The Doctrinal Foundations of National Reformationism

Updated: Sep 18

Problems faced by 21st century America are not simple in nature. The solutions to those problems also cannot be simple. Self-righteous moralizing, which often passes for political discourse, is either a means to obtain/retain political power or a reflection of a society built upon mass-market advertising and the short attention spans it requires. If National Reformationism is anything, it is honesty. The party was not created to pursue power for its own sake, to cynically manipulate individuals, or engage in opportunistic political campaigns. Its purpose has always been to be the vehicle for individuals to express themselves and actualize their potential by studying its philosophical components. It’s with this background National Reformationism began “the long way around” to political success. With a history of honesty, the assumption of political power is admittedly a longer path to travel, but its foundation is sure to be a more solid one.


Any movement intent on making sweeping changes to the political and social structure needs to have a defined philosophical rationale for doing so and equally important a history from which to draw upon. Both the contemporary Left and Right both draw upon the classical liberalism of Locke as a foundation. The Right takes this foundation to its rational conclusion and includes therein libertarian economic thought but also embraces the social conservatism of American evangelicals, creating in the process a political synthesis of two incompatible ideas, the supposedly inherent value of self-interest and the need for a moral populace. The Left on the other hand deviates from Locke and integrates aspects of Marx’s thought into its dogma ,not necessarily creating an incompatibility because both ideas are based upon materialism and dogmatic abstractions, but certainly creating a scenario which drifts further and further from reality.


If we’re to look back historically at when National Reformationism was conceived, it would have to be with the thought of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Such is not to ignore the sources of Hegel’s inspiration: Kant, Spinoza, and others. It wasn’t until Hegel that idealism took the shape and form mading it something suitable to address contemporary problems. At its heart, idealism posits everything and everybody has a role to play importance in the grand scheme of the universe, as with the human body, which contains different parts with different functions yet all existing within a structure with a common purpose as with humanity. Contemporary society often views its components as existing separately from each other in antagonistic relationships, Left vs Right, white vs black, men vs women. This idea is based upon materialism, viewing life as being nothing more than the interplay of matter, viewing things as existing apart from each other with their relations being the result of chance. Idealism views everything as existing along a continuum; it views a diverse world full of relationships based upon need and complement. Left vs right complement each other as two ends of a continuum of thought of everything in-between. In philosophical parlance, thinkers refer to "dialectics'' or the "unity of opposites''. Nothing can exist by itself alone; there has to be something it is not. Men and Women come together to become one through the act of marriage. Now, consider the problems of contemporary America; the political infighting, racial confrontations, a decaying environment and infrastructure, and the realization of the need, and the relevance of idealism for contemporary America becomes increasingly apparent.


What idealism gives to National Reformationism in terms of philosophical rationale American populism does for context. When we speak of American populists, we’re not referring to its more contemporary examples, such as Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or even George Wallace. What we’re referring to is a populism which predominated in the latter part of the 19th into the early 20th century. A movement for the first time in American history wasn’t afraid to challenge long-held political dogmas. This was a society characterized by the concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands, leading to a reduction of living standards and the decline of the family farm. The growth of slums in big cities and the concentration of workers into industry led to the decline of morals and communal sentiments. Populism often gets a bad rap because of its modern representatives as being full of demagogues and opportunists. But in its original form, represented by individuals such as Teddy Roosevelt and James Weaver, the movement had as its goal the maintenance of a lifestyle and ethos within a changing economy. The outlawing of child labor and the institution of the 8-hour day did not have any ulterior motives such as the institution of Marxism or the destruction of capitalism. Its purpose was simply to make life better for the American family. In a day and age characterized by corrupt politicians and opportunism around every corner a simplicity resembling this historical movement is very much needed.


The last tier of the three-part structure composing National Reformationism is fascism, especially as it manifested itself in Italy from 1922-1938. Whereas idealism provides the philosophical rationale for the doctrine, American populism is its historical reference. Fascism provides the structure and form. As this is being written, American society is being stripped of its identity in the form of social crisis after social crisis characterized by the inept/divided response to the coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter movement. What we see is a society composed of individuals lacking common frames of reference, beliefs, and ideals. The divisions within society are the result of divisions from the top. There is no American State; what exists in its place is a shell, composed of interest groups exercising influence through their wealth and power. As a result, different layers of government exist having differing goals and visions. Unlike the idealists which envision differences existing within a complementary spectrum, these differences are allowed to fester and cause irreparable damage to the body politic. Fascism, essentially being a doctrine of the State, provides a blueprint from which the lack of a State can be addressed, giving life and form to the idea and vehicle behind national unity. Think of it this way. Everything in life of value we experience - love, family, religion, etc. - are all basically ideals. They don’t have a definite shape or form. They are based upon a relationship between either individuals with each other or upon the relations of individuals to collectives. Such is the State; it's a construction of the individual based upon a communal relationship. Fascism more than any other doctrine provides the tools to move forward and in many ways is the most integral aspect of National Reformationism.


National Reformationism is the absence of dogma and idols. It doesn’t look to historical models as templates from which to build a new society. Contemporary ideologies, with their lack of coherence and reactive natures, can’t help looking to the past for idols upon which to build present structures. The lack of critical thinking characteristic of the modern age and brought about by market-oriented approaches to viewing the world looks upon politics as a zero-sum game, being a contest between two opposing sides looking to always one-up the other. The popular analogy of politics being like war and the subsequent reference to Sun Tzu’s Art of War is not a description of reality as it should be but a compensation for the lack of value and morality in contemporary societies. The Right holds up the Constitution, limited government, and low taxes as goods in themselves absent of any context. The Left, in a similar vein, looks upon things such as immigration, equality, and reparations as moral issues that create a dividing line between good and bad; to them, these aren’t issues that should be in the public arena but things just given. Whether it’s Right or Left, politics has devolved to a clash of dogmas. Coherent articulation is absent; instead, what we have is screaming matches coupled with moral denunciations. Those who attempt to chart a middle course are condemned in a self-righteous manner as being unprincipled sell-outs. We should see from all this that National Reformation centers on the quest for truth. We refer to an ethos (core value) defining humanity as an integral organic being.


Where National Reformationism begins is not in opposition to the details of certain contemporary points of view. There certainly are times when taxes may need to be increased or decreased. The size of government may need to grow or be reduced. The difference between us and them is philosophical. National Reformationism doesn’t presuppose. There is not a universal ideal size of government. There is not a universal ideal immigration rate designed for all times and places. None of these issues exist in a void. For example, our opposition to immigration as a supposed social solution to economic and social problems is not a principle in itself but has everything to do with the lack of unity amongst Americans, along with the deteriorating conditions of our economic and political structures. Issues have everything to do with context, how are they colored by the community from which they originate. A particular time and place will dictate how a policy is implemented, if at all. Most importantly, how does a proposed law benefit the people who have to live under the law being proposed?


The opposite implication should not be assumed. We do not wish for a society free from moral constraints or considerations. Such a society would be the epitome of ugliness and is our wish to avoid as much as possible. The effect of a law upon the morality of the law’s recipients is of the utmost importance when it comes to formulating public policy. However, the black and white nature of morality, especially in the public arena, is not as clear as it’s often portrayed. Issues of moral concern such as abortion are often not a contest between a right and a wrong side, but a contest between two rights. For example, the killing of the unborn is an obvious wrong with horrible consequences for the populace, but the concerns raised by the other side of children born to mothers without the financial ability to raise the children or the lack of available birth control, which would possibly have prevented the abortion in the first place, are all valid. The criminalization of abortion coupled with a limited government worldview is a bad situation that would lead us to come full circle back to a situation where to curb abuses abortion would once again become legalized. Any criminalization of abortion with the intent of creating a more moral society could only succeed by incorporating aspects of the pro-choice point of view and concerns. Typically, issues of great moral import create stark divisions within society with 50% wanting to go in one direction while the other 50% want to go in another. In such cases, the divisions are so stark because the issue at hand is not as clear as its antagonists would like us to think.


Focus for a moment on the immediately foregoing references to "government" and how the lack of social context fosters antagonisms. These problems arise with governments only as governments. They arise with little or no overall social context or structure. They are debated in isolation. Be reminded the critical missing element is the State, a necessary social expression of the social organism. Social components usually work anarchically and at odds with each other absent the State. Rereading Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society will remind us quickly of why this is so. Suffice it to say, a being's organs at war with each other usually means death, so true in this age of COVID-19, resource depletion, species extinction, mounting and unmanageable complexity, and global warming.


The world we see before our eyes is much like the world we see within ourselves. Our state of mind can often be described as a jumble of contradictions. one moment our wanting one thing, the next wanting its opposite. We may prefer a certain trait in the opposite sex at one stage in our lives, but at a later stage as our tastes become refined our preferences change. Imagine if we adopted the contemporary political mindset to our own lives. We would refuse to ever change any of our personal tastes or likes for fear of looking like a sell-out or unprincipled. Why then do we pursue a course of politics which worships the static and prefers inertia? Reality in society is a wider reflection of who we are. Absent the corrupting influence of modern politics, there would be a much wider diversity of viewpoints in the public arena along with a much wider diversity of views being expressed at the individual level. Any psychologist will tell you to progress as an individual is to be able to reconcile your past, to overcome the contradictions within. So, for the individual, so for the collective. On a national level, progress will only come about through reconciling different points of view and moving forward through mutual understanding.


Central to free expression in the political realm is the discontinuation of those structures which prioritize allegiances for the sake of power and wealth acquisition. Power and wealth are means not ends, but when the two ideas are reversed, and the means become the ends, no longer do ends contain meaning in themselves. Wealth and power are morally neutral, only gaining value based upon how they are used. However, democratic capitalism tries to instill meaning into means. Democracy does so by valuing elections and representation in themselves regardless of the product, and capitalism by prioritizing the pursuit of self-interest as somehow mystically leading to a better society. Be aware, too, that democracy (in particular the extreme type we have now) does not demand ethics or competence, merely the ability to fog a mirror and submit a vote.


Our institutions are based upon these ideas. While contemporary political parties and the news media are almost universally condemned as corrupting influences, no serious challenge has yet to appear to question whether they have a legitimate interest. The liberal ethos of speech and freedom existing only through the absence of law is so ingrained in our society they at times appear to resemble religious dogma. Accordingly, parents watch their kids become corrupted and society continually decay both socially and economically with the perverse satisfaction that at least they live in a free society. However, we learn through Hegel that freedom is the valuing of and the pursuit of truth. "The mind is free" [Die Vernunft in der Geschichte (vol. 1 of Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte {Lectures in the Philosophy of History}), ed. Hoffmeister, 5th ed. (Hamburg, 1955), p. 33].


The reality is that the dividing line between contemporary America and those historical nations which often fall under the broad tent of tyranny is very thin. Historical tyrannies would often be characterized as proscribing certain behaviors in law. Citizens who would violate the law would often face reprisals disproportionate to the nature of the crime. Certainly, societies such as this should be classified as unfree as the ties which bind are composed of nothing more than force. Unlike the historical models, the tyranny we face in 21st century America is not out in the open. The law does not proscribe certain forms of speech and expression and time spent being incarcerated is not the product of certain forms of self-expression. However, individuals in contemporary societies face another brutal reality. What we lack in law is made up for by innuendos and proscriptions, as exist with the "cancel culture", a 21st-century version of Robbespierre, if you will. Remember also Orwell's "thought crimes". Though living under the illusion of speech being free, individual attempts at expression are often met with self-righteous condemnations of shame and many times lead to the loss of employment, friends, and family. Whereas, violations of law often lead to at least the inner satisfaction the individual is fighting against a faceless enemy. The isolation and loneliness produced from being the violator of social taboos are much more toxic.


Consciousness regarding the central role philosophy plays in National Reformationism’s doctrine now becomes clear. Reform is impossible under the present social context, which solidifies ideas into dogmas and switches means and ends. Addressing society's ills only comes with the acknowledgement that life is a process in a constant state of growth, decay, and rebirth; that all aspects of our existence are interconnected, with purposes and lives, which while seemingly different, all have roles to fulfill in history. To desire change when one dislikes the product of a process and yet not support changes to the process is to ignore the root cause of social dynamics and to replace a contemporary mindset built upon five-second soundbites, which may be suitable for Fox or MSNBC but is completely inappropriate when it comes to formulating public policy.


Addressing the progressively shortened attention spans and inability to comprehend complex ideas now characteristic of the American public will require tearing apart the fabric holding enveloping that ignorance. We’ve become too complacent when addressing social ills, loving to complain about the power structure but unwilling to go beyond words into action. National Reformationism, if anything, is comprehensive recognizing that for outcomes to change, structures must do so as well. Life doesn't imitate art. A hero will not fly in at the end of the day and magically make everything right. Change is a painstaking process taking time and coming in stages. It simply isn’t enough to self-righteously criticize to no end the “liberal media” then offer no solutions. Doing so does nothing more than increase an already saturated market full of cynicism.


Let's pause a second before reading the following discussion of how ideas like the freedom of speech, sexuality, and race enter into contemporary social discourse. Recall from the above society as an organism, the structure of which is the State. A healthy organism regulates itself, having an excellent diet, exercising, practicing safety, being educated/trained, and so forth. In other words, regulation is not something imposed by an external authority but what systems analysts know as "homeostasis", a critical factor in allowing systems to survive. So, as for the State, the following now has its appropriate context.


There is probably no other dogma enshrined in American minds to a greater extent than “freedom of speech.” The toxic effect this notion has had on our populace illustrates itself daily in the form of pornography, violence, and the glorification of depressant behaviors all in the name of making a profit. The effects the profit at all costs attitude has produced is reflected in the growing rates of drug addiction, suicide, and depression amongst not only young people but the population as a whole. And yet, with perverse satisfaction we hold up high the Constitution and the supposed freedoms it gives us and says “Freedom isn’t free.”


To challenge this ideal it is necessary to offer an alternative. National Reformationism does just so. Borrowing from philosophical idealism from Hegel onwards, the idea of freedom we wish to express is not something which comes pre-defined, alien from the individual, something to be discovered. When defined as such it becomes limited and foreign, losing meaning in the process. Imagine it this way. Classical liberalism argues freedom as being something existing in the absence of restraint; it’s something the individual has by default regardless of social context or individual choice. Freedom to a classical liberal is the absence of law. The only reason they tolerate the existence of a government is through a reluctant acknowledgement that life is unlivable without at least a minimum amount of centralized authority to enforce contracts. Even this bare-bones government is seen as an encroachment upon freedom, a necessary evil. This view of freedom handed down to us today from Locke and his intellectual heirs is not concerned with the content of freedom. The results be damned; if large segments of the population starve, then it must somehow be their fault, as the freedom of the liberal is viewed as having a religious-like mystical quality to it. This is another realm where idealist thought has increased relevance. Idealists, asserting that what is real is what the individual knows to be real, emphasize the importance of knowledge construction along with the use of reason to expand the individual’s reality. Here also enters the love of and pursuit of truth as the highest human ethos. The National Reformation Party internalizes this ethos; it lives it; the NRP is it.


Opposing philosophies posit a reality outside of the individual, a reality that cannot be completely understood or comprehended, hence the growth of dogmatism and superstitious beliefs. Americans champion the "freedom" of speech, religion, and the press. These are held to be divinely inspired, despite the inability to find these freedoms in the Bible or locate their exact source. In fact, nobody knows exactly what their true source is, except it comes from outside of the individual’s reality, hence the legacy of non-idealist philosophies with their supernatural defenses and difficulty in reform.

Again, especially in the field of regulating speech, the problem is philosophical. The task at hand is to convince the public that through regulation of certain forms of speech a better, freer society can be produced.


There are certain activities concerning speech actually reducing the quality and the content of speech in general. When the media focuses on stories designed to provoke anger and hostility at the expense of thought, then the foundation of speech which is thought is reduced for sake of emotion, which, while at times employing speech, does it in an involuntary spasmodic manner, resembling more an animalistic impulse than anything human. Other activities involving primarily some business enterprises reduce the scope of speech. Speech, when engaged by two well-meaning individuals seeking the truth, often leads in a dialectical fashion to a synthesis of ideas producing new progressive forms of thought, with the emphasis being on "well-meaning". However, businesses by definition cannot engage in well-meaning speech. For a business to survive they must constantly aim at increasing market share and profit. Freedom of thought and truth can at many times be toxic to those goals. Examples of this abound in contemporary America. American corporations are constantly attempting to portray themselves as “woke” and caring organizations by endorsing social causes perceived to be welcoming to all while at the same time bribing politicians to make it easier to move business operations offshore and cut benefits for their employees. The problem is not that the individuals in charge of these companies are necessarily bad people; more so, the system is itself toxic and to survive forces people into making immoral decisions. Above all, speech being dialectical is only a good itself if between two individuals with honest intentions. Businesses not being capable of this, for the good of society, need to have their speech restricted.


The news media first and foremost is a money-making venture; its expression of the news is designed to bring in profits, not to enlighten or to be authentic. To steer away from the sensationalist, prurient, and Yellow-Sheet reporting, the first step towards reporting the truth would be to eliminate the profit motive from the industry. Hence, one of the first acts of any National Reformationist government would be to dismantle all contemporary media outlets to be replaced by State-sponsored media. There would be a period of adjustment with the higher quality of news produced. The transition from a five-second sound byte mentality to one which emphasizes thought construction would be adjusted over time as individuals are weaned from anger-inducing agitation passing for news.


Our changing view of freedom also comes into conflict with one of the more dominant issues facing America, human sexuality. While personality types exist along a spectrum according to gender, with there being males exhibiting traits historically associated with being female and females exhibiting more masculine traits. The underlying biological differences which characterize males and females manifest themselves in different behaviors. Males tend to be more aggressive, valuing displays of strength and power, while females tend to be more nurturing and caring. These traits existing along a spectrum aren’t all exclusively feminine or masculine; the two bleed into each other with the result usually being one or the other dominant, the other with a reduced role still having a part to play. Problems arise when either through toxic social influences or willful neglect one side is attempted to be completely suppressed at the expense of the other. The most masculine male needs to show a nurturing side and females need to be protective and aggressive when encountering threats.


The amazing thing about males and females is that despite these differences, there is no stronger force in the world than the love they have for each other. Love, having the mysterious nature that it does, is not something that can be explained, but what can be gathered through empirical observation is that those characteristics lacking in one sex are precisely those prized most by the opposite sex. There is an inner recognition that through the act of marriage, male and female become one, much as pieces of a puzzle go together to make a whole. Healthy marriages help address contradictions inherent within society; the male-female dichotomy becomes resolved through the act of marriage and the production of offspring, where the dual nature of mother and father are imparted to the children, producing emotionally healthy individuals. Recall the unity of opposites.


Now, imagine a scenario where because of technology and social pressure the male/female dynamic, which culminates in the family, is changed into a sperm-donor-recipient relationship. Differences would go unreconciled and the dual natures would further separate as the other, instead of being complementary, would appear as something alien. Imagine the prevalence and permanence of racism if different races were incapable of procreating. Think of Huxley's Brave New World. It’s only through our common humanity and complementary natures that differences become reconciled in society.


The danger of homosexual unions and the growth of transgenderism as an acceptable lifestyle is exactly the danger they present the idea of reconciliation. While there is truth in the statement that men and women are naturally attracted to each other, there is also the reality that throughout history there have been those who have engaged in alternative sexual relationships. Neither can be completely suppressed through the law and there shouldn’t be any attempt at doing so. To create a healthy balance between what is good for society and yet maintaining for individuals the ability to choose their lifestyle, the male/female union should be held as the standard, the ideal from which the family and society should be built around.


Connected to the idea of reconciliation spoken of in reference to sexuality is the importance it plays in race relations. As stated above, imagine a scenario where individuals of different races were incapable of creating children. Races would be immutable; they would fulfill the scenario laid out by ethno-nationalists of individuals being the by-product of their genes, with everything else, such as the will, and emotions being secondary, again, recalling Huxley. However, reality being as it is, people of different biologies find each other attractive and reproduce, making offspring who are a mixture of their parents. And while in many ways’ humanity has taken steps backward over the last few hundred years regarding biological differences, there has been a significant amount of improvement, However, there is a long way to go and the most significant hurdle to overcome is the idea of race being a biological reality; in fact, biologically it is a social construct. Biological race does not exist!

Without a thorough knowledge of history, it would be fairly easy to assume that what is viewed as a race today has always been viewed that way. However, pre-WWII scholarship contains numerous references to race, with an almost unanimous description of race being a nationality, limited to within the borders of a nation. Within nationalities, biological differences could exist but the factors which unified individuals - a shared history, culture, and way of life - were those things constituting a race. In its original form, race was a unifying ideal. Think of it this way. We refer to the "human race". A "localized" version of it – subtypes, if you will - is a shared history, culture, and so forth.


Today though, we have a view of race as something purely negative, an idea which gained prominence starting in the 19th century as a way to differentiate individuals - especially physically - and promote the rule of one people over another. It was within Britain and the United States where this idea became most popular due to the colonialism of the former and slavery (followed by segregation) of the latter. In fact, the contemporary American view of race resembles more closely that held by Nazi Germany and the apartheid regime of South Africa. Is it any wonder that despite advances in race relations a resolution to racial problems appears insurmountable? As long as we continue to hang onto a view of race as being biological, a view of race which was created to divide and separate, then, we’re destined to never overcome it.


When we speak of and promote the ideal of an American race, we are not speaking of anything which exists currently as a reality, but as an ideal, something we aim to achieve. So goes the whole individual, there goes the family, followed by the nation, then formalized by the State. As it currently stands, America is composed of groups of individuals representing different interests and nationalities. Don’t be confused by the playing of the National Anthem before sporting events with tens of thousands standing at attention or protests with both sides waving American flags chanting patriotic slogans. The constant displays of patriotism and the even more constant inner need individuals feel to manifest patriotism is not a sign of patriotism, but insecurity produced by a knowledge that the patriotism on display lacks authenticity. Historically, America has had a very limited government when it comes to regulating personal behavior, but what we’ve lacked in government oversight we’ve made up for in taboos and proscriptions. Those not willing to show their patriotism to the extent of others face social reprisals and condemnations. Likewise, those confronting social issues through protest know that the easiest way to gain public support is through showing the flag and creating the perception that their movement is patriotic in nature, whether in reality it is or is not. In their hearts., most Americans have a sense of what’s wrong, lacking a common history, common culture, and way of life, those aspects which go into making a nation. Americans realize that they lack what others have and deep down a country held together by the market and force cannot stand. So, what is lacking organically has had to be forcibly pushed onto people. The deification of the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, and basically every war America has ever fought in is the attempt to cement people together by means which are meant to happen naturally over time. As of this writing, Americans are in the midst of tearing down the monuments dedicated to this deification. The ease with which this has taken place is not a testament to the destructive nature of the movement which is responsible (though this movement is divisive due to its outdated conception of race) but to the fragility of the ties which were artificially imposed as a substitute for time.


As Josiah Royce put it in his writings, building a Nation is a time-consuming process. Through shared experiences, we learn to eschew our old selves and embrace a new identity to actually become Americans. The first step that has to be taken at least to establish this foundation is to put a moratorium on immigration. Even those countries which are closer to us culturally and technologically are not at this time suitable for immigration. The social rot which characterizes contemporary America is to a large extent the product of haste. The constant waves of immigration we’ve had throughout our history have prevented social forces from playing themselves out and creating an American nation and an American race. Complicating immigration is how capitalism has made wage slaves of peoples, often forcing them to leave their beloved homes and families – impoverished as they are but not livable – and migrate to where they think are better chances of survival. Solving the immigration problem requires eliminating capitalism and allowing peoples their identity. Hence, national and cultural identity does not apply only to those in the US. Most people crave their identity, and such can occur only in the absence of exploitation, especially social and economic. And last but certainly not least in the hierarchy of this act of creation is the most important aspect, Corporatism.


How does this philosophy, these values become manifest? To simply proclaim them from on high would be to repeat the mistakes engaged in by contemporary social advocates, whose discourse more often resembles a condescending shrill tone of yelling. Values existing within the political realm lack depth and value unless accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. For us, Corporatism is that enforcement mechanism.


At its core, National Reformationism is the acknowledgement that everything has its place and purpose within society; at its core, the Nation, State, and Society are all outgrowths of the structure of individuals. Just as the individual so is the State composed of a myriad of body parts and organs all with separate functions and purposes but existing within a functional whole and having no meaning outside of that whole. The nation exists only through the State and has no meaning or purpose outside of the State. All individuals, groups, and organizations exist as part of something greater than themselves and are only able to find meaning as part of a larger whole. This is not to imply that the individual supersedes the collective units s/he’s a part of. That would be putting the parts before the whole. It does imply, however, that the individual sees these collective units as a manifestation of himself/herself -the relations between the whole and its parts; the tendency towards unification, and the destruction of collective units without a common purpose. All of these resemble either the health or lack thereof of the individual when he/she lacks or has in abundance inward unity. Otherwise stated and consistently with the unity of opposites, the parts exist in terms of the whole, and the whole exists in terms of its parts. Here is an organism.


Contemporary society flips this idea on its head by employing the idea that collective constructs are the products of their members, that the State is nothing more than the sum of the wills of its individual members. It makes wholes into abstractions and gives reality to its parts. The corruption which plagues American politics and society is directly derived from the implementation of this concept at the governmental level. Imagine an individual whose parts work in opposition to each other and the decay at the core of American life becomes more manifest. If a social entity is not organic, it is not the State.


Currently, the American government is populated almost exclusively by lawyers who reside within the top 1% of the income levels. This is the functional equivalent of having every individual decision made by the human stomach or sexual organs; we can all imagine the ensuing disaster When reference is made to the State this is what is meant; the inclusion of all the different aspects which compose society into the State, not necessarily with direct decision-making power but as having a part within that process. Scientists, artists, writers, housewives, laborers, all would have their voices heard through representation in a Congress composed not of a single part of the population but with all parts. Coupled with this is the Classical idea of virtue, each doing the best s/he is able, knowing one's "capabilities", or as Clint Eastwood would say in Dirty Harry, "know your limits."


Through a changed structure that incentivizes cooperation and not competition, individuals and groups can begin to see the commonalities which bind them, being able to recognize the well being of one is built upon the well-being of all. National Reformationism is revolutionary in scope not in destructiveness.


Look at all the major "isms" that have been vetted – socialism, capitalism, communism, and so forth. Not one is organic save for fascism. Not one describes the State, save for fascism. They all are responses to a perceived material want or need. Certainly none have that high-road ethos of valuing truth above all.


As Americans, we’ve been living under the same materialist ethos for so long that what we view as normal is too often seen as being peaceful and desirable. Not recognizing the greed and disingenuousness at the heart of that normalcy it’s hard to conceive of anything else. A political ideal demoting material gain and promoting advantage for the sake of the well being of the whole with the search for truth as its highest value is the revolution we propose. It’s result and the standard is nothing more than a loving family.


  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Spotify
  • RSS
  • iTunes

© 2020 National Reformation Party. All Rights Reserved.