Abstraction or Reality?
srpr...@gmail.com
By Vijay Prozak, NatParUSA Columnist
July 13, 2005
Modern politics by nature is a science detached from the actual
function of society. It deals in abstractions, or concepts that exist
by themselves and refer to the ways we organize those things that
provide for our survival. These concepts are powerful, in that they
allow us to make changes to the system as a whole, but also dangerous,
because if they no longer accurately represent the actuality of a
situation, they can be misleading.
Before modern politics, humanity was divided into glorified tribal
groups. These "nations" signified people of common values and culture
who ruled themselves according to these ideals, and therefore could not
be grouped with others. As culture is both created by and influences
heritage, these nations were also of similar ethnic heritage. This does
not mean they were races of clones, but rather, that each nation
directly represented the interests each population had in common.
With the rise of the modern state, "countries" were no longer grouped
by national heritage, but by political expediency, and thus the former
method of politics was considered obsolete. In order to motivate people
to act for the continuance of each society, their leaders organized
them around abstractions, such as "freedom" or common religious
interest, and assumed it would operate as well as politics previously
had.
Failures of Modernism
However, now that our society has gone down the road of time a bit
further, we are seeing some fundamental flaws in this outlook. Our
societies have lost the ability to say "no" to destructive ideas, and
as a result have been unable to avoid disasters such as overpopulation,
pollution, crime, drugs, and the like. Where previous societies could
point to a common cultural standard and say, "We are not interested in
behaviors that deviate from this," modern societies try to be
all-embracing.
The root of this view lies in the need of modern society to produce
laborers for its machines and wars. For this reason, modern societies
treat all individuals as abstract entities which can be shaped into
whatever is needed through training and laws. We can call this view
utilitarianism or decentralization, but it started in a far more
innocent idea: that a society based on economic competition of the
individual treats its workers most fairly.
When we start building a society around the abstract "individual," and
assume all are the same, we apply a greater normalizing force that had
previously been at work throughout history. By the very nature of such
an idea, it both liberates the worker to make more money, and
constrains all who would rise above a crass lowest common denominator;
it is therefore both freedom and oppression at once. In order to keep
the workers appeased, such a system normally has grand rhetoric about
"freedom," and pledges to support whatever each individual desires.
This facilitative view of society is therefore by nature without
leadership, as it exists only for the individual, and because it has no
goals in common, does not grant the individual the ability to work for
something larger than the self. It also has a "dumbing down" impulse,
because if any one of the people to whom something is shown cannot
understand it, the unity of divergent interests is lost. In political
terms, it is more like herding cattle than achieving a clear goal for
the benefit of a population.
The consequence of this illogical design is that civilization, while
busy harvesting its workers for the work value they provide, is also
active in uniting them around ever-simpler political goals. Since there
is no goal in common but the continuation of facilitation of the
individual, its political objectives normally involve greater "freedom"
and fewer restraints that might lead toward a common goal. In such a
system, any individual attempting to participate in something larger
than themselves does so at their peril, as there are always competitors
who conserve that energy and apply it toward self-interest.
As a result of this process, developing over centuries in
every-increasing intensity, we have the modern society, which is such a
permissive place it has outlawed any area, no matter how localized,
from making choices about who it admits to its membership. While this
is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is destructive, as it constitutes a
normalization of the population and a reduction of the freedom of the
individual to live as they would desire. For most, their desires do not
include any form of collective activity, or any particular culture, and
thus those that desire such things are at an economic and social
disadvantage.
Such a tendency is common at the fall of civilizations. Greece, Egypt,
Rome and ancient India went through the same process, first losing a
sense of values in common, and then becoming cosmopolitan,
multicultural societies united by nothing greater than a desire for
commerce. As a result, both their cultures and heritages were eroded,
causing them to weaken from lack of collective resolve. When trouble
finally did come their way, it crushed them easily, as they could not
unite to take action against it.
We are now observing the same things in our modern system. Not only is
it bad for the environment, and for our cultural-ethnic groups, but it
is destructive to our souls, as it detaches us from the collective
process of striving and from a sense of community, leaving us as
abstract, idealized, individual workers who are valued only for their
labor. For this reason, many now not only have fears about the
direction of our society in the real world, but they also have a
spiritual and philosophical void caused by the lack of any cause except
self-fulfillment.
Nationalism
The development of nationalist parties came about shortly after the
creation of the modern nation state, which as mentioned above is
categorized by political belief and not desired way of living. Where
modern societies try to out-compete each other with abstract rhetoric,
such as the Communism versus Capitalism drama of the Cold War,
nationalist parties appeal to the simple triumph of leaving behind
empty abstractions and embracing reality.
Reality is that, while many want to deny this, we are our bodies; our
brains are functions of our physical selves and the design of those
selves. For this reason, much of what makes us comfortable revolves
around the kind of cultural values that shaped our ancestors, and the
type of living they would find fulfilling. Inherently, we prefer to
live around those who look like, think like, and have similar
preferences to ourselves.
A further dimension of reality is that, all political abstractions
aside, what makes a citizen happy is how well he or she lives. This
includes the basics, such as food and shelter and medicine, but even if
the citizen cannot articulate this, extends to larger concerns such as
the health of the local community and the ability to contribute to its
collective welfare. Most people are well-intentioned, and would like to
help out their neighbors and have a social system tailored for the type
of people they are.
Nationalism addresses these realities by grouping us according to
heritage, and then representing the interests of that heritage not be
engaging in abstract international politics and finance, but by
ensuring that its citizens have a good quality of life and a
traditional style of living. This way, they always have a place, even
if there is less radical economic mobility for the most monetarily
competitive; they are understood by those around them, and have the
ability to contribute to a community at large.
Most importantly, nationalism rejects the idea that a working society
can be formed of people with fundamentally different interests. Its
goal is not, like those of the grand ideologies of Communism and
Capitalism, to take over the world with a one-size-fits-all abstract
political ideal. The goal of nationalist societies is to take care of
the people within them, and to allow those people freedom from constant
economic worry so that they can concentrate on being better at what it
is that fulfils them: artists creating better art, farmers growing
higher quality crops, plumbers displaying the finest workmanship
possible in their task.
In this type of society, unlike all modern societies, money and
politics are returned to their role as functions for achieving the
goals of the population. They become a means to an end, instead of the
end in itself. A facilitative society is based on the opposite
principle, namely that there is no end, and therefore the means -
money, comfort, political prestige - are achieved for their own sake.
Nationalist societies recognize that abstractions cannot be sought for
their own sake, as only life itself has that position in a healthy
existence.
Nationalist societies empower better life. They do not attempt to take
everyone, or to take over the world for some abstract ideal that "seems
to" be better, or start wars because people "hate our freedom." They
exist to benefit their citizens and help them grow as a culture, a
heritage, and as individuals.
Practicality
When one accepts the wisdom of nationalism, the next task is to apply
it. Nationalism's focus on reality creates a real community, and places
focus on culture and people, instead of creating bureaucracies that try
to fit every disparate individual into a cookie-cutter mold labeled
"Individual." Even further, it withdraws from international politics by
avoiding pursuit of money or abstract ideologies, and turns its focus
inward on its citizens.
Stating a belief in nationalism itself is only a start, because
nationalism is also a means to an end (the people) and must be further
interpreted in every issue that confronts us. As it has, unlike modern
political systems, an overall organizational principle of a practical
nature, this is not a difficult task, but it is important for
nationalists to quickly overcome the difference between nationalism and
modernism and focus on the practical issues that threaten our stability
as cultures.
Fortunately our societies still retain much of their traditional
cultures, although another few generations of modernist politics may
obliterate that in a flood of mass-culture products. We must replace
the euphonious but empty abstractions of modernity with a focus on
daily life, which requires that we give up the right/left divisions
assumed as necessary in contemporary politics. After all, we no longer
have allegiance to a political entity, but to a practical one: our
people as selected by culture and heritage.
In this state of mind, we can actually confront the things that
threaten us, including the need to find new energy sources; the
imperative of restraining our reckless growth; the necessity of
cleaning up pollution so we do not all die of cancers; the demand for
stable, reduced crime cities where families can have normal lives
without having to constantly be on the defensive. These are the
ultimate goals of a nationalist party, as these are what our citizens
need, but our outlook is not limited to that.
If one uses nationalism wisely, it is not only to stave off disasters,
but to encourage growth of a society. Our culture has taken a back seat
to television and pop music; our people have become seen only for their
profit potential to industry. This has happened because we have refused
to find a commonality in preferences, in part because we're unwilling
to group nations by culture and heritage. Nationalism reverses this
entire trend in history, and therefore, represents the best hope of
humankind.