by Dreams End » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:19 pm
The webring may be a bit broader than pure "third positionism", but it has plenty of links. <br><br>Here's from one (different set of links each time you visit the page, by the way)<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What Is Beyond Left And Right? Beyond Left and Right is an international think-tank rather then an outright organisation. We are dedicated to providing a "third way" beyond that of left and rightwing political movements.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://blr.folkandfaith.com/">blr.folkandfaith.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>But Scollon...the whole reason it is CALLED "third position" is its alleged transcendence of "left and right" or "communism and fascism". Hence the term THIRD. <br><br>I find both orthodox Christian nationalists, white nationalists, fairly progressive sounding anarchists (except for their racial views), "new rightists" (e.g. Alain de Benoist of the French Nouvelle Droit") all kind of in the same network. Not to say they are all the same...only that they all consider themselves as "a third way". <br><br>And since I have a hunch, scollon, that you have some knowledge of English third positionist groups, feel free to post your own links. God forbid you actually link to something like an EXAMPLE when you talk.<br><br>I found an interesting site from an English guy (forgot his name) who was explaining the various rifts in English third positionism. The guy himself was both brilliant and anti-fascist (though still promoting racial separatism). He was very annoyed at those within third positionism who were adopting overtly fascist views. <br><br>Oh, here it is. Synthesis editor Troy Southgate. Here's his article Blood and Soil<br>Revolutionary Nationalism as the Vanguard of Ecological Sanity. Already the name of the article is a bit Nazi-like for my taste. <br><br>Here's his take on the NSDAP...the "leftwing" of Nazi'ism in Germany:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On March 6th, 1930, the National-Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its 'Official Party Manifesto on the Position of the NSDAP with Regard to the Farming Population and Agriculture'. This document claimed that the 'Maintenance of an efficient agricultural class, increasing in numbers as the general population increases, is a central plank in the National-Socialist platform'[8]. Furthermore, the Partly rightly acknowledged that the German peasantry was under attack from several quarters, namely 'the Jewish world money market - which really controls parliamentary democracy in Germany . . . the competition of foreign agriculturalists, who work under more favourable conditions . . . the extravagant profits made by the large wholesale middlemen, who thrust themselves in between producer and consumer . . . [and] . . . the oppressive rates the farmer has to pay for electric power and artificial manures to concerns mainly run by Jews.'[9] In place of this exploitation the NSDAP proposed that, amongst other things, land ownership be exclusively available to German citizens, that such land be made inheritable property (enabling peasants to become rooted to the soil), and that large areas be set aside for colonisation by an expanding German population. But whilst such policies were understandably attractive to ordinary peasants and back-to-the-land enthusiasts alike, when the Hitler government finally came to power in 1933 they were never put into practice. In 1940 Otto Strasser attacked the regime's Patrimonial Farm Law for the simple reason that it extended only to a portion of the peasantry and 'created three kinds of agricultural entrepreneur: peasants whose holdings were so small as to be unviable; middle and great peasants who are tenant-farmers; and great landowners who run their estates on purely capitalist lines.'[1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, alas, the characterization of the peasants as "under attack" by Jews is considered correct by Southgate. He also echoes the ideas of...well, "blood and soil", the mystical relationship between a people and their land that is the grounding of racial ideology. The emphasis on returning to agrarianism, primacy of the peasant class...<br><br>Here he is again:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Modern ecologists would do well to emulate the honesty and integrity of men like Walther Darre. Sadly, however, unlike their National-Socialist predecessor most of them are too frightened to accept that Race has a great part to play in the restoration of the natural order.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Southgate's "Synthesis" site is part of the "national anarchist" movement.<br><br>When you see this symbol<br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://rosenoire.org/images/n-a2.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>You'll know you are into something similar. That's not to say that third positionism = national anarchism or vice versa. As I said there are many "tendencies" within this movement.<br><br>Basically, my concern is that the whole philosophy is to combine concern with "the common people" (thumbs up) and ecology (ditto) with racial identity movements and (not including the anarchist strains) nationalism.<br><br>If you remove the anarchist part, you get something like Dugin and the Eurasian movement. Dugin was with the National Bolshevik party, definitely considered part of the third positionist movement. He has "evolved" into something more closely resembling "traditionalism" and has renounced (by omission, not by overt rejection) his occultism and embraced Russian orthodoxy. <br><br>Unlike the anarchic strains, Eurasianists see a regional superpower, comprised of Russia, much of Europe and even Israel! <br><br>How both these tendencies are "third positionist" can be confusing and I'm not completely up to speed on all the factionalism. The bottom line is that they reject capitalism, liberal democracy and communism and (sometimes) fascism, in favor of...well...a "third position." An emphasis on agrarianism, nationalism (of racial and cultural identity, if not an actual nation-state), and "organic" democracy (defined as something that can only emerge when racial groups are with their "own kind". <br><br>Synthesis seems like a good place to start. I have profound concerns and disagreements with Southgate, but unlike Scollon, he is extremely intelligent and knows how to present a coherent argument and a consistent position. Ultimately, "blood and soil" just brings up too many dancing swastikas in my mind. See what you think.<br><br>Here's the link to the article I quoted from:<br><br>http://rosenoire.org/articles/bloodandsoil.php<br>And the link to the main site:<br><br>http://rosenoire.org/<br>And notice that they link to the webring I linked to above. In fact, this is the site on which I found that webring.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>