Being a philosopher, Iâ€™m not one to shy away from the most problematic issues facing this â€˜movementâ€™, understanding it as a body of thought aiming to unite a wide array of conservative arguments and traditions. Therefore Iâ€™ll give a brief attempt to face some of them openly, even if this will strike contrary to the popular opinion.
–> An incorrect or incomplete understanding of the political process
People think that the political process is driven by political campaigns; they think the issues people vote for decide what comes on the agenda.Â
Typical right/leftÂ issues feature prominently in party-campaigns to make sure the electoralÂ base remains in support of the party. In fact, itâ€™s hard for politicians to draw up bills of their own, due to the question whether itâ€™s compatible with existent laws of bills, and with thoseÂ the ministers and secretaries of state are preparing. This is how it usually goes:
Letâ€™s say someone has a plan to build a large hotel in some city, the director will approach the aldermen of the city and subtly shine his intent through to them. Usually this is prepared by extensive lobbyism. He waits until they take the bait, that is, until they show a readiness to make sacrifices to endow their city with this hotel. That means that some environmental or administrative regulations will be slackened, or otherwise taxes and subsidiaries will be involved. This is why administrative regulations (bureaucracy) will more likely expand than not, because it allows governors to put leverage upon anyone who wants to do something.Â As such,Â governors are dependent on officials, too, because only those officials understand how to put leverage upon companies and other government-institutions. The system is purposefully juridically complex like that.
Other than that, the aldermen, mayors and company-directorsÂ most likely feel a sense of mutual sympathy during their wining-dinners. This is known as â€˜corporatismâ€™ or â€˜old-boys-networkâ€™; they sense they are all great men entangled in important business, and will perceive of it as an outrage, as something unheard of, as against the natural order, should a majority of representatives gun down their plans. Hence that after these figureheads come to a consensus, the governors will â€˜groomâ€™ the leaders of their political fractions. With other words, to enforce the fraction discipline, that nobody will rebel against this proposal. If the party leaders follow this successfully, they will gain credit. NowÂ instead of the hotel, imagine the interests of large-scale agriculture, the military-industrial complex, car-producers, banks, insurance-companies, you name it.
–> Stability bias
Even if a majority of representatives see a problem, letâ€™s say in the Obamacare or the donation of European money to Greece, it wonâ€™t mean that people will take effective action to deal with the situation. Instead, people will reason as follows: â€œIf we go into the opposite direction now, letâ€™s say force banks to take responsibility for lending out money which never existed, this will trigger an instability that nobody can foresee, so itâ€™s the lesser of two evils to continue goingÂ down the trodden path.â€
A large crisis is needed for people to accept a drastic change in memes, but at the same time the media by which people take in their information is so fractured (and yet monotonous in its triviality) that it seems almost impossible to get everyone rowing in the same direction.
Changing policy means changing budget. If you want less crime, it will probably mean hiring more crime-fighters. If you want the war in Iraq to stop, stop funding for missiles, tanks and theÂ wages of soldiers on duty.Â If you want safer roads, give more money to maintenance. In real politics every proposed amendment to a policy means an amendment to a budget for it to be effectual. A declaration of intent wonâ€™t do anything.
However changing the budget means moving dollars/euros, which means that youâ€™ll have to grasp exactly how the budget is set up. This is a vastly difficult thing to do, especially for a few representatives together. Biggest chance is that the rest of the representatives wonâ€™t understand exactly what you propose, think that what youâ€™re doing is fishy yet lack the ways to prove it. They donâ€™t want to show their incompetence so theyâ€™ll just go with the budget as proposed by the governors. Those bodies have their budgets calculated and set up by hundreds of officials, a single representative and his associates canâ€™t stand up to that.
Also, letâ€™s sayÂ a representativeÂ convinces the governor that their alternative budget is better â€“ big chance that the administrative body will refuse to give their seal of approval to it, since they feel theyâ€™re being made obsolete. Especially if it means a cost in government spending, which means a cost in official-employment. This happenedÂ already in very highly developed European countries.
–> Â The widespreadness of the infection
At some point a few adolescent friends, family members and casual acquaintances approached me and said: â€œPeople donâ€™t live up to agreements anymore, everywhere around us we see that the code of conduct is growing coarser, people lack the discipline to do their jobs properly. Itâ€™s so hard to see what to do with oneâ€™s life in this society, no wonder people are losing inspiration for their professions. There should be some sort of new philosophy, new ideas.â€ I said: â€œSounds interesting, we should pick a date toÂ talk about all this properly, and gather enthusiasts to discuss these issues philosophically.â€ They said it was a great plan, and we started rounding up people.
Then I called them to ensure it was a go. And they said it was a go. But when the date in question came, almost nobody showed up. One had to spend the night with his girlfriend because she thought it was selfish if he was out for some discussion. Another had to go out with his buddies for a couple of beers. A third had been called to work at McDonalds . . . etc.
A requirement for the solving of any problem is first acknowledging the problem. But the people who acknowledge the problem, and therefore are the cause of the solution, are already suffering the symptoms of the problem. Thus I am extremely suspicious when people write comments such as: â€œThis is all Fatalism, we have to start somewhere, we have to fight!â€ Because probably, these people are some keyboard warriors who vent their anger during the night while strictly adhering to the codes of emancipation, consumerism and egalitarianism during daily life.Â They are probably afraid of losing their jobs, friends, and chances with the girlies if they do otherwise.Â Apologies dearÂ reverentÂ reader, merelyÂ holding up a mirror.
–> People donâ€™t know their philosophy
You see, if people would know their philosophy, they could focus on the elements of those philosophers that coincide with the philosophy of Amerika.org. And thereâ€™s a lot in there â€“ you just have to master the art of close-reading (basically how people used to read romance novels, but then applied to philosophical masterpieces). Then you could go to some sort of party meeting and criticize their manifestos and proposals, basing yourself on these authoritative and highly sophisticated arguments. But those political movements are probably immune to these groundroots adjustments because they have stopped caring about their ideological foundations themselves.
–> Â Autonomous variety and repression thereof
How do good ideas come forward? By people who think critically of the world and are prepared to rely on their individual judgement.Â People whoÂ dare to look out for the Truth in a time theyâ€™re told everything is but opinion and private perception. Scholars, Engineers, Strategists, whoÂ posses theÂ audacity to think outside of the existing frames of mind, who have the courage to pull from knowledge in a diversity of areas and seek to combine that together â€“ to come to new insights that nobody thought of before. They yearn to rely on their own minds and to shake off the ineptitude of the masses.
Yet thatâ€™s not what companies want, or what faiths want. This begun with the Catholic doctrine which very clearly laid down what to believe, and if you set a step outside of that you were declared anathema, a recluse or heretic. Likewise if you work in a supermarket and have thoughts about a better way to organise the workplace â€“ thatâ€™s not your job to do. I heard of a man who worked on an assembly line. The assembly line was broken, the mechanics came and fixed it. He watched. Next time the assembly line was broken, he fixed it himself. He was fired â€“ he was a threat to the accustomed order of things, theÂ “that’s the way we do things around here.” Even though this man could have been so valuable to his company, or for a political party had he been a politician instead of an assembly worker.
Likewise you, as hypothetical supermarket employee, stepped out of line. You infringed upon the authority of someone else and that triggered a sort of irrational condescendence which is stronger than the rational appreciation for your courage to contribute by thinking. Any good organisation would further your courage to think critically, for the benefit of the company, but the higher echelons fear this will lead to anarchy. TheÂ complexity of this issue is thatÂ itÂ sometimes does happenÂ â€“ since how many people areÂ capable ofÂ truly coherent thought? Therefore almost nobody possesses enough strength of Character and mind to reconcile the power of unity with that of independent thought.
People may thinkÂ my arguments are Fatalism but they are totally mistaken. You have to come to terms with the world before you can overcome the world.Â One has to be ready to sacrificeÂ a piece of ones’ self to makeÂ a step forward.Â You see, I am a person who wants deepness; I want to go the bottom of things in an age of fragmentation and superficiality. I am a person who wants loyal friendships and genuine connectedness in a time of atomistic mutually pleasurable exchange, an era of brief and fleeting contacts of opportunity. I aspire to provide strong leadership and to receive clear orders, in a period of intangible influence and the universal rule of whims. Therefore itâ€™s very hard for me to even exist.
But never do I sink into that layer where there is nothing â€“ no time, no experience, no pleasure, no anger, not even hate â€“ when all that remains is the humming tone of oblivious complacency, where even that fiery zeal, the conviction it should be otherwise, has died down to a cinder â€“ that never. But that is Fatalism. So I can never be a Fatalist.
Taken altogether, itâ€™s probably best not to put too much faith in setting up a political party. I see the future in a Philosophical Movement. The New Philosophy should be able to take both advantage of having everyone rowing into the same direction, and possess enough freedom to encourage people toÂ experiment withÂ their own ideas. Rise in wealth and influence. Set up schools in poor areas, and educate children in the ideas outlined here. Grope at the system from many parts at once â€“ infiltrate labour movements, the media, the education sector, even the most progressive interest groups. So that you in time have the opportunity to guide these new students up into the ranks.
Resistance to (Post)modernism must not only be philosophical and be able to infiltrate, it must also be more centralized and uniformed than has been suggested thus far. If not, the New Philosophy will necessarily end up like White-Nationalist movements: fragmented, disagreed and confused. Because Marxists pulled the strings in many Eastern-European and Asian countries, they were able to create a domino-effect and seize power at many locations simultaneously.
That approach also has limits; The Communists failed to take Germany because Russia ordered the Communists to keep attacking the Democratic-Socialists instead of focusing their efforts on the Naziâ€™s. Local German Communists might have made a better judgement of the situation but their words were overridden. On close reading of this article the objection will prove to be superficial reading of it. Survival and Flourishing of the New Philosophy will be best guaranteed if every agent is capable of making independent individual decisions, not by fostering a herd-mentality which relies on order by central command. In the world we encounter a variety of different circumstances and strength will be developed by responding to each of these in unique ways.
Of course, all of the individual infiltrators will coordinate their actions based on the grander plan, which is only made possibly by virtue of the common philosophy: if some agents pull a coup in section A, they will on beforehand coordinate this action with those in section B. They will all keep each other up to date and have consult. Their strict allegiance to the common philosophy will ensure they will always do what is best for the cause, while adjusting to unique local circumstances. The philosophy can be common because it is itself true regardless of all circumstances, but allows for a different in approach per situation. The brilliance of this philosophy is that it can thrive even when consult with central command is not possible. The philosophy in the end relies on the power of mind and strength of Character of the Ãœberman, and not of the noob, to push the world forward. Would it be otherwise the premises of the philosophy itself would be flawed.