Time to Stand on Our Own

By Joshua Noyer

The creation of the ABP in 2013 had similar beginnings. The task was to create a political alternative where none existed. The plurality of parties and movements shouldn’t be confused with political diversity. With the exception of the miscreants who composed neo-Nazi organizations, along with Anarchists, the political environment was composed solely of adherents to the founding synthesis. The task, much like the founders, was to create a synthesis out of whatever knowledge existed at the time. Given that credible opposition was absent at the National level, the only other alternative was to create the foundation from whatever sources we could, and that source was to be found overseas in fascism, and referencing specifically the fascism of interwar Italy.

There was no other political force throughout history as demonstrably against the trends in politics and economics, which, beginning in the 17th century, began to dominate western thought than fascism. In addition, the one country where these trends manifested themselves most stridently was here in the United States. Political differences in most countries manifest themselves by degrees of separation not types. It usually takes a national calamity or shock to create cleavages within a political system to the point where there exists two equally opposed sides with stark doctrinal differences. So as referenced earlier, the situation dominant in the United States has been between Right and a Left Lockeanism. Absent the political shock needed to create differences of type, the only alternative left the ABP was to throw the metaphorical equivalent of a wrench into the political system by adopting the negation of Liberal Democracy, despite the baggage that went along with the decision.

For most of you, the subsequent history is well known and serves as the rationale for the name change to the National Reformation Party. Regardless, the limitations of American politics continue to reveal themselves. As I laid out in my article a couple months back, "Loyalty to What? Loyalty to Whom?" Materialism is much more than a feeling of transcendence towards consumer goods, a worldview that colors how we think towards life, religion, and politics. Politics is mistakenly much of the time described as dealing in the realm of ideas. This is true to the extent that whatever activity we engage in must first be the product of the mind. But products of the mind can exclude thinking; emotions, feelings, prejudices are all baser forms of thought which are processed through the mind, but processed as stand-alone images and resulting in actions that are isolated, isolated in the sense that thinking unifies different concepts and emotions to produce an act which is synthetic but also unified in nature. How does American politics fall into this trap? In many ways, Americans are hostage to materialist thought; our politics often resembles more of a morality play than an interaction between different ideas. I specifically recall the last three Republican Primary cycles. Each year the candidates get on stage and proclaim their devotion to Ronald Reagan and his ideals, claiming that they and they alone would be the most loyal of his acolytes and implement his ideals to the T, while all the others are chastised for not measuring up to the icon which is Ronald Reagan. The iconography which passes for discourse when the Constitution and the founding fathers are concerned is also susceptible to the lack of thought, as they’re held to be divinely inspired, with criticism of either entailing by consequence disloyalty and evil. Regardless of which side of the aisle is speaking, original innovative ideas designed to address public concerns are few and far between. More often what is seen are preconceived notions reified and held inviolable, packaged and polished for consumption by contemporary audiences.

Unfortunately, this attitude does not change even when rejecting the current systems and its doctrinal offshoots. The founders are replaced with the founding fathers of fascism. America’s founding documents are replaced with their counterparts from Fascist Italy. Regardless of the genuine applicability of fascist ideals the danger exists of idolizing those ideals and trapping ourselves into a box from which doctrine cannot emerge and adapt and moves only though osmosis and becomes a purely defensive construct. Some of the most common questions/responses we get from others who describe themselves as fascists are demonstrative of this trend:

“Mussolini in 1938 instituted the racial laws, isn’t your criticism of those

laws a betrayal of his legacy?”

“The Blackshirts were revolutionaries bent upon action; how is your philosophizing conducive to that action?”

“Italian fascism allied with National Socialism; why are you right to criticize this and Mussolini was wrong?

There’s a common thread running through these criticisms and many more we’ve received through the years. They are establishing truths as being apriori, and infallible. “This person said this or this person said that '' and because you declare an affiliation with him or the ideals he represents you have to agree with every word he says or be labeled as a hypocrite. It’s a very dualistic, simplistic way of thinking which views the world as good vs evil, black and white; which views every encounter as being a zero-sum transaction. Whenever an ideal is viewed as an a priori truth, it is neither an ideal nor a truth. Dogmas and idols should be avoided at all costs as they destroy any doctrine they confront. Essentially, what’s being done is to materialize certain aspects fascism by taking them out of their context and giving them transcendent aspects.

All of this begs the question then; how do we avoid the trap of dogmatism? We all have historical figures whom we admire and attempt to emulate. The temptation to make them larger than life and thereby give meaning to our own political causes is tempting. The answer lies in why we are all here. As I’ve referenced in previous articles, the original impetus behind involvement in politics is expressive in nature. It’s a natural predisposition that you’re born with a - followed by a constant - need to satisfy this creative urge. Once the individual formally enters the political arena, the pressures to conform overwhelm, and at one time, what was considered expressive now becomes functional. Organizations, such as the Republican and Democrats, create doctrine with the aim of winning elections; using focus groups and pollsters to craft their message. They inevitably create themselves in the image of a public relations firm, a business. The very structure leads to opportunism and cynical behavior.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to avoiding dogmatism. Around every corner we confront a society which encourages short-cuts and opportunism, avoidance of which begins with an acknowledgment that life cannot be cut up into little pieces and lived separately, that we are one whole being with one purpose

needing to live by one philosophy. From meager beginnings, we were in need of a purpose, a means to identify ourselves. Fascism provided a vessel through which we could articulate what we already knew inside but could not express; it gave shape and form to our organization. But like any living thing, we have grown and evolved to encompass so much more than our founding. Words we use to describe ourselves are used for identity purposes. Much like terms used to describe large groups of people, such as racial terminology; they are ways to make sense of our lives and instill order from a world of perceived chaos. The reality is one of what seems to be almost infinite diversity; impossible to illustrate rationally. Fascism is our foundation, our jumping off point. However, we cannot allow descriptive terms to define us. As we grow and become more complex, so will our doctrine grow and evolve to meet new challenges we’re bound to face. How we evaluate ourselves and react to criticism must be based upon what we do as the National Reformation Party and not by a standard set almost a hundred years ago. We know no idols, no dogmas, we don’t worship at the altar of words or history. Our goal is to create a life worth living within the 50 states of the Union. A Union of One Nation, built upon one idea. To the degree which we judge ourselves and react to criticism is the standard we use; that and nothing more.