functional but how to go about doing that is difficult. We cannot have paid bureaucrats making these decisions for us. That is why I see Eco-Nationalism as more of an ethical/cultural/philosophical approach to the world rather than political whereby we argue over the role of government. Environmental technology such as solar/wind should not be financed by the government but rather studied by scientists and environmentalists then voted upon by the local community if they want them or not.

reply to post by Misoir


Our differences may be less than you think. Although I may not be religious in the traditional sense I agree that each people and nation have their own cultural identity and that religion and tradition should be harnessed in tandem with science and advancement like a team of horses pulls a cart, neither being less important in moving forward with a balanced vision.
Rapid technological advancement creates huge rifts between different economic classes as well as generational groups. It destroys parts of the economy, displaces workers and separates families who must move simply to find gainful employment in the production sector. This devastates communities and creates wild variations in home prices. As you said, not only are there environmental factors involved in implementing new technologies but ethical and practical considerations that are lost in the rush to create new wealth.

At the very heart of these issues lie our basic human values which IMO are the very things that tribal societies enjoy a vast superiority in when compared to modern nation-states. Your typical Native American tribe had the following values: those who would be leaders were judged not by their wealth but by social status that was earned through being helpful to your neighbors, being productive in your particular life endeavor, bravery in battle and by having a good sense of what was most beneficial to the whole tribe. Many tribes viewed wealth as not that which you had accumulated but by how much you were able to give away or how many good deeds you had done for others. Our current leaders would not be held in high esteem by them, of that much we can be sure!

Look at who society holds in high regard now - the wealthy, regardless of whether it was accumulated through means of deception or lying and actors, whose greatest ability to "pretend" to be someone other than themselves, yet another form of deception.
They say we live in a culture of individuality yet the media teaches us to loathe ourselves for our imperfections which leads many of the most vulnerable even to the point of suicide simply because we're too short, our nose is too big, too far outside the physical "false norms" or because we don't have enough money, our house is too small, our car is too old etc. Our physical needs are few, yet we are endlessly bombarded with messages that equate who "we" are with the stuff we own. Meanwhile our spiritual and emotional needs are ignored and trivialized as unscientific, illogical and petty. Small wonder so many people are on drugs, legal or otherwise to numb us from the feelings of inadequacy and failure.

We may have come far as a society and as a Nation but that does not mean we went in the right direction. John Adams would roll in his grave if he knew how we had thrown away the great legacy and vision that was the founding fathers'. If haven't read it yet, check out David McCulloughs' biography of Adams. I think he is the greatest among them and the most temperate and moral of them all - values our modern educational system would like us to forget?

The need to return to an agrarian society is so that we have ties to the land. Today, we buy land and in using it for short-term gain we destroy it and move on like a biblical plague of locusts. The farmer cares for his land and learns it's every nuance over a lifetime. His livelihood depends on it's fertility this season as well as every season after. Nothing is destroyed or changed without long deliberation on how it will affect the land, leaving it better as it passes hands with each generation. The values of hard work, commitment and careful observation are all qualities we would do well to encourage today. How can we make informed decisions about an environment that we fail to understand or have any familiarity with?

Suffice it to say that unless we can turn most modern "values" on their head we are more than a lost generation, we will be a lost species at the current rate of change.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Excellent post, you truly point out everything that I was thinking. However we probably disagree on the issue of a “lost species”, we as a species are not lost it is us in the West as a civilization which is lost. Is there any wonder why our birth rates are plummeting, we have the highest suicide, high rates of murder, highest rates of psychological problems, and the least adherence to religion (besides East Asia). Yet even with all of those enormous societal failures we beat our chests as if we have triumphed simply because we have the biggest guns, most money, and largest houses, eat the tastiest food, and have access to whatever we want whenever we want.

As a civilization we have placed material objects, obsessions, and ideas in such high regard as the end all be all of life that we have systematically sent ourselves into a near permanent state of depression. Parents are divorcing, kids are rebelling, young adults are hooked on drugs and drinking, and we have a growing subculture of gangs, violence, and uncontrolled sexual appetites. Whenever you advocate temperance, virtue, and honor you receive a funny look or a response that those are irrational values of a lost time. Today the values which make us great are democracy, equality, freedom, and independence at all costs and with total disregard for the consequences.

We have developed into a dreamer society, influenced and pushed by utopian ideologies which fail every time they are implemented but believe only by pursuing them more can we truly solve the problems we clearly created in the first place. History is not to be looked upon as something to revere it is to be viewed as a collection of all mistakes and the reason as to why we must abandon it for the sake of progress. Every generation wants to burn down the house rather than renovating. They analyze it from their material point of view, deem it irrational, and throw it into the dust heap of everything they consider worthless.

Our world is no longer viewed as a unique relationship between ancestors, present, and future, it is viewed as a never ending blind progress of liberation.

We take up arms and march into the cold dark night in the name of progress, the cult of narcissism drags it bloody club through the streets of history to beat down the door of virtue. All the voices of our deceased scream in horror as they watch their offspring tear open the wounds which were once healed and scorch the remains of honor. By God we are a wicked race, if the Lord hath any mercy he would smite us from this Earth.

reply to post by Misoir


I agree with you that we must not eliminate our spiritual/religious ideas and ideals, replacing them with exclusively the scientific evolutionary model. I believe that we need the spiritual side to keep things from becoming too materialistic.
I have concerns about the eco movement. I love this planet and love the inherent vast beauty, and want to preserve that. However, there is a focus at the UN to use a totalitarian model to control resources. The UN Agenda 21 model is that Totalitarian model whereby the controlling elite make decisions from the top down, and then the NGOs and local communities adopt those policies and it's considered a public/private partnership. It all sounds very lovely and caring, but de-population is at the very core of this philosophy, as many of the designers of this policy are proponents of de-population as a way to control the use of the world's resources. Maurice Strong is one of those people who promotes this type of ideology.
They even promote the concept of Gaia to suck in the more spiritual of us, saying humans are parasites and Gaia mother earth is angry at us for polluting her planet. These are the people who say humans have no right to be here and use the resources to live comfortably.
The National Parks are being declared the property of the world through the World Heritage Foundation, and that sacrifices national sovereignty. Some people are fine with this, but one has to follow it to the logical conclusion, that some elites will be controlling how we use our resources, and then it is not Libertarian but Totalitarian.
That is my two cents about the eco people. They want to make world policy based on their idea that we humans are parasitic. Rationing and de-population is at the core of these agendas, while those who espouse them get funds from taxpayers to develop their programs.

few problems i have:

Appropriate all laws concerning personal behavior to the state governments for control.

we are already now legislated and controlled on what to do how to think what to beleive etc

Encourage reduction of population by voluntary means.

too much like chinas one child policy

dont have a problem with liberatarian per say how how do people achieve those goals? i know how they achieved those goals today and in the past

nationalism i have no problems loving a country that i was born and raised and given me so much but not to the point of what nationalism run amuk of yesteryear.

while those ideals are goal are indeed have the nobelest intentions and in theory in practice very much of a different take.

we are coruupt people mankind that is and the road to hell has been paved with the best of intentions

right now as i see it mankind is nowhere near close enough to achieve those goals.

dont even think we will even if a 1000 years have passed mankind has sought power and control over everything and anything we touch.

my take

reply to post by neo96


The whole reduction of population by voluntary means...I think you are right, too much like China's one child policy with a mix of UN "incentives" to voluntarily limit family size. In other words, in actual practice, this really translates into giving families financial incentives if they are willing to limit how many children they have. Although it sounds a lot nicer than forced sterilization or abortion, it is still a method of population control based on the rockefeller agenda. It all came about through the Rockefellers, Margaret Sanger, Thomas Malthus, Darwin, Galton, and Paul Ehrlich.