Interview with Craig Smith

Conducted June-July 2007 by Paul Cooijmans


The Libertarian National Socialist Green party has a broad and coherent platform worthy of close survey. Yet it also uses historical references that may make one frown. To unearth the wells of its ideology, these questions were fired at the movement's initiator, Craig Smith from Texas, USA:

Questions and answers

QUESTION: Do you think it is wise to use the swastika as an emblem of your party? References to the Nazis repel people, especially in Europe where one knows them first-hand. Also, those erudite enough to understand and agree with your writings are generally not fetishists who require hooked crosses and grey uniforms for gratification. If you have a program that is by and large the recipe to repair Western civilization, then is it not better to lose the old Nazi symbolism before entering real politics?

ANSWER: There are many steps to fixing the problem of Western civilization and the first, toward which the LNSG is targeted, is to reform the "far right." This is why we use the swastika and Nazi imagery, because our goal is to recapture the far right from the same kind of charlatans who dominate mainstream politics (people after all do seek what they know, even if it is abusive; this is why most victims of abuse find themselves with another abuser, and the recidivism rate of self-destructive and un-fun behaviors is just as high as for those that are fun).

Currently, conservative, libertarian ("conservative anarchist"), extreme liberal, and far right parties are all describing roughly the same kind of solution: a localized organic state where capital pressures are replaced by cultural ones. They are inches away from accord, but are driven away by the balkanization that occurs with identity politics, where people identify with being correct by being of a certain type, such as "I'm a progressive, and everyone else is wrong, so I'm of higher moral status." We can end that in the far right, and then expand to reach others.

Our goal after that point would be to explain to people how our views are not left or right, or divisible into any of the mental categories we use for them, but are inherent to life itself and are what would be called "common sense" among people with the time, interest and intellectual capacity to understand these issues. We have no illusions that National Socialism or "right-wing" thinking is unique to our time, or our ethnicity, because we have seen these traits through history in every society that is heading upward (the other option is to head nowhere, or stagnate, which as time passes becomes a retrograde motion).

In the future, we will translate our ideology for a mainstream audience in a different form, but we believe that path is partially blocked by the sheer insanity that currently dominates the far right. For right now, our goal is to reform the far right from a few geniuses surrounded by an angry, unschooled mob to a coherent political movement which is emotionally in control of itself and looking toward logical solutions. Our message to the far right is that whatever your emotional response might be, what is important is a rational response that benefits humanity as a whole.

QUESTION: The idea of Nationalism is that an ethnic group should have its own autonomous state with its own culture. You want to apply this world-wide, and link it to environmentalism: not only the diversity in plants, animals and ecosystems must be preserved, but also that in human ethnic populations. Now there exist many peoples in the world, some of which small in number and currently living within larger countries. What is the minimum size an ethnic/cultural population should have to need and deserve its own nation?

ANSWER: Like many things, this cannot be solved bureaucratically. My initial response is to say that if a civilization exists autonomously, and it is distinct from others, it should be allowed to exist, but only time and the challenges of nature will tell if it can endure. As you note, I am a pragmatist, and so my primary focus is the preservation of known populations of humans and plants that together form an ecosystem.

One of the most powerful realizations behind our movement is the idea that humans, like animals and plants, form an ecosystem. We are not all the same. We are not clones. We each serve a role and these roles, in an interlocking calculus like that of a machine that could consider more factors than any machine yet known to us, together form what we know of reality. When we see how nature works in parallel like that, and how there is neither a central focus nor an absolute hierarchy of status, we are able to see how each ethnic group has a place as maintainer of its own culture, and how together these groups form a diverse world.

Most people who approach nationalism see it in narrow terms: white power OR black power. That OR is a logical exclusive or, meaning one or the other, but not both. Our realization is that for one group to have the power of nationalism, it must be accessible to every group, and that even more, it will benefit every group not just in the present tense but also in growing toward a better future. White power is black power is Zionism is Aztlan is Slavic independence. The struggle of Ireland for its autonomy is parallel to the struggle of the Maori, or the indigenous Maya, or Nordic Aryans in Scandinavia. We are not struggling for a tangible balkanized identity as our ethnic groups, but for a principle, and that principle applies to all ethnic groups.

With this in mind, the focus changes from "Race" to "Ethnicity," and the idea that each unique group should be able to preserve itself, including groups existing among others. Basques, for instance. Or Irish Travelers. However, we also need to do what is healthy for the group among whom they exist, so relocation should not be considered out of the question. For example, the homeland of gypsies is probably Pakistan, and there they belong. The homeland of Jews is Israel, and there they belong. However, this is also a balance; we do not value the rights of the small population at the expense of the larger population, meaning that we do not pick a secessionist population OR a host population; we pick both. When thinking of small ethnic groups, the only solution is enlightened leaders who know where to draw the line and how to do so without endangering either population.

QUESTION: In a world of all National Socialist states there would still be global issues to deal with, such as the shared environment - atmosphere, oceans - and atomic bombs. What form of international organization could enforce a responsible use of the ecosystem and protect the common interests between all nations?

ANSWER: In any world order there will be these issues. We would not pick an international organization, but instead would cultivate enlightened governments in the local areas who can lead by example and, if necessary, enforce reforms. Sometimes these reforms are reinforced with invasion and domination, as the Americans have "tried" in Iraq, but in most cases people will follow a positive example.

QUESTION: Do you want eugenics on a voluntary basis, or will it actually be forbidden to procreate for some?

ANSWER: Voluntary eugenics presupposes that those who should not breed will magically awaken to the knowledge that they should not breed, when what defines such people is generally their pursuit of self-interest in obliviousness to its effect on others.

My ideal eugenics solution is simple: first, encourage the best to breed by allowing them to make a decent living doing what interests them, instead of putting them into boring corporate jobs. Second, sterilize the people who have entered the legal system for a history of violent, parasitic, pedophiliac, perverse and other extreme crimes. Finally, take those whose reproduction is not desired and tell them this: we will not force you to not breed, but we will also not make social services or other collective resources available to your offspring. So if you do breed, it is going to fall 100% on your shoulders. That will make enough reconsider.

Optimally, a society will at some point design its future along these lines: we want people of 120 IQ points or higher who have noble characteristics in their outlook, inherently positive behavior, and are free from biological defects and tendencies toward disease. Once we set that up, we can clearly see who is likely to breed such people, and give them rewards like state subsidies, and who is not likely to breed such people, and remove from their certain services and resources made available by socialized cost from the wealth of the rest of the population.

In the United States, for example, people are terrified of eugenics because they think it will mean the elimination of minorities. Our solution is to say that it is unfair for a white person to apply eugenics to non-whites, but we want the ability to apply eugenics to whites, because there are a lot of low-quality whites roaming around. I do not mean strictly intellectually, as there are three components to a person: intellectual, character/moral, and physical beauty/health. Ideally those should be balanced toward the higher end of the scale; without balance, a person can be threatening, such as an ugly man with high intelligence and low moral character!

We would like to make ourselves better, and while we encourage other races and ethnicities to do the same, it's not our place to implement it. Eugenics recognizes that you cannot make a law that fits all people because the abilities of people vary. Maybe we should make drunk driving legal for those who can hold their liquor, and make speed limits optional for people who can drive at high speed, and not limit the access of geniuses to all information even if it could allow them to make atomic bombs or nerve gas. With change in abilities comes a necessary change in what is allowed, and too much restraining law suffocates creativity and strangles the fun in life!

In contrast to eugenics, bureaucratic law assumes we are all equal, and then standardizes our society to a lowest common denominator. This means that geniuses can't get ahold of vital research, and are tripped up by laws designed to prevent stupid people from self-destructing (obviously, we would eliminate these laws). Eugenics recognizes that no society will have peace until its people are balanced to a minimum standard, and of course it makes sense to make that standard higher.

QUESTION: Why do you oppose genetic manipulation of foods - on pain of death - while you do advocate eugenics? Are not both essentially the same: improving genetic stock? Why exclude the new scientific ways of doing so?

ANSWER: There are two reasons for opposing genetic manipulation of foods. One has to do with the ecosystem, and the other with our consumption of GM foods.

The first is that as rational people, we have to realize that these genetically modified plants would get into the wild and possibly replace their host plants, or ancestors. Aesthetically, we see such a change as a loss; scientifically, we see it as a dangerous gamble.

The second is that genetics is a complex science when manipulated in the details and not in the whole. Eugenics does not attempt to modify a person with a single gene to make them smarter; it looks at the end result and says "yes" or "no," even if anticipating the next generation. The process of making GM foods consists of replacing one "word" in millions of sentences of instructions, and we're not sure what the full consequences are. It's bad science to deploy this stuff and test it on ourselves and our environment before we know what effects it will have in 500 years, and the only reason people want GM foods is the lowered cost of production, as with the pesticides, preservatives and antibiotics that currently make much of our food ambiguously healthy.

Furthermore, recent research ( suggests that organic farmed products are tastier, healthier and easier to produce than those made by corporate industrial methods. I would like to add that our current farming standards are disgusting, in that we grow food quickly with no thought to quality or the "details" like buildup of pesticides in our tissues and rivers, and that the way we treat animals is reprehensible -- crammed into small cages, pumped with chemicals, slaughtered in terror and then cut up by underpaid, low intelligence workers who seem to accidentally introduce E. Coli to the meat every few months.

It's enough to make you vegetarian, and it made me vegetarian. In theory, I have no objection to eating animals that are hunted or farmed by traditional methods. There is no way to make death painless or non-threatening, but an animal that lives a good life on a farm and then becomes meat is better off than some poor pig sweltering in a cage with an IV line in one end and a vacuum pump out the other. It may be that eating meat is a positive thing, if we abandon our destructive but cheap methods of production.

QUESTION: What do you think of artificial improvements to humans as in "cyborgs", as opposed to naturally enhancing a race through selective breeding?

ANSWER: I think we must be very careful playing with things we only partially understand, as Marie Curie's example proves. I would rather naturally enhance humans (in respective ethnicities) to the highest point possible, as upon that groundwork we can built anything, than rely on a machine solution to fix us, since that "solution" has more potential to go radically wrong or, as I wrote about in the eugenics question above, to produce someone with great abilities but lacking in either moral character or health, motivating them to behave badly. Ugly or unhealthy people often become enraged or resentful and as a result destructive; one other argument against a cyborg is that it may come to resent "meat humans," or to be jealous of their relatively uncomplicated lifestyle. (As much as I detest mainstream movies, I think it is fair to mention the 1980s film "Robocop" as one that sardonically explored these issues, at the hands of Dutch director Paul Verhoven.)

QUESTION: Some deny that intelligence and character are genetic. How do you convince them of the need for eugenics?

ANSWER: One realization that hit me early in life is that you cannot convince every single person to be rational, even if you have a lifetime to spend on each one. They have their own reasons. Often when I run into someone who denies that intelligence and character are genetic, a little discussion reveals that they're afraid to consider that possibility because they have someone in their family bloodline who went insane, or ended up in jail, or became a lawyer or something. What I tell them is that nature is predictable, but not simplistic. If you have one grandparent who was insane, you have "mathematically" a 1/4 chance of inheriting that -- but really, you have much less of a chance, since there isn't one gene for insanity and insanity probably results from a lack of balance between traits instead of a single rogue trait.

I really think this issue will boil down to people getting over their fear of being judged, and the way to convince them that this is not an issue is to make it not an issue: good leadership convinces doubters. I would not trust eugenics to some corporate nanny-state, which would immediately begin exterminating freethinking and creative people for not conforming exactly in how they filled out their tax returns!

When people are able to face the fact that as biological organisms, we are (1) our design and (2) our iteration, including experience, we are able to give up the personal pretense that we designed ourselves and that we have 100% total free will. We do not: we are limited to what we know, limited by our capabilities, and limited by our time and access to resources. The one thing we can change however is that we can eliminate the degree to which fear, laziness, confusion, greed, sloth, envy and cowardice limit us, through self-discipline and intelligent mental organization.

I find in many beliefs something to admire. What I admire most about Buddhism (and more subtly, Hinduism, but there's a lot to admire there) is the idea that with personal spiritual and moral discipline, we can quiet the neurosis in our heads and see the task as simply as it exists in reality, and then do it. Most of the time, at a job or in life, people fret for 90% of their time and in the remaining 10%, make a guess based on their instincts and -- surprise! -- it works out. It would be better to simply launch into the 10%, and free up that 90% of the time to do more fun things, because fun is part of life.

Islam has its own component. We all know the word "jihad" from our televisions, and assume it is an ancient Persian word for the ability to fly planes into buildings. Actually, jihad comes in two forms. The greater jihad is within, and is a war with ourselves for that same mental clarity that Zen Buddhism describes. The lesser jihad is the outward fight against the enemies of Islam, and it takes some careful interpretation, although I have to say that Osama bin Laden is correct in his interpretation of it but politically inexperienced in his approach toward the West.

These ideas show up in our own cultures as well. German knights would "pray" all night, or for days while fasting, in a description of what can only be a similar meditative practice. Many of our greatest thinkers describe the "reverie" brought about by intense concentration, and how they would go into that state whenever possible. It is this kind of mental discipline that allows us to overcome our fears, even of eugenics, and see a positive result.

QUESTION: What is the danger of racial mixing?

ANSWER: Mixing ethnic groups dissolves cultural bonds, and culture as a shared values system is what holds a society together and prevents it from relying on lowest common denominator means of decision-making, such as crass populism (who wants a free TV?), mass democracy, capitalism and exploitative environmental practices. If you want your society to survive, you should realize that society is not a place, nor is it a flag, but it's an organic ideal: a (type of) people, unified by their design (genetics, biology) and their values.

Culture, language and heritage are if you think about them all aspects of the same thing; our modern society likes to think you can split them up, and impose a culture upon a mixed-ethnic group, or impose a language upon a different culture and have them somehow like it and start thinking like its creators thought. Modern society wants to break down culture and create a featureless Grey Race as they will be the ideal consumers and workers, since they will have no loyalty to anything but money and the novelty of products.

When we speak about civilization, we are speaking of a group of people who separate from the rest, go to some unique land and develop adaptations to it. In the process, they not only codify the simple adaptations (if in Greece, learn to cook eggplant) but the larger ones, such as the spiritual impetus that made them leave another life and set up another. These are immortal things, and represent values, because culture at its profound level (beyond the stuff that can be marketed, like cooking, clothing, dance and other tangible items) is a values system held in consensus by a population. These values, the language that is designed to communicate on their terms, and the heritage that brought it about: together these form a civilization.

Without any one of these, a partial civilization exists, and in place of shared values it will have the modern problem of every person pulling in a different direction, and since there is no "common good," those directions will be quite selfish or at the least self-interested, leaving the question of direction to society to whoever wants to answer it -- which is invariably No One. For business purposes, it seems like a good idea to milk civilization like we milked the forests and the oil reserves, depleting them without a thought for the future, so we think: if we could eliminate culture, people would get their values from the same TV on which we advertise, and so they'd buy more of our products, and if they have no culture to tell them what a good job is from a bad job, they'll take any job at any wages so long as they can keep buying products... but this misses out on what makes life significant to the individual, and to the group.

I am not religious about racial mixing, meaning that I don't freak out at every instance of it. I don't think it belongs in indigenous communities like Europe and the USA (a German-English, Western European nation by heritage) but I think it should happen in some places that enjoy that sort of thing. I don't think I can say, categorically, that it is bad for everyone, but I think I can say, categorically, that since it threatens the culture-values-heritage of each ethnic-cultural group, it has to happen Elsewhere... and I think it only fair to note, in a Spenglerian-Nietzschean sense, that observing the remnants of once-great nations we always see several traits: (1) commerce took over from culture (2) racial mixing occurred (3) distrust and lack of consensus as to values made the society collapse from within, and present little resistance to even primitive barbarian invaders.

In some cases, I could see racial mixing produce interesting results, if done demographically and not on the individual level. For example, if we isolated a population of 60% Finns and 40% Inca in a remote area of Peru, would we create a population idealized for winter mountain travel? I am intrigued by how modern Europeans came out of a mixture of Nordid, Falid, Dinarid and Mediterranean, but I am also interest in how the predominantly Nordid countries invented everything I enjoy. The question of racial mixture addresses the need for some shared basis of values to unite a civilization, but within that, there is the question of eugenics, which excepting its "negative eugenics" form (eliminating the retarded, perverse, criminal, stupid, parasitic, etc) has a "positive eugenics" component, which is: how do we motivate people spiritually, emotionally and intellectually to pit themselves against the most vigorous challenges of nature, knowing that natural selection will shape them, as it did the ancient Nordid Aryans?

QUESTION: What exactly is meant by "Indo-European"?

ANSWER: Indo-European refers to the group commonly called Caucasians, which can be traced through linguistic roots, cultural artifacts and genetic profiles across the globe. Their traces are found on every continent. I do not like the term Aryan used to mean "Caucasian," because that is inaccurate: the Aryans were the highest caste of the group we call Caucasians, and to call anyone with white skin Aryan is about as accurate as calling a chimpanzee a mouse or a gorilla a policeman. I even find the term Caucasian to be questionable, until we know with true accuracy the roots of these people.

If you look at the linguistic history of the Indo-Europeans (, you will see that this group does not solely include Europeans, and that modern day Europeans are descendants of a group with a common heritage and language who probably came out of the frozen north after evolving further from the mostly Falid mix of Euripids at the time. This new group spread worldwide because of its intelligence, compassion, willingness to help others and warlike assertion of what is "right" and realistic over what is convenient for individuals to believe, for reasons of personal pretense, fear or other undisciplined ideals.

When I say Indo-European, I'm speaking of these descendants today, and want to remind them that if they apply those same standards of personal discipline, they can rediscover the greatness of the past. However, I think they should recognize that Europeans for example have brothers in India and parts of Asia and the Middle East and Latin America and even partial brothers in the American Indian, and that we should see humanity as a whole with different specializations within it, instead of trying to categories humans into "human" and "sub-human." Instead of focusing on racial elitism, in other words, we should focus on regaining the greatness of the past.

QUESTION: To what extent do you suggest repatriation of other-ethnic groups in the new National Socialist state? This is a sensitive matter; one imagines or hopes that long-present well-integrated groups might simply stay to be bred into the main population, that more recent and/or discordant immigrants are gently and humanely guided back to their homelands, and that large incompatible groups without a homeland are even given their own nation-space and self-rule by the country they currently live in (for instance, mixed African-Americans would be given autonomy in Texas, and all Indo-Europeans there lovingly deported and offered Lebensraum in the friendly hills between Kotzebue and Arctic Village, AL, which in breeding terms are a hotbed for Nordic races). What do you propose?

ANSWER: Many solutions do not succumb to bureaucratic answers, so if this response seems vague, it is because in most cases local wise people will have to make the decisions based on the situation, not some abstraction formulated distantly in a distant location.

As a general principle, I think groups should be associated with similar groups. I do not think assimilation benefits anyone; each group loses the culture that holds it together, and what emerges is cultureless and confuses, as the tearful stories of third-generation American immigrants are just beginning to reveal. In the case of the Americas, I would deport all recent immigrants, and create a homeland for African-Americans in one of the American states. I would devote another to what is left of the American Indians, and eliminate all reservation rules so American Indians re-create a society on their own terms. Hispanics are recent, and Mexico is nearby, so I would deport them to there.

Texas, historically, has three ethnic groups: the American Indians who settled parts of it, the Celts who settled most of it, and the Germans who built focal communities within it. I would return it to the Germans, since of all three groups, they did the most with it. Where would you rather live, New Braunfels, Brenham, Austin, or Houston? (Probably not a fair question unless you visit Texas and spend time working and living in each place, but illustrative for those familiar with the geography and culture of the area.)

In general, I don't like the idea of radicalized solutions to problems that can be solved organically. America for example is 60% German-derived heritage peoples, and they tend to settle from the northern border straight down into Texas, but find areas below that difficult to settle. They were the ones who built this nation, and the ones who designed it, and defined its culture. It makes most sense for them to inhabit it, and to give other groups space of their own outside that civilization.

However, that in turn will make those groups less likely to find success as they would have in their genetic homelands, which is where ultimately it will be of their greatest benefit to go. Among other things, the brain drain of other countries into America has created instability that is not necessary. I see this situation as one that would begin with the right of cultures to associate with their own, and would "evolve" to the point where almost all non-Euripids left Europe and America for their homelands. Of the few who remained, it is possible that local cultures could arise which would be healthy and beautiful, and that I encourage.

QUESTION: How do you look at nuclear (fission) energy as an alternative for fossil fuels?

ANSWER: Again, we must ask Marie Curie. Is nuclear energy an immense gift? Clearly. It is also dangerous both in wartime (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the eternal shame of the USA) and in peacetime (Harrisburg, Chernobyl). I would implement nuclear power with the understanding that it is a mission in which we cannot fail, since one screwup can destroy the lives of millions and pollute untold acres of natural land. I would not trust large government bureaucracies or large corporations to do this, but would entrust it to local leaders.

QUESTION: How large would you say the world population can be, while leaving intact enough of the natural environment?

ANSWER: Ideally, under a half-billion. Interestingly, this also corresponds to the number of people above 105 IQ points. That is the number of people who can have normal lives and live well without having any sizable impact on the environment. Knowing that, it makes sense as a species to limit ourselves to our half-billion best people, so that we get better and we do not destroy our world... the only idea that opposes us is the personal pretense that each individual, like ourselves, is immortal or should be immortal, and therefore that no other individual should be told not to breed or live a first-world lifestyle. However, if we plan reality on the 500-year level, as we should, it clearly makes sense to start limiting our population, and to do it by biological quality and not some arbitrary lottery that has geniuses not breeding while people of no specific ability do.

QUESTION: An organization as yours may attract hateful elements, like racists, neo-Nazis and White supremacy people. How will you keep them in check and prevent violence?

ANSWER: The primary means we use against such people is to make our points loudly and clearly, and to denounce ideologies based on racial hatred, class warfare, religious hatred and other out-of-control emotional responses. In our experience, people who want to be racists, neo-Nazis and White Supremacists find us distasteful. The proof of this is how few of them will mention us on the larger neo-Nazi/White Power/etc websites, because they find us offensive, or aren't sure if we're a joke because we do not repeat the party line of "all that's white is good, all that's not white is bad"! Interestingly, the mainstream media avoids us whenever they can as well. They prefer to show "Nazis" who are emotionally out of control, hateful, unproductive people, and finding the LNSG on the news might make too much sense to their audience.

As far as other means we can take, I think like all things this depends on the people involved. If we have a healthy leadership who can tell the difference between rational politics and emotional (race hatred) elitism, we can prevail against these lower elements of the far right. If we cannot... we will be taken over by such elements and destroyed. There is no guaranteed solution, but it is my goal for as long as I live to avoid collapsing into that entropy. It is not an easy path for most to see where we are, because it requires leaving behind both conventional politics and the reaction to it, so we must be patient with most people, as right now they are either voting mainstream and have no solutions, or are having an extreme reaction (most greens, neo-Nazis, libertarians, anarchists, etc) and have not yet fitted their desired civilization to a pragmatic plan.

QUESTION: The Socialist fraction of your program sketches a classless society by replacing social classes by "castes", more or less as in Medieval feudalism or the old Indian caste system. Could you explain this appealing concept of "caste"?

ANSWER: Class is social status stratigraphy by earning potential, which is approximate Darwinism but breaks down in cases of highly creative people and ruthless people; in a class system, the best people get shoved into the bottom of the middle class because they are not obsessed with earning money, and many of the worst rise to the top because their lives are empty without a large bank account to supplement their failing self-esteem.

Class also creates this ugly environment where we look at someone and say, "This person earns less than me, so her or she is probably intellectually inferior, most likely morally inferior and obviously socially inferior." This is an artificial ranking. We prefer organic/biological ranking, which puts those with the greatest level of balanced intelligence, character and health/beauty at the top, the way medieval and traditional Indo-European aristocratic systems did. The best man should be King; in the class system, the richest man is, and he's rarely the most intelligent or moral or attractive/healthy. Because class is insane, it creates the ongoing class warfare and Revolutions we have seen destroy Europe since the end of the medieval era. It is pointless.

We believe there are three basic castes: 90% of the people are thralls, or those who need to be given a clear task and have their welfare taken care of for them; 9% are carls (artisans and warriors/knights) who can handle complex tasks if given the framing/context of a worldview and goal, and 1% are jarls/Aryans or the noble, spiritual and intellectual elite who can discover the context to existence as has been eternally true in every worldview since human time began, and can define goals for society in response to change or the lack thereof. In this worldview, caste is not linked to wealth; for example, carls and jarls have essentially the same lifestyle and wealth, although jarls administer the "collective" wealth of nations and so are seen by thralls as having much money because, after all, if you're a thrall you might be tempted to take some of the money used for collective purposes.

In our experience, there are very few jarls left, and we would have to seek them out and breed them as we could. After the French and American revolutions, it became apparent that aristocrats would find their lives in danger everywhere, so these days most descendants of those jarls can be found tending farms in the midwest, running traditional art galleries in Sweden, or even surfing away their inheritance while writing the Great Indo-American Novel. Carls are in abundance, and thralls are never in short supply. One can rise or descend in the caste tree over multiple generations, which is why there are gradients in caste. Generally, it takes 10-15 generations to rise a level, but one can fall a level in a single generation.

Caste is appealing because it discards the third party that is our measurement of wealth. We don't care how much people earn; their abilities define their rank, and among abilities we include character. This is a more accurate assessment of people and, by hiding the pretense that someone can earn money and buy things and by doing that obscure their personal failings, we remove much of the rancor associated with class systems. Competition is essential to any society, so long as it does not replace all other means of decision-making, but removing the economic ranking of people makes us much more likely to get along.

QUESTION: Breeding in castes may be effective, but what if someone says, "I feel locked in, I would rather fulfill a function of another caste"? Must the individual give in to the system then, or is transition between castes sometimes permissible?

ANSWER: Transition between castes takes multiple generations, or every thrall would decide to be a jarl and society would collapse. If you look at humanity, that "I would rather" in the individually most commonly obscures what makes plain sense, as in "I would rather eat cake than a healthy meal" or "I would rather throw my garbage out of my car, and leave it to my neighbors to pick it up." Individualism, or selfishness, is the furthest extension of the materialist (philosophical definition: all actions and motivations measured in terms of material effect, no world or values beyond the material) principle in that it allows the individual to discard implications and consequences and act solely in terms of their own material comfort.

QUESTION: Would advanced technology and science have their place in the society you envision?

ANSWER: Absolutely, but we would avoid the depravities of bureaucratic government and large corporations, which have one unifying principle in common: both are giant groups of people making decisions according to committee practice based on the equality of all members, instead of assigning the most capable people to leadership and letting them alone make the decision.

QUESTION: Why is fascism needed rather than democracy, in a National Socialist state?

ANSWER: Democracy, like committee thinking at large corporations and in giant governments, relies on the assumed equality of ability of its participants. In my experience, the more people you get into a room trying to be polite -- social equality -- to one another, the less likely you are to get a decision, and when you do it will be either a lowest common denominator decision or an indecisive one. This is why the larger a company gets, the less functional their products become, and the larger a government gets, the less likely it is to be effective.

Civilization is our salvation and our enemy in the same way prosperity is: if we eat too much, we get fat. If we get overcivilized, we also get fat. In fact, we choke ourselves to death by being polite to each other, and ensuring we're all represented equally, and listening to every perspective no matter how outright stupid or irrelevant, and the result is that all of our decisions become non-decisions and we quietly, humanely, urbanely and politely usher ourselves into oblivion through a denial of reality. Democracy is not reality. Democracy is social pressures elevated to the level of leadership, and as Plato noted, it destroys any nation that it afflicts.

People who criticize fascism (or National Socialism: they are related but distinct forms of government, and are also distinct from authoritarianism, sensu Stalin, or totalitarianism, sensu Pol Pot) usually get this "I have a secret" look on their faces and then ask, as if they are the first person to think of it, "But what if you get a bad leader!" -- I think they're confusing a universal principle with one specific to fascism. Any society can get ahold of a bad leader, even Democracies, like the United States, which recently elected a man no one seems to like having as a President.

The health of your society, and its ability to produce great individuals, determines the leader you get. A society of morons will elect a moron; a fascist society of morons will also have to pick a moron as its leader. With philosophy and politics, you cannot separate one means (fascism of leadership) from another (eugenics and healthy culture breeding smart people). You are who your people are, and that alone determines whether you get a good leader or a bad one, not method of government -- except in democracies, where a good leader who tells the unpopular truth will not win the election, and the moron promising free beer, more television and more time off will be elected. You can get away with that until you have actual problems to face, and then going into denial and picking the moron promising free beer can be fatal.

QUESTION: You recommend execution of repetitive criminals. How do you feel about corporal punishment, other than death?

ANSWER: I do not believe in corporal punishment; I believe in the eugenic removal of people who are a threat to society and offer nothing. Repeat criminals of a serious nature (e.g. not habitual pot smokers) will never be able to offer anything to society except a certain amount of labor, and we have no shortage of that; at the same time, they will present a threat of the repeated behavior they have shown is pathological, or ingrained whether by genetics or conditioning or both. It is healthier to remove them without worrying about concepts of punishment, guilt or innocence. It is healthier to say "This animal is a broken animal" and kill it, and move on to devote our resources to healthy people. Worrying about punishment creates a complex and error-prone court system that is trying to pass moral judgment on people, when really all it needs to do is ask the question: "Does this person help us or hinder us?"

QUESTION: When and where will the Libertarian National Socialist Greens, or sister parties thereof, begin taking part in elections?

ANSWER: Our current plan is contingent upon personnel. I work with environmental groups in addition to my day job (which sometimes overlaps) and the LNSG, so I am probably not the candidate. We are planning in 2008 to have candidates run in local elections, as that is the best way to prove the fitness of our ideas: take a local area and make it run itself better. All ideology and political symbolism is secondary to this making life better, making sure stomachs are full and the trains run on time and we don't wipe out all the trees, u.s.w. I will know more on this by the end of the year.

QUESTION: In one of your essays you suggest that among the allies of National Socialism may be radical Islamic organizations like Al-Qaeda, as those actually strive for National Socialist (Islamic) states too. Now let's say in a particular Western country there are radical Muslims who make it explicit they want to turn the country Islamic and kill every "infidel" in it. If one were a National Socialist, how could one make them one's allies?

ANSWER: Such people would not understand the concept of parallelism, which I think Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden do understand. Parallelism says that in one world, we have many people, and each specializes in living according to culture (shared values consensus). So for Arabia, Islam is the right answer... but not for Europe or the USA. Just like it's not right for other nations to go meddle in Arabia, it's not right for Muslims to go elsewhere and preach Islam.

This is the nature of traditional societies, in that culture and heritage and language define values, and values define other things such as religion, leadership, aesthetic ideals, folklore and then the tangible stuff like ethnic foods, ethnic clothing and ethnic dances, all of which can easily be co-opted into a Disney film. The essence of traditional culture however, that shared values consensus, cannot be co-opted and does define how religion is interpreted, if not which religion is picked. And aren't all religions really different interpretations of the same thing?

I think the smartest of the Islamic thinkers realize this is the case, and that Europe is healthiest not only when it's not Islamic but when it is in the grips of transcendental religious interpretations like those of the pagans. They may be in name Christian, but if we think outside of the materialist ethic of mainstream Christianity, we connect to our pagan values. We view the Wahabist Islamicists as allies, much as we view the Kahanist Zionists as allies, because each one states this: "In the purview of our culture, only our culture must reign, by whatever means necessary."

If the world lived with each culture asserting itself according to these principles, life would be much better. It is when we try to tolerate incompatible views that we become confused and hypocritical, and so with "good intentions" and "tolerance" start badly-conceived wars like Iraq and Viet Nam.

QUESTION: What would you say to one who thinks: "It's the best and most comprehensive world view I have seen, but... they are Nazis?! How can I support this party while, being European, my parents remember the war, and some of their relatives have been killed by die blonde Bestien ?"

ANSWER: The NSDAP was one iteration of National Socialism; National Socialism is a concept that can occur in different physical forms. Much of WWII was a big screwup, because it occurred in a time when almost everything was screwed up, and for people to get enough mental clarity to avoid repeating those screwups was difficult. I would prefer to avoid inter-European warfare, and that requires the person in your question to forgive the death of their relatives at Nazi hands, just as Germans must forgive the deaths of their relatives at French or English hands. We are one people.

QUESTION: And what would you say to who thinks "I would like to recommend these essays to my friends, but am hesitant to do so as I fear they would be scared off by the Nazi symbols and photos of Hitler"?

ANSWER: My advice is always to discuss the ideas before discussing party allegiances. If they agree on the ideas, they are our allies, even if they present themselves as the Gay Mulatto Unitarian Anarchist Skydiving Commune Front for the Legalization of Marijuana, or something. This is the big secret to modern politics: we do not have to be the same groups to want the same principle for the governance of all groups! White power = black power.

QUESTION: There exist huge aggregations of money that result from speculating, money lending, insurance, and other ways of making money with money. In National Socialism, where values are measured by higher standards than financial profit, such practices are not approved of. Will those fortunes, insofar not represented by material goods or honest labour, become worthless when you gain power?

ANSWER: Sudden invalidation of wealth would present a number of problems, so our goal is to avoid it. Luckily however we can generate enough wealth as peoples to make it obsolete. If we keep moving forward, we build more wealth; if we stagnate and look too much at dividing up what we have, we decay. My preferred procedure would be to ignore these existing fortunes and concentrate on building future fortunes that are better distributed, except in the cases of people who have made their fortunes by immoral and destructive practices, in which case the state should take that money and use it to conserve wildlife and preserve forests.

The average person who owns stock, or insurance, should not be penalized. The person who made a fortune from selling cheap handguns to criminal, pornographic videos, drug paraphernalia or mindless Hollywood entertainment... well, that money is better spent on healthy people.

Our main concern with "re-financialization" (term borrowed from "American Theocracy," by Kevin Philips, where he correctly identifies re-financialization as a symptom in common to all first-world nations that are failing and soon to adopt third-world status) is that it is a destructive basis for an economy, one that could easily be supplanted by economics based on the value of future labor, with positive consequences for the nation and its citizens.

QUESTION: How would the position of women in a National Socialist state differ from that in current Western society?

ANSWER: For both women and men, the primary change would be that family would be ranked as more important than job, unless the people in that family would be having dysgenic (retarded, stupid, criminal, deformed) children. Right now, if you are a stay-at-home dad or a stay-at-home mom, people react as if you've failed somehow by not having a "career," which means getting out there and spending all your time filling out paperwork that no one really cares about. Our goal would be to make family a healthy goal, and to let that do the shaping of gender roles, because we cannot admit we exist without admitting we are mortal without admitting that having a family is something that is rewarding our whole lives.

We recognize that feminism has been a destructive failure. It is poor thinking to polarize women against men in the name of claiming equality, which results in both sexes becoming disposable sexual playthings, and because women are the ones who might find it useful to anchor a family, results in women being single in their forties and onward and caring about it, while men wander around single and think, "Well, at least I'm getting laid regularly!" Sexual liberation is sexual politics is sexual polarization is destructive, end of story.

What the women who supported feminism, and unwittingly supported the neurotic people who "led" it by writing neurotic books, wanted was to not be treated like inferiors and owned property because they did not have careers. The woman felt she had no power; she was to stay at home, be told what to do, and the man went out and had a career and basically held her under his control with money. In most cases where good non-neurotic people were involved, this wasn't a problem, because there was a living family. But in neurotic societies we prefer to focus on the worst-case abuses, least of all because they make compelling news media stories...

The solution is to return to traditional roles. In this, the family is more important than the job. Women are not prohibited from having careers, but neither woman nor man is seen as worthless for not having a career, so long as they are contributing in some way. When running a household required more aptitude than buying things, women had power, and the power to with their creativity make things better -- this is the environment we would return to, in part by eliminating the easy but inferior product options, and in part by re-sacralizing the family. (To desacralize something, like family, is to sacralize its opposite, or the empty wandering drifting sexually liberated lifestyle of infidelity to everyone, including oneself. A sexually liberated person is someone who has detached sex from reproduction and from family, and in doing so, become a whore to sex without purpose.)

One other area we would change would be public perception of the ideal woman. We would have images of idealized woman in public, but they would be artistic images, not advertising images. And when we portrayed the average person, e.g. not an idealized woman as must exist in mythology, they would not look like models -- they would be real people, warts and all, so that we can escape this mythos of the perfect woman who buys the right products and never has bowel odor, even though that is impossible for a biological entity.

QUESTION: You advocate personal liberty and allow anything that does not conflict with the goals of society at large, those goals being conscientiously formulated by a proper fascist government after local culture and tradition. However, you wish to segregate to areas of specialized function lifestyles that would otherwise intrude on the lives of others, such as noisy behaviour, drug use and homosexuality. What is your response to the suggestion that these lifestyles actually result from neurological disorders or other types of disease, and require (voluntary) medical treatment to keep the behaviour under control, rather than segregation? The down side of segregation is that it robs these people of leading satisfactory traditional lives, which they might well prefer if only they could master their deviant urges with pills or surgery. Also, groups like pedosexuals and psychopaths essentially fall in the same category, though far more harmful, and may in some cases be controlled through forced treatment rather than executed (on the understanding, obviously, that a careful eugenics program will reduce their incidence in future generations).

ANSWER: There are many questions here. First, we reject the assumption that honest homosexuality is anything but biological, formed at the moment of conception based upon the genetics involved and the percentage of the population at large that is heterosexual. Honest homosexuality is determined before birth. We say "honest" because there are two other groups of people who have been lumped into the category of homosexual: child abuse cases, or young boys and girls who raped in a homosexual manner have adopted that as their sexual ideal (and abuse as their emotional ideal, hence promiscuity and risky behavior) and perverts, who will use any cover they can to stuff themselves with enough sex to dull their insatiable appetite for lust.

Honest homosexuals have existed in every society and will always exist, in our view. The correct response is twofold. First, give them a place to practice whatever romantic needs they have. Next, let's bring back "Don't ask, don't tell." If someone wants to be a homosexual and fit in to society, we will call them a "bachelor" or "single woman" and work with them as friends and neighbors. We say don't ask don't tell because the primary concern of heterosexual parents is to preserve the sexual innocence of their children, so that as they grow to maturity they see sex as a vehicle toward family and a loving lifetime relationship including children, which if you honestly assess human possibilities is the best possibility for sexual beings. That way, even after youth, they have something of a transcendent nature: love, and love for family. Heterosexual parents want to preserve this, and don't want to explain why Jimmy has two daddies.

It is somewhat normative but biologically so, so it is more permissible than social norms or economic norming. Homosexuals should be able to be homosexual, but those of us who do not want to live that lifestyle should be able to be free of homosexuality! It seems like a paradox until you consider that we, homos and heteros, exist in parallel and together we make society work (some excellent research exists that suggests that populations develop homosexuals as a form of additional domestic and cultural help without the burden of desire to reproduce, and thus sexual competition... an intelligent design).

Noisy people are similar. We do not like the idea of a society so regimented that no noise is permitted anywhere. But by the same token, we do not like the idea of a society so chaotic that noise is permitted everywhere, and people who want to go to bed early and get up early can't hear themselves think. So there is segregation, and it should mostly be voluntary, because it benefits both parties.

Drug use is another question easily solved by this. Our society spends trillions fighting out this war on some drugs, and has not succeeded in wiping out or reducing the use of any drug. The price we pay is armed paramilitary police kicking down our doors for drug raids, and often getting the wrong house or catching civilians in the crossfire. This is insane. I would decriminalize drugs, and sell them tax-free at cost with no age limit. If you as a parent do not have the presence of mind to keep your children away from drugs, well, it is natural selection... by the same token, an LNSG-approved society would have people spending less time at jobs, commuting, paying bills and watching TV, so there would be more time to show children a loving healthy way of life! -- which in the end, might be all that is required to keep biologically healthy people from using drugs, with the exception of some alcohol/marijuana experimentation in their late teens.

QUESTION: Why do you feel the mere fact of a person or country being poor is insufficient reason to give aid; in other words, why do you discard a core element of Christianity?

ANSWER: Christianity and equality are artificial impositions upon reality. If someone is unable to take care of themselves, they will become a parasite, and we wonder: why should we preserve this design of person, since they are useless? The only reason, as Nietzsche noted, is pity. We feel good because we are helping the helpless. It is masturbatory. There is no need for it. Nature will make things work out for the best through natural selection.

Take any starving nation in Africa and you will find that some of the population are doing OK, because they've gotten away from the crowd and found a way to make or hunt their own food. When you send in the aid trucks, what you do is cause those people who cannot take care of themselves to survive and so to breed, so you're dumbing down the population. It's better to let 90% of the population die off now, leaving the best-adapted 10%, than to feed that 90% so that you need to let an exponential number of that population die off in the future when free aid handouts become impossible.

In the same way, we will do our best to help any poor person who is that way through unjust means, which happens a lot in capitalism. But in a healthy society, if the person is minimally competent, it should not be a problem. Anyone who lives in squalor does so because they lack the mental organization, or intelligence and discipline, to not be so. We do not want to encourage that design (genetics) of person to live, as they will forever be a parasite as will their descendants.

Christianity is best understood by those who take it transcendentally, and see it as a means of establishing a mental quiet and communion with the intangible (non-material) things that make life significant: experience, love, better design, the holistic view of the universe as an infinite machine of great beauty. In our version of Christianity, we see natural selection as part of God's plan, and we see the individual as a manifestation of something that cannot be created or destroyed, so loss of individual life is secondary to rising to a spiritual state of discipline, and creating great and beautiful works including thought, architecture, art, civilization and food.

QUESTION: One can be mistaken. Is there any chance you will wake up one day and realize it has all been a bad dream; that multiculturalism and racial mixing until we are all one light brown colour are the way to go after all; that murderers, child molesters, rapists, robbers and thieves will become good citizens when treated kindly instead of punished; that money lending and speculating on the stock market are good, honourable ways of contributing to society; that who appreciates a performance of Bach's Musical Offering is not better than the typical eye-pod user playing any random hop-hip tune; that the Earth can easily support ten billion people or more in balance with the environment; that intelligence, character and strength are the product of upbringing and social environment rather than of those pesky little genes that code for everything but miraculously miss the essential mental faculties; that the poorest peoples of Africa will become exactly as clever, wealthy and consuming as we if only we keep giving them enough food and medicine and build enough schools and hospitals for them, which as a result of our shameful colonial past they can not do for themselves; that in the meantime there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with letting the criminals, the unintelligent, and the third-world immigrants do the breeding for us while we take our contraceptives like good boys and girls? Any chance at all, even the slightest?

ANSWER: That is always a possibility, but a slight one, and even if all of those things are permissible, I will say instead: I believe life will be more beautiful and significant if lived the way I design it sensu the LNSG. That is the most self-confident, assertive, transcendent statement one can make.

QUESTION: The sublime concept of heroism appears in your writings. How does one become a hero these days?

ANSWER: There are mundane heroes, and heroes who are both heroic on a practical level and a symbolic one, like Ulysses. Anyone who lives a moral, healthy and transcendent life is a hero to me. This list includes my first-grade teacher (well, many teachers actually), several musicians and writers, one lawyer, and many reg'lar folk who try to lead good lives. I think part of having a good life is to at some point become active in the community, including politics, if one lives in a time and place where things are broken -- and they are quite broken now.

QUESTION: Some say your party is a straight-faced joke. Since quality, depth, and width of scope of the written materials suggest otherwise, it seems these people have only seen the somewhat ironic black swastika on a green background and other Nazi icons, and not read further. Or they lack intelligence to grasp the comprehensive philosophy which reveals thorough study and can not have been mocked up on a rainy afternoon. It way surpasses the one-issue nature of extreme-right or neo-Nazi groups. Perhaps you started out on a less serious vein, but it is maturing into a world-wide resource for how to reorganize society. Still, is it a joke? Have you fooled me?

ANSWER: No, it is not a joke, but it is presented with an ironist's sense of humor and a playfulness that we feel would benefit any political party. Do we believe what we say? YES: and that is the answer you seek above. Do we often play small tricks, tell goofy jokes, and make weird the mundane? That is part of our method as well. But we are well-read, and we are thinkers, and we are leaders in our fields (hence the anonymity) and we know of what we speak, as philosophers and political thinkers, and we believe that as far as understanding the design of National Socialism, we do better than others.

National Socialism is not about callow ethnic hatred and beating up immigrants. It is about a transcendent, efficient, ascendent holistic design for civilization, so that it approximates the heights of greatness the Ancients achieved... it is both pure aesthetics, and pure science. Our fundamental concept is that of parallelism, meaning that all truths run in parallel, and one cannot pick out a single vein of truth -- economics, or emotion, for example -- and use it to "symbolize" the whole of the truth.

One must look at the whole design, and then do what is necessary in the physical world to empower the transcendent state of mind, and by doing so, return human life to beauty and that sense of "will to power" one gets from overcoming challenges and rising to new ones! Ever upward. Our impetus is a love for nature and the human race and when I die, I will regret none of this.