Points of Reference

Updated: Jan 17

All of us want the same thing; to see this movement to its ultimate destination; to achieve political success, and begin the work of national construction. How do we get to that point though? Successful political movements do not just appear on the social landscape and see their ideals dominate without first having a defined structure of ideas and a large number of adherents. Unfortunately, our society’s structures and mores, based upon wealth and power acquisition has bled into modern social movements causing them to fail. Whether it is Green Frogs, Groypers, or any number of social media gimmicks, movements which apply a cookie-cutter approach to activism fail universally. History is full of individuals and groups who through opportunistic means acquire political power and despite having complete control of a government, leave nothing more than a legacy of embittered opponents, who through the incompetence of their predecessors were able to form governments based solely upon opposition to the previous regime. Have you ever wondered why, despite numerous Republican administrations and congresses, the direction of the country has not seemed to change? If the previous four years have demonstrated anything at all, it’s that words and actions have no meaning absent constructive ideas. Daily tweeting is not a substitute for dialogue and articulate ideas. The country that Donald Trump has left us is an embittered mess with division after division being reflected in the social fabric; but, then again, what do you expect from a President who perfected the act of social media trolling while ignoring the art of governing? To avoid the same fate and to make long-lasting, effective change will require from us sincerity and honesty, not opportunism. The starting point begins at our points of reference.

An act by its very nature is not necessarily a unified whole. Yes, every act has a beginning, middle, and end, so on the surface, it appears as unified. Yet, every act begins not with physical movements but in the mind. Behind everything we do lies a desire, something we either want or need. Then, through the different stages which compose the thought process, our desire is rationalized and finally conceptualized, leading to the act in the material world. Ideally, in a unified mind, this process involves the reconciliation of contrasts, the internal recognition that a potential act can carry both positive and negative consequences but with the very important recognition that those positive and negative consequences are an inherent part of the act that through engaging in action, the individual has embraced the idea that the action itself is a good because it embraces the contrasts, i.e., the perceived negative aspects of any action.

Take the act of marriage. Upon the loss of a spouse, one of the most common regrets is the loss of the annoying habits of the deceased partner. The struggles which go into the raising of children are often looked at in old age as the building blocks of character for both parents and children. The act of giving, of doing charitable works at times incurs financial setbacks and includes tiring labor, but upon acceptance of those sacrifices by the individuals, they are viewed as part of the act and are embraced wholeheartedly. An act is never a unified whole just by being an act itself, but only through the thought process does it become so and, consequently, individuals who recognize it as such and embrace the contrasts inherent within thought live more rewarding lives.

Just as an act becomes unified through the mind, so it loses that same unity in the mind as well. The act of marriage above is only successful to the degree that the participants look upon it as being a functional whole, embracing not only the good but the bad that comes along with it, not differentiating but looking upon them as different sides of a single whole. However, the marriage union begins to dissolve as either one or both participants begin to view the hardships within the act as being aberrational, separate from the act itself. Financial troubles, loss of freedom of movement, etc. become too much to bear and are looked upon as intolerable difficulties. When acts are broken down, when means and ends separate, then life loses its meaning and mental illness follows.

As in marriage, for an ideal or organization to be successful it must be looked upon as a complete whole with means and ends not being separate but the same. In 2013, the NRP which at the time was the American Blackshirts Party (ABP), was an organization without a history and lacked what could be thought of as an elaborate doctrine. All we had was a small handful of individuals with a conviction that something was very wrong with the country and what was needed was a State with the will and the power to address what liberalism had failed so miserably to do. My personal journey to fascism has been detailed at length in other articles, but suffice it to say, at the time, fascism was the fulfillment of our need for a philosophic rationale behind the existence of the Party. However, as time went on some things became progressively clearer. The problems at the heart of 21 st century America in many cases had little to no relation to those of Fascist Italy, as in "race", religion, immigration, and homosexuality. These were things either not addressed or addressed very differently during the Fascist era; not because they lacked importance, but because the social context of the time was significantly different. As we as a Party began to address these issues the delineation between us and our historical antecedent began to show itself. What was forming was something new and unique; something which grew out of Fascism but deserved an identity and name all its own.

This is why points of reference are so integral to our growth and their correct usage is important for all party members and supporters to use. A point of reference according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is the following:

something that is used to judge or understand something else.

Here’s why this is important and why support for the Party transcends contributions of a monetary and activist type to include how talk and referencing influence the Party. Constant references to other political movements create an impression that we’re something that we’re not and force Party members into a defensive position when interacting with others. Let’s take the most recent Presidential election. There’s always been a misconception amongst not only much of the public but within Party membership as well, that fascism is a right-wing movement, a more extreme version of conservatism; if this is true then support for Republicans would be logical as conservatism would be a more nascent form of fascism. Additionally, support of Republicans as a means of recruitment would also make sense as becoming a National Reformationist would imply that we’re helping to bring out what was already within. Hence, the importance of not using Republican talking points when engaging in political discourse should be clear.

The idea most recently expressed by Trump and his supporters that the election was stolen has been proved as absurd beyond doubt and reveals the narcissistic mind of a mad man more than anything else. Support for Trump’s position can only be the result of complete ignorance or opportunism. In the case of the latter, the GOP tries to woo support from the Right in an attempt to raise the profile of the Party and recruit members. Dishonest opportunism breaks the cardinal rule enunciated at the beginning of this paper of acts having to be thought of as complete wholes to be functional. Dishonesty/opportunism breaks up an act into its components and consequently justifies the means in an attempt to reach particular ends.

When referencing historical movements, similar problems are encountered. Both Republicans and Democrats by default carry the baggage of their respective Party’s histories, the latter through their support of slavery in the 19 th century and the former through opposition to much of the legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement and the social programs which came out of the New Deal and Great Society.

The NRP has the opportunity to avoid these pitfalls. Our Party is only 7 years old and has grown to develop an extensive doctrine through the variety of member-generated articles, Decalogue, and action plan, not to mention the podcasts, interviews, etc. which populate the YouTube page. National Reformationism has the tools to strike out on its own and become a self-sustaining philosophy. All that is needed is the will to make it a reality. Tools are meaningless without adherents willing to take up the proverbial hammer and nail and start getting to work. The choices before us are very clear. We can continue to reference historical movements to justify our positions, such as “Mussolini did this and did that,” “True fascists believe this way,” “Fascist Italy fought on the side of Germany for this or that reason during WWII.” We can take up the sword and continue to fight these battles which were decided long ago, or we can move forward with something new, taking from the past that which works and continue to build a new and exciting philosophy. Failure to do so negates what we’ve already built and divides the movement, holding it hostage to a history we cannot alter or change. Using proper reference points, referencing ourselves as National Reformationists, and illustrating our own history will determine how successful we are and the legacy we leave.

68 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All