Updated: Feb 9
I’m not sure where to start. The events which transpired on January 6th were something I’m sure most of us never thought we’d live to see. Coup attempts are something associated with third world governments. Outside of the cinema, the idea of a coup taking place in our own capital seemed, at least before the 6th ,unimaginable. However, here we are; while the smoldering ruins of that day are not physical in nature, the scars that they will leave are far too real. How is a society supposed to move forward, composed of citizens interacting with each other when that society is slowly devolving into two separate hostile camps, one with a D, the other identified with an R? The answer is that it cannot. The path we’re headed towards is one of destruction, because both of these camps fail to recognize the integral value and internal nature of both the tendency to conserve and the tendency towards innovation. What’s become apparent, and which most people fail to see beyond, is that this is nothing more than the fruits of a rotten system manifesting itself to us on a daily basis.
Political dialogue, especially on social media, is saturated by an us vs them mentality, each side portraying the other as the source of national decay/problems. Have we ever thought about what would happen if this dark vision should become reality, if one side were suppressed and was only able to express itself in private? Have we ever wondered why conservative parents produce liberal children and liberal parents produce conservative children? There is no good answer to this question, and there’s no answer which could begin to cover more than a fraction of the unexplained anomalies which appear in all individuals. But the common thread which runs throughout all of this supposed chaos is how it all works together, how the differences within the realm of human thought and purpose serve a complementary function. Men and women are two very different but equally necessary parts of the human equation. Anger and love, contentment and ambition, and, in the political realm, Right and Left (not in the American sense of the terms which attempts to pigeonhole the ideas based upon where people stand on specific issues, but the tendencies towards conservation on one hand and innovation on the other) are sets of differences which complement each other. The 20 th century is full of examples of regimes subscribing to one way of looking at the world but completely ruling out the other. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, and the fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East all express one side of the political spectrum in their attempt to suppress the other. Despite their ideological differences, the common thread running throughout these regimes is the death and destruction left in their wake. Governing in such a manner is an example of governing by abstraction. Abstraction is defined as "the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments."
To govern by abstractions is to govern by fairy tales, government trying to make real that which cannot be made real. Attempting to suppress what comes naturally is an attempt to create a nation based upon a uniform archetypal individual, an impossibility. Hence, we have the frustrations of the aforementioned regimes in their attempts at creating a utopia and the need for constant revolutions with the associated bloodshed. The demonization, the darkness which characterizes our political discourse, is the first step towards rule by abstraction. To make an enemy of that which comes naturally is to create something which doesn’t exist. Imagine a society with one belief, one way of looking at the world. Such a society is born stagnant. Without interacting with conflicting ideas, nothing gets done; nothing is accomplished. The great social movements which gave women the right to vote and blacks equal civil rights would have never happened. In turn, a society absent its conservative sphere would have been unable to apply pressure on social reform movements once reform became an end in itself instead of a means. A conservative society without its liberal counterpart is defined by its stasis, and a liberal society without the restraint of conservatism is composed of non-stop change existing only for itself and leading to nihilism. The tension between the two work in a dialectical fashion to create progress. Within every aspect of life, whether it be in family, romantic relationships, or even work, the differences we see are what hold organizations together; they provide different ways of seeing the world while questioning our own worldviews; they force us to reevaluate and look for different solutions to our internal problems/crises. Contentment without tension guarantees a uniform way of thinking and seeing the world that will never change. Progress without respect for what came before leads to a state of constant change that values and reveres nothing, leading to a meaningless nihilism.
However, for a dialectical relationship to work, both sides within the conflict have to meaningfully desire resolution; and here’s the problem with our present system and liberal democracy in general. Within personal interactions, individuals desire resolution to conflicts; within the contemporary political structure, conflict is seen as a good in itself. The underlying perception of multi-party democracies is that a multitude of parties is simply a reflection of the diversity of political opinion. But look at how the system operates in practice. Individuals wishing to hold political office are forced to choose between one of the two primary parties, where to be accepted, they have to tailor their own beliefs to match that of the party they wish to join. The very act of running for office requires the individual to suppress part of themselves, thereby reducing the scope of political thought. Upon obtaining office, emphasis falls completely upon the act of victory over the other side. Personal expression to the extent it’s still practiced isn’t even acknowledged.
Something cannot exist by itself. It exists only because of what it is not. Reality is this dialectic, or unity of difference. Anything else is fantasy, at best an abstraction. Only upon recognizing that society is generated by the individual, and not something separate without the individual, will progress actually begin to be made. Correspondingly, the society generates individual identity. The individual exists because of the society, and the society exists because of the individuals in it. Both merge into the one in the unity of opposites, thus the State. The highs we live with exist because of the lows, our faults because of virtues. The complementary nature of our internal differences all appears within the social setting. Individual and society become the same. To claim that Right and Left are antithetical to one another is to create unicorns, instantiating an abstraction, a fantasy. As individuals, we don’t deny our internal reality; we construct ways to cope with obstacles and overcome roadblocks, all with the knowledge that the challenges we face today will reappear again in the future, possibly under a different guise. Yet, our view of collective life too often delineates otherwise complementary structures into separate, random existences, attempting once again to breathe life into unreality. The political destruction and chaos we are experiencing is like the chaos we experience within during trying times. The inward unity we seek in such circumstances is the only way to address the social chaos we see around us.
The NRP is defined through its belief in the State and a rejection of liberal democracy. The latter leads to destruction and chaos, but for the former to be successful it has to be built upon a positive program of action and thought. We are not here to follow the example of Pinochet and throw our opponents out of helicopters. We’re not here to suppress but to expand thinking and ideas, recognizing the inherent compatibility of differences when operating within one Nation, and through one (State) idea.