The Silent Majority

By Tim Stillwell, NatParUSA Columnist

According to some sources, almost fifty-five percent of the American registered voters did not vote in the last presidential election. This suggests, once we compensate for the inevitable portion of slackers and those who are disinclined to vote as a practice, that for over half of the American people, there was not a candidate worth choosing. This is not surprising, given their options.

The differences between Republican and Democratic parties can be counted on one hand, and for the most part, comprise issues which are symbolic more than rational. Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, ten commandments, reparations, drilling in national forests. These are issues in name only, as whichever way they are decided, there is minimal effect on the whole. For example, regardless of the legality of abortion, our population is declining and children will be murdered because of the reckless sexual behavior of adults.

While the two-party system reduces voting to a practice so simplistic that even a moron can do it, and many morons do (apparently), it is destructive in that the parties are so competitive they are barely different. Neither party would do anything to change the overall direction of our society; both focus mostly on issues of emotional significance to their constituencies, and defer big change indefinitely. It is not their concern, they say, because they satisfy those who support them.

However, because fewer than half of the eligible electorate chose to cast a ballot, this should tell us that there is a silent majority who are not being represented. For them, undoubtedly, the choice between two well-connected millionaires with cronies in multiple industries is moot. This silent group are probably well-adjusted, and have found ways to make a reasonable living, and thus are stable enough to need very little in terms of what candidates can deliver.

What this silent majority would find appealing is something the mainstream political system cannot bestow: a more sane living, a healthier culture, a safer way of life. Since the methods of making this happen are generally politically taboo, as inevitably they would involve sacrifices in personal freedom and lack of responsibility, no candidate who wishes to be elected in the popular system will discuss them. And thus the symbolic issues continue to be bandied about, and many of our country's best citizens continue not voting.

Even more appalling is that the constant transfer of power makes it impossible to establish any kind of longstanding policy, because as soon as one party establishes a precedent, a new election comes along and blows it away. The population who do vote probably consider themselves "empowered" for being able to switch to the "other side" anytime things get rough with the current administration, but that practice is as effective as changing cell phone companies: sooner or later, the other guy gets enough power to begin abusing it, and thus you have to switch again, and again...

One could, as in the 2004 election some did, opt for a candidate like Ralph Nader. While even Nader himself recognized he would not win the election, and probably was not ready to be a president quite yet, it would have been smartest for Americans to vote for Nader so that they could have had a third party on the ticket. In fact, if Nader had cast aside the debate over his actual opinions, and said simply, "I'm running so that next election we can have third parties," he probably would have doubled his vote.

Such things as third-party politics or a drastic change in our political system appeal to the silent majority. They are intelligent people, whether "educated" or not, and they are practical people, regardless of what economic stratum claims them. Their goal is to have a normal life, enough money to live well on, and they tend to have family-centric, traditional but not uptight "conservative" values. No candidate thinks like this, of course, because it's too moderate and undramatic to be a good source of scrounging votes.

While these moderates are clearly apolitical in a two-party system, and often write off politics entirely as something beyond their control, they are not without opinions, and they are people of action who would participate if someone else got the ball rolling. In a way, they could be described as extremist moderates, in that while their views are moderate, they're accustomed to getting things done by stepping over the ineffective, delusional, neurotic and defective people inevitably in their way (think about driving down a busy road on Saturday, and you'll see what I mean here).

The silent majority, unlike the people who normally vote, does not need a dramatic celebrity-style president, but they will support any sane plan no matter how drastic it seems to normal voters. To this silent majority, if you have the right plan, there's no reason to hold back from forcing it into place with maximum effectiveness; this is how they run their businesses and lives, and it is a more sane political view than believing we are "empowered" by a see-saw power struggle that makes long-term planning impossible.

Naturally, it is not in the interest of the oligarchs - the business owners, media magnates, and influence brokers behind the scenes in our society - to support such action. For one thing, it threatens to actually end problems such as organized crime, drugs, and ethnic tension from which a great deal of profit can be made. For another, it would literally end the power of the oligarchy itself, by removing the highly-visible but ineffective populist political drama and replacing it with a sensible and less ostentatious form of government.

Luckily for those who live in this time, the silent majority is gaining more power. The normal citizen, voter or not, is realizing, as oil runs out, as wars proliferate, as our society gets increasingly authoritarian, as pollution (and cancers) increase, that our civilization is not on a healthy path, and that we've been lied to, not by one party or even by both, but by the assurances that our system works at all. They're starting to want change that isn't necessarily radical or not radical, but effective.

In this they are delegating support to the Silent Majority, who are no longer as concerned with being painted as extremists, because the problems we face have now reached such an extreme that there is no way to deny them. As the two-party system thus fades in importance, third parties are gaining predominance, as unlike the visible political drama, these stand for change and a practical plan, which is something the Silent Majority and any other thinking citizen will now support.

 

Natural Resources

By Tim Stillwell, NatParUSA Columnist

In the last years of the nineteenth century, a writer named Max Nordgau put forth a series of propositions that indicated the quality of human beings was declining. Citing a range of examples and measurements, he pointed out that greatness had left us shortly after the industrial revolution took us out of daily competition for survival within nature. What was required in this new age was to hold a job, not offend anyone, and to specialize rather than being a self-sustaining organism which could adapt to any environment.

Nordgau wrote after industrialization had been in process for a scant two and a half centuries; now, a hundred plus years later, we find his concepts enduring even if we place new language to them. Thanks to the influence of industrialization on our language, we tend to refer to things not yet shaped into products as "natural resources," and it makes sense that we consider our first natural resource ourselves.

Intelligence is not bestowed after birth, but before; someone born with a median intelligence will never be one of the intellectual greats of his or her society, and someone born without a tendency toward healthy acts will never be a good leader. What happens after birth can destroy this fragile potential, as is the case with the rampant child abuse that seems to plague the industrialized west, but even the best education cannot compensate for a lack of sufficient raw material.

The century before Nordgau's pronouncement was one of great invention, great art and influential philosophy; it was a golden age, like the last few moments of rich sunlight before the sun submerges beneath the horizon. While some took this to be a culmination of humanity up to that point, others saw it as a desperate attempt to put into tangible form all of what was being lost. Since in the years following, we have seen many creations but far fewer great ones, it makes sense to consider the latter supposition realistic.

What fundamentally changed during the time leading up to this golden age was the rise of what we call "modernity," or modern society: individual economic mobility, vast industry funding commerce, government by representation in the name of self-interest. Modernity changed one massive aspect of our original natural resource, which is that it inverted our breeding. Where once we bred for the best of all characteristics, now we breed for a single one - the ability to earn money.

"Conservatives," those being the captives of liberalism who pretend to hold up the flag of tradition, often argue for something called "Social Darwinism," which suggests that economics like nature is competition, and therefore the best rise. However, observation alone counter-indicates this, as the sheer number of people who have made money through questionable practices and the massive instability of wealthy people suggests. Do we really think our wealthiest are our most intelligent, healthiest and most moral people?

Of course, if we do not agree with that popular recitation, we keep quiet about it, because to overthrow Social Darwinism is to destroy the underpinnings of our society, which prides itself on being a place where even the poorest among us can work up to being the richest. Doesn't that sound good? It sounds wholesome. Hard work, etc. In reality, by contrast, it is depraved, in that alongside some good people who want a comfortable life, it promotes degenerates whose vision includes nothing but wealth.

Money, as a motivator, is a lowest common denominator. It does not adhere to any specific cultural or spiritual values, and it does not reward long-term thinking or nobler thinking, as survival in nature does. It rewards greed, aggression, and an impulse to disregard the needs of others. For this reason, the declining stock of quality people in the West tend to find careers they can tolerate and earn enough to be comfortable, but rarely desire to go further, even if they say they might. Their actions speak louder than anything else, and their tendency is to provide for their families and think less about money rather than more.

On the other hand, the wealthy in this country - those who control the media, the defense industry, our manufacturing and service segments - are obsessed by money. It has shaped them over the generations, if it's old money; where their original family members pursued conquest of industry, their recent generations obsess over wealth for its own sake. For someone to become wealthy, they must think like this, and for that reason, since these people are highly influential, they shape the minds of others according to their own.

The result is a culture whose founding value has modulated, over the years, to become not independence but wealth, which we equate to a kind of primitive freedom from having to worry about anything but one's own desires. People breed for money; they pick the best provider, and thus the ugly, immoral and narrow of intelligence outbreed the attractive, moral and broadly intelligent. People socialize for money, and thus the same defective and boring personalities show up everywhere and are assumed to be "important," even if they are only fitting role models for a rioting cell block.

In turn, this culture of the money disease attenuates the quality of our breeding, destroying our most precious natural resource. Mix a woman of quality - good intelligence, health/appearance, and moral character - with some guy who is ugly and immoral but earns good money, and you get children that are half-ugly, half-immoral, and half-healthy. However, in the binary wisdom of nature, something that is half-immoral might as well be immoral, since half the time it is making immoral decisions, or is always making half-immoral and thus not quite moral decisions. It's a downward slope.

There are quality people left in the West, and you can find them everywhere, but they survive against odds that National Geographic would write about, were that a magazine of honest anthropology. These people have to educate their children to be outcasts, meaning that they behave differently and cannot trust what they hear from others or see on TV. They learn to be a society within a society, holding out against the inevitable tide that vastly out-populates them. And because this society rarely addresses their values or concerns, their existences are often lonely and isolated.

As a result, their population has been declining, slowly but steadily for every year since industrialization began. Our society simply no longer values what they are, these well-rounded and adaptive humans; all our society values is people who adapt to a single linear means of survival, which is the earning and spending of money. The brave, genius and beautiful are underpaid and slighted by a resentful crowd who do not possess what they do, and in exchange, the mediocre and neurotic and immoral and ugly are shaped through plastic surgery and education and function as substitute elites.

This ongoing tragedy of our breeding explains many of the problems of modernity, and why nationalism is currently demonized. A nationalist values the eternal powers of humanity, including intelligence and health and moral character, and places the ability to earn money as secondary to being a person of quality. Furthermore, the nationalist believes that ethnic groups should work together to preserve themselves, so that a value higher than money can always exist. Nationalism is in short opposed to modernity as a values system, although it is not opposed to moral use of technology.

Although most have not yet seen this, nationalism is the only possible solution to the overall decline of humanity in modernity. It is clear something is needed to replace money as the primary value of our society; nationalism does this on several levels, all of which relate not to another abstraction like money, but the pragmatics of survival. Where modern systems tend to be deconstructive, nationalism is a unifier, helping people work together on several levels:

- Culture/Tradition. Behaviors that pass along the knowledge of the past, and a way of doing things that has always worked best, eventually become ornamented into the sayings, rituals, celebrations and art of a specific culture. As each culture is unique, it is a powerful bond to something which can never be bought or sold, and transcends any kind of linear valuation. If you are of the culture, it's the best in the world; if you're not, it's not relevant.

- Language. When population groups are united by heritage and culture, they share a language, and thus are not susceptible to having key terms redefined to in turn change values. The language grows organically, with the population, and provides yet another way to call a specific cultural group home, in that its language is adapted to describing the preferences of that group.

- Heritage. Able to point to many generations of achievement, the citizen of a nationalist country knows how their lot in life came about, and has a permanent place as part of that civilization in that role - unless they do something exceptional, and thus rise higher. While there is less social mobility, what flexibility exists promotes only the best, so the society breeds better people. Further, since each heritage is unique and carries inherent genetic preferences with it, a community unified by heritage (nationalism) is one that adapts most to the citizen, gives them a cultural identity and surrounds them with people of similar values and abilities.

- Values. Each local society has its own values system, worked through the ages, which both defines it and is defined by it. When this grows in a natural process, values remain constant as long as the population is breeding well, but as soon as the population becomes mixed or degenerate, values as well plummet.

- Land. Bonding each community to a part of the earth inhabited by ancestors and hopefully, descendants, provides a further dimension to identity and loyalty among people. Those who know a land is their best future option are less inclined to pollute it, denude it, or otherwise mangle its environment; they are also more inclined to portion it out responsibly, reducing the amount of waste and destruction.

As one can see from the above, nationalism is the only possible political system which can replace the money motivation of the current time. Our "conservatives," who tried to replace breeding with class, or ranking by money, rapidly found themselves bred into a motley lot of corrupt people. We should not make that mistake again. There is no way around this issue, as to acknowledge that we are physical beings, and to overcome the mind/body duality that baffles our recent philosophers, is to mature and to acknowledge our own genetics as our first natural resource.

Nordgau saw the first crest of a lengthy, wavelike process of turning us from a species of quality people into a horde of undistinguished, valueless, corrupt lumpenproletariat, who might well be the "last man" mentioned in horrifying simplicity in the writings of F.W. Nietzsche. Humanity has been degenerating, partially through bad breeding, and nationalism is the only way to end this lugubrious history and restore our direction toward a higher civilization.

 

The Decentralized Oppressor

By Tim Stillwell, NatParUSA Columnist

Not many people will speak openly about the current winds of failure in our civilization, or about its deep-seated problems. Among those who will, however, there is a disturbing lack of consensus as to cause or solution. Luckily, those two are related, and it's a relatively simple matter of looking for our misfortune in the wrong places. What makes this question complex is that neither the right nor the left gets it right.

People on the far left believe that a right-wing conspiracy controls the world, and its goal is to use corporations to control us all. They are certain that a white male elite picks our leaders for its own benefit, and manipulates us through extralegal cabals. People on the far right construe our situation as a case of left-leaning cabals degrading our civilization through oligarchies which influence media and learning. Both sides are roughly half-correct.

The reason they are only half-right is that the form of action they expect is wrong. From Big Brother in 1984 to government propaganda against both Hitler and Stalin, we have been taught to expect a diabolical controller; even the most paranoid will blame Masons, Skull and Bones, or some other tangible entity with a clear leadership structure. Most advocate leaderless resistance to such enemies. It is intriguing that they do not consider the same strategy being used against them.

In this article, there is no intent to assure you there are not conspiracies manipulating our society. There may or may not be conspiracies of that nature; we cannot say, but view it as a large and academic task to investigate them. Why? The nature of parasites, including conspiracies, is that they show up by following a food source. If we make ourselves open to parasites, they'll feast; if we don't, they go away. The problem is not that a conspiracy exists, but that if opportunity exists, a conspiracy will be formed.

When we understand this viewpoint, it suddenly makes sense that there is no over-arching puppet master hiding behind the scenes and yanking our strings invisibly. Conspiracies do not exist for their own sake, but when permitted to do so, by the nature of a disorganized society. Similarly, in most cases our bodies can fight off infections, unless they turn the body against itself - as a cancer does.

In the context of discussing the failures of modern society, cancer provides an interesting model. Cancers occur when the body's own cells turn against it, forming rogue elements known as tumor which live parasitically off of the host. These tumors are not organized, but rather are a model of disorganization, in that they occur without leadership and work without goal except survival. Cancer is a more plausible metaphor for our modern ills than conspiracy.

Conspiracies function by stealth, but require allegiance from their members, and in most cases collapse from inner power struggles, or are betrayed by the disgruntled. So far this has not happened with any of our possible modern conspiracies. Back to the cancer metaphor, however, we have found evidence of leaderless, decentralized action that has resulted in all of us being the worse for it.

Most of our human failings occur when people, independently of any others, opt to do things that are destructive in the long-term but result in short-term profit. An example might be Toshiba electronics corporation selling propeller-milling equipment to the Soviets during the Cold War, or men driving battered trucks dumping toxic waste in the New Jersey river, or corporations hiring illegal aliens and paying them illegally low wages. Where's the conspiracy?

More likely than a conspiracy is the collapse of our values. When we have lost any higher goals than money, there is no longer an ascendant impetus to our society, but a normative one, by which we all become more alike in appearance and have lowest common denominator goals. We cannot blame Capitalism, or leftism, or rightism for this mess: far simpler, it is an erosion of our values and thus a lack of beliefs in common that would unify a society. In the lab, we grow parasite "cultures" on Petri dishes; in society, we grow parasites in a lack of culture.

While there may be oligarchies of the wealthy manipulating us behind the scenes, as Plato suggests happens at the end of any populist democracy, these are consequences and not causes of the decline. The cause of the decline is that we've invited them in through a lack of unity, or literally, a lack of any beliefs higher than those of the parasites. They believe in making money at all costs, and place that belief higher than culture itself, and now that we've done the same, we are the perfect hosts for these passive predators.

Our news media and government delight in showing us bad guys. Osama bin Laden, David Koresh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin. We're told that these men are insane and wish to become Big Brothers who will oppress us with their singular authority. While considering this possibility, we should remember that it is a human tendency to look toward fixing details instead of fixing the problem; if these men are symptoms rather than causes, obliterating them won't fix the system. And history says it hasn't, after more than fifty years of this policy.

Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand of capitalism shaping a society, but we now know there can be more than one invisible hand - and no leader required. If our social attitudes reward certain kinds of behaviors, and fail to provide any positive incentives toward others, that will manipulate our society more completely than any leader-based conspiracy could ever hope to. Even better, since it is all of us (mostly unwittingly) do it, there are no antagonists to arrest, and like a cancer, it's very hard to excise.

In modern society, we are motivated by the desire to have "freedom," which translates into economic mobility, and we are taught to fear anything that deviates from that dogma. In fact, if we speak up about anything that contradicts the view that we're all equal in potential and therefore deserve economic mobility, we are seen as heretics and are socially isolated through the magic power of taboo. Are we sure this is "freedom"?

Popularity rules in our society, and because most people are not of a mind to be leaders, they make popular the short-term values that are lowest common denominator: a consumer mentality, broad platitudes about equality, bread and circuses. They do not take on the question of our society's long-term future, and they oppose anything - no matter how necessary - that might limit our individual "freedom" to do destructive things. It is this attitude in modernity that oppresses us, and until we correctly identify it as our decentralized oppressor, we will forever fight figureheads in futility.
 

Abstraction or Reality?

By Tim Stillwell, NatParUSA Columnist

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.

           
Television....

Tim Stillwell, NatParUSA Columnist