THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF A DISSENTER
I propose developing a new Western civilization, the New West, based on the Essential Option.
The New West will put an end to the chaotic liberal democracy. With socialist and other leftist organizations being popular and widely supported across many Western countries as antagonists of allegedly “rightist” ideologies, the Western world must install and implement the New West, described as a national-conservative, aristocratic system. The basis of the new system is a platform for stability.
The New West denounces any policy or organization inspired by specific foreign models. It condemns any fomentation of youth and the principle of the state political power’s superiority in social life. The New West forbids not only Marxist but also revolutionary extreme-right parties. Stability will be bought and maintained at the expense of left-liberal immorality and its interpretation of “human rights.”
The New West will oppose all forms of internationalism, communism, socialism, fascism, and everything that may divide, minimize, or break up the national family. It will be against class warfare, disloyalty to one’s country, the materialistic conception of life, and might over right. Opposition movements will be tolerated and controlled, limited, and manipulated, so they split into factions and never form a united conflict-provoking bloc.
The New West’s reforms and policies must change the entire Western world by assuring political and economic—including financial—stability, social order, and economic growth after the politically unstable, socially devastating, and financially chaotic liberal-democratic years. Its policy envisages the nations as economically autonomous and politically independent from the dominating global and supranational powers.
The New West’s political philosophy is around a close interpretation of the Catholic social doctrine. The economic system is based on a similar understanding of the papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931) which were meant to prevent class struggle and transform economic concerns to operate in accordance with social values.
The proposal for a government adapted to preserve liberty in the Western world by steering clear of the catastrophic errors of the past (and present) is based on four premises or postulates:
1. The maximum possible and reasonable individual liberty must be preserved and protected since freedom is the essence of the common good.
2. As an instrument of government power, the political party system must be abolished because of its inherent drive and disposition toward corruption and totalitarianism.
3. The ideological, philosophical, or theoretical conflicts that can neither be avoided nor be made an organic process of the governmental system have to be delegated to the private sphere.
4. The majority’s power gives it no right to overcome the reasonable and useful; however, the rational and utilitarian values have to be subordinated to the commands of ethics.
Therefore, this author proposes establishing constitutional equality between a popular representative body from the first three premises above, i.e., legislative assembly or National Assembly (NA), and the executive, administering the bureaucracy.
This author does not have the intention to create a party-state and is against the whole-party concept. Therefore, he proposes forming a National Union (NU), a single-party organization, which must be organized as a non-party group. The National Union is to be conceived and arranged to control and restrain public opinion rather than mobilize it; the goal is to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats, and civil servants would never be compelled to join any political organization.
The legislature, the National Assembly, will be restricted to members of the National Union. The NA could initiate legislation, but only concerning matters that do not require government expenditures. A parallel Corporative Chamber will be set up and include representatives of municipalities, religious, cultural, and professional groups, and official workers’ syndicates that replace the trade unions.
The delegates in the legislative National Assembly are freely elected from members of the National Union. The experts’ executive administration consists of officials from all layers of the population; they are employed by competitive examinations, plus at least a couple of probationary years after demonstrating their knowledge and ability.
Neither the popular representation (National Assembly) nor the executive administration will have an ideological pattern.
The popular representation declares honestly and freely the wishes and demands of the various groups of public interest. In a sense, it consists of lobbies, if one can call even a single individual a “lobby.”
The executive administration, dominated by the expert ministries (departments), strives to attain the most useful and feasible.
The National Assembly of the people can reach decisions that have binding power if they are unopposed by the executive and receive the signature of the head of the state. Moreover, the executive branch’s ministries, the experts, can also issue regulations, which may become laws if the assembly or head of state does not veto them.
Thus, there is a clear and unequivocal separation of the two things: the right ideas and those the people want. We can dispense with the pretensions, make-believe, and dishonesties of mere politics.
In a democracy today, a president, prime minister, or public representative is a political party’s pawn. A party is, in turn, the instrument of those who pay for it—private capital forces a unification of socialist and conservative principles.
Therefore, Essential Option proposes an elected head of state to look over both the legislative assembly and the executive administration, ensuring their subordination to the commands of ethics—the fourth premise mentioned earlier. The head of state, or moral guardian, is a sovereign governor or guardian arbitrator representing the element of continuity and ultimate responsibility. This governor, the head of state, is the neutral and supreme element in the country. His State Council (coordinating body) consists of his appointees and individuals delegated by the National Assembly, the executive, and the supreme court.
One of the governor’s two main tasks is to act, together with his State Council, as an arbitrator between the people and the experts. He can vote for the people (the legislative National Assembly) against the experts and bureaucrats (executive) or the latter against the corporations’ representatives. He can also function as an intermediary by helping to work out a compromise.
The governor’s second main task is to use his right to initiate laws, edicts, ordinances, or proclamations—provided both the National Assembly and the executive approve them. However, each body would need at least 75 percent of the votes to reject the governor’s proposal.
The head of state or governor of a hierarchical state will obey his position’s responsibility and his calling’s philosophy—that will remove him from the special interests of political parties as we have them now. The governor is the government’s primary protection against big business.
The fourth organ of government is the supreme court, which also has the right to propose motions through its representative in the National Assembly. The supreme court members are nominated by the governor (head of state) and political, legal, and academic institutions. Still, they can be vetoed by a three-quarter majority of the National Assembly. The supreme court has to examine all laws and decide their compatibility with the constitution, moral law, and ethics.
However, we have already learned in a democracy that there is no supreme court that a political party, body, or system long enough in power cannot manipulate. Therefore, this author proposes to remove the supreme court altogether from the direct control of the legislating, administrative, and coordinating bodies and give it only the indirect, legal counseling, interpreting, or consulting role. This new capacity would mean that even the supreme court’s decisions could be vetoed and rejected by a three-quarter majority of the assembly or the executive. Thereby, the supreme court would cease to be a government organ unaccountable to any other branch; its decisions could not become the law of the land unchallenged; its members could not serve lifelong terms and could be recalled by the National Assembly with the approval of the governor.
This whole system has to be based on a constitution that defines and limits the state’s prerogatives and power. Individual rights and liberties must be duly safeguarded in such a written document. This blueprint also rests on the oaths given to the constitution by all those serving it and that these solemn oaths are, in the last resort, subject to moral convictions and sanctions. Every other system of purely human checks and balances rests on sand.
The new constitution will be drafted by lawyers, business people, clerics, and university professors. This constitution will create the New West as a state representing interest groups rather than individuals. In this system, the people will be represented through organizations rather than divisive political parties, and national interest will prioritize sectional claims. The political-party system has irrevocably failed in the Western world.
The new constitution must establish an anti-parliamentarian and authoritarian government. The governor is to be elected by popular vote for seven years. The document will vest sweeping, almost dictatorial powers in the governor’s hands, including the authority to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. The governor is elevated to preeminence as the “balance wheel,” the defender and ultimate arbiter of national politics. The governor achieves his power position because of constitutional stipulations and his character: absolutist, ambitious, hardworking, and intellectually brilliant.
The principle of democracy could find a limited expression in the corporative legislative National Assembly and the administration of smaller or local units. On an ideological basis, political factions will have the opportunity to organize strictly as private associations with the right to propagandize their ideas.
Ideas and ideologies would likely make themselves felt in the National Assembly no less than in the executive body and even in the supreme court. However, their strife, not finding full airing, will hardly assume the purely parliamentary state's destructive character. Essential Option eliminates the necessity of a totalitarian society to preserve, whatever the cost may be, the common denominator since it is not based on political parties’ existence. Diverging views, different interests, contrasting political beliefs, and even opposing ideologies would manifest themselves in the legislative assembly and the executive administration without tearing the state asunder or, even worse, enslaving it.
There is no inherent connection between the doctrines of democracy and liberalism. The masses are the poorest guardians of liberty, which has its real guarantee not in scores of voters (who might prefer security to freedom) but in immutable laws. These laws curtail the state’s prerogatives and protect the rights and privileges of the individual, the family, and the smaller political, i.e., administrative units.
Essential Option also gives the executive administration an elite character because if we cannot avoid having administrators, managers, and directors, we should have and use the best ones available. The people may weigh and decide all of the critical issues, but they cannot be present daily to run the state. For this reason, the process of governing will inevitably entail an admixture of the aristocratic model. The government must not rush to keep up with fluctuating and ever-changeable popular opinion to get reelected, and it must not cajole voters with tempting rhetoric. The government’s goal should be to act how a rational majority of the people would respond if they had all the facts before them.
By its very nature, a centralized bureaucracy tries to restrict the sphere of society’s self-management—a bureaucrat being a person whose power is derived from the office he holds. However, this observation is valid only for the bureaucracy itself; it is indeed not applicable to the people, nor is it necessary for the government.
In regular times, the public is hungry for action, and the broadest possible opportunities should be made available for this urge. Wherever the people can maintain the necessary norms by themselves, any response by the state agencies is superfluous and even harmful since it needlessly weakens the people’s habit of self-reliance. Public awareness, understanding, and cooperation are essential to control the central bureaucracy and ensure that its officials provide an honest and efficient service.
With this type of combined system, there is a working partnership between the state bureaucracy and the administration of local self-governing units.
A good government allows the better and more dynamic natures among the people to fulfill their promise while ensuring that these individuals shall not tyrannize the masses. However, such a good government is also in accord with the traditions and prescriptive ways of its population. Beyond these two principles, no rule of politics may be applied, uniformly and universally, with any success.
People are not created equal; they are created to be different. Any government that ignores this ineluctable law becomes an unjust government, for it sacrifices nobility to mediocrity; it pulls down the aspiring natures to satisfy the minor characters.
The time is long overdue for a tough choice between a Western Empire—of which we, Americans and Europeans, are the primary victims—and the spiritual and physical salvation of our peoples.
The spiritual life is more important than the size of its territory or even its economic prosperity; the health and happiness of the people are of incomparably greater value than any external goal based on prestige. A nation must develop its fate for itself, and this is a question that cannot be decided without national unity.
Western recovery today is not merely a matter of identifying the most convenient government system and then hastily cobbling together a marvelous constitution. Unless one craves revolution, a state must possess the qualities of continuity and stability while providing security and peace to its citizens. What is clear is that the process must always start at the local level with grassroots issues. While preserving a stable central authority, the people must patiently, persistently, and permanently expand the local communities' rights. While the information-gathering and communication process must flow from the local level in a bottom-up fashion, the decision-making process must proceed from the top down.
I. Political Philosophy: The Sandys Doctrine
This author writes and advocates for the political philosophy of a Western renewal, a New West. His purpose herein is to reflect on the firm belief that ideas, facts, and keen perception will be victorious against lofty rhetoric and mind-conditioning based on destructive, inciting, and antisocial propaganda.
The Essential Option advocates that human action develops alternative living methods in different places based on diverse historical circumstances. This explanation directly leads to a political philosophy that rejects rationalist designs, e.g., to overthrow all political institutions and begin afresh according to some utopian blueprint. It emphasizes the continuity of wisdom instead—as contained in institutions and the language of politics developed over generations in specific localities.
Dostoevsky pronounced the idea of universal and equal suffrage “the most absurd invention of the nineteenth century.” At any rate, it is not Newton’s law, and it is permissible to have doubts about its alleged merits.
Does not “universal and equal” clash with the tremendous inequality among individuals regarding their talents, education, aspirations, contributions to society, ages, life experiences, degrees of rootedness in a country, and locality? It represents the triumph of bare quantity over substance and quality. What is more, such elections assume that the nation lacks all structure—that it is not a living entity but a mere mechanical conglomeration of disparate individuals. Nor does secret voting represent something to be admired in and of itself; it facilitates insincerity or is an unfortunate necessity born of fear.
Well-established and dominating minorities rule all democracies. Democracy is a means whereby a well-organized ruling minority holds sway over an unorganized majority. A flexible and smoothly functioning democracy is adept at deflecting popular protest and depriving it of any great outlet.
European democracy was initially permeated with a sense of Christian self-discipline and responsibility, but these spiritual principles have been gradually losing their influence. The dictatorship of various group interests and their self-satisfied vulgarity keep the pressure on spiritual independence from every direction.
Why would we continue to embark on democracy at a time when it has already proved its declining state?
A suitable legal–social framework of the economy must be guaranteed since neither private property nor free price movement constitutes a social order. Free markets require a moral framework outside themselves to work optimally because the market is only defensible as part of a broader system encompassing ethics, law, the state, politics, and power.
The New West’s political philosophy must be that the local communities’ authority is expanded at the expense of the central, or federal, state bureaucracy. The goal is to reduce direct central involvement in urban affairs. For example, federal land owned by the central government must be returned to the cities. City council members must be compelled to resume municipal authority, even against their will. And the financial burden of the towns and local communities must be made dependent on investment rather than a compulsory tax.
This author’s following doctrine is the basis for the Essential Option’s, consequently the New West’s, political philosophy. The declaration is as follows:
The first objective is to stop the spread, rule, and domination of modern left-liberal and left-radical ideologies on the territories of Western countries or elsewhere that pose a threat comparable to that represented formerly by the Soviet Union. This objective is a dominant consideration underlying the political philosophy of the New West. Accordingly, modern liberalism, in any combination with socialism or communism, must be prevented from controlling nations, countries, or regions having the resources that would, under consolidated authority, be sufficient to obtain global power.
All that Western civilization has accomplished concerning knowledge, the advancements in health and technology for the past twenty-five hundred-plus years need to be defended and saved. The Western world is worth protecting from its main enemy: modern liberalism, which is not the liberalism of the nineteenth century. With all its horrible symptoms usually referred to as “communism” and “socialism,” Marxism has hijacked Western liberalism. Similarly to stamping out National Socialism, eradicating other left-radical ideologies will return the world to a safer state.
II. Hierarchical System of Government
To illustrate the way the New West must challenge the present order, this author would once again like to speculate about one false idol of the modern age—democracy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is doubtful that this phenomenon is as inevitable or desirable as the dogma of historical progress wants the people to believe.
Is democracy the best form of a political system and the one toward which all nations must converge? The New West must wrestle with this question because the most rooted prejudice of the present age is the firm belief that democracy based on human rights (liberal democracy) must be the best and only legitimate form of government. The idea is a universally accepted rule to all enlightened minds and shuts down any further discussion of the issue. It seems unpatriotic to question this view—although American patriots like Alexander Hamilton did entertain the possibility that elective monarchy was better than democracy.
A monarchy is both a political system and a form of government in which one person, the monarch, exercises the role of sovereignty and embodies the country’s national identity.
In contrast, democracy is a form of government in which sovereign power is invested in the majority. In today’s world, as prone as we are to the prejudices of our own time and culture, most Westerners would feel that democracy is the fairest form of government—completely disregarding the fact that it does not function very well in reality. According to Plato, democracy tends to descend into anarchy—a society without governing authorities. In the resulting political chaos, the majority, particularly the majority's weakest members, suffer the most.
It seems that monarchy leads to corruption, which precipitates tyranny, while democracy leads to anarchy, ending in tyranny. Thus, we are condemned to choose between two dictatorships: the king’s rule and the mob rule.
What could be considered, therefore, is a political structure that might be called controlled aristocracy:
• A political system utilizing and combining the advantages of monarchy
• A hierarchical system with a top-down decision-making process
• Bottom-up subsidiarity
This hierarchical and aristocratic system is subject to the moral law but has no right to break it. The controlled aristocracy is not only subject to the principle of subsidiarity but also has no right to supersede, only to complement, the power invested in the legitimately elected local, regional, or state governments.
The New West advocates a hierarchical and aristocratic political system with limited power, both a servant of the people and answerable to the moral law. This “mixed system” combines the wisdom and virtue of the rulers (or top-down order) with the demand for the people’s concurrence (or bottom-up order).
Is it possible to believe that those favoring mixed and hierarchical regimes are right and that advocates of pure republicanism or democracy are wrong about the best form of government? It is possible and even paramount to hold this view, even if it seems politically incorrect in the present age. This author is convinced that the time will come when the New West will be successfully implemented.
Wherever work is considered a universal duty and the meaning of life itself, individuals will differ in wealth and accomplishment. Their local professional associations will be arranged according to each occupation’s relative importance to society as a whole. There will be a representative hierarchy, capped by the state council, with mandates at all levels to be revocable at any time. There will be neither organized political parties nor career party leaders nor periodic elections. Just as an aircraft needs a trained pilot to fly it, a proper state needs the state council led by the head of state or governor.
III. Ideology: National Conservatism
The New West appeals for national conservatism, aiming to preserve the nations’ political sovereignty and their right to self-determination. The New West also promotes the principle of individual responsibility and is skeptical of the uncontrolled expansion of government services or military involvement abroad. It stands for strictly-controlled government spending on social welfare and education.
Western nations are just that: various nations—and the great mission of the New West must be to unite and bind them into civilization. The civilizational identity must be based on the preservation of Western cultural identity, which must be carried not only by ethnic Germans, English, Italians, or Spaniards but also by all carriers of this identity regardless of nationality. This cultural code must prevail; it needs to be nourished, strengthened, and protected. This weltanschauung, or the whole world-view of the New West, must include and be based on the following principles:
• Man, a fallen, incomplete creature, must recognize his limits, for he is fallible.
• While each person is unique, one of a kind, and irreplaceable, this uniqueness also means diversity, variety, and distinctness. We are all different due to our sex, age, talent, wisdom, and experience. We all have similarly diverse characteristics, but in various proportions and degrees; adverbial equality does not mean real sameness.
• Humans are social beings whose reasoning and enjoyment of the diversity of nature differentiate them from animals.
• To overcome the Western moral crisis, people need to return to the enduring moral values of love, freedom, conscience, family, homeland, and nation. Only these values can assure safety, security, and corresponding feelings of belonging, fulfillment, and happiness.
The one thing learned from both the 2016 US presidential election and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom is that modern politics have nothing to do with lofty principles, such as truth, integrity, freedom, and everything to do with fearmongering of the most pernicious kind.
Because globalization challenges the traditions, customs, religions, and even the languages of local cultures, its methods tend to be resisted with the unintended adverse results of radical political actions and countercultural scenes. Against threats to localized identity markers, people assert their religiosity, kinship, and national symbols as resistance mechanisms against globalizing dynamics.
Few nations demonstrate this connection between a resurgent nationalism and a revived conservatism as clearly as the Russian Federation. The self-conscious distancing from globalism is apparent in Russia, drawing inspiration instead from the ideals of a neo-Byzantium, which involves a considerable admixture of Orthodoxy, ethnic mysticism, and Slavophile tendencies that have deep resonance in Russian history. Moreover, with this national revival comes a reembracing of traditional moral values.
As was found with the attempt to bring liberal democracy to the Middle East, few are willing to die for emancipatory politics, feminism, or LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) rights, but the willingness to die for LNCLR (land, nation, custom, language, and religion) is seemingly universal. Though a formidable challenger, globalization appears to have no chance of overcoming such innate fidelities.
Both the Brexit referendum and the US election signify the rise of national conservatism in the West and suggest the inexorable revival of traditional values and norms. Although there are many current cultural peculiarities and paradoxes indicative of stubborn secularism and left-liberal socialism throughout the West, we can expect social and cultural trends to resolve such inconsistencies in favor of traditional beliefs and practices in the end.
IV. Building on the Principle of Subsidiarity
The New West’s reasons for favoring nations and nationhood are based on the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that political and social problems can be resolved best and most justly when dealt with at the most immediate level suitable for their solution. In practical terms, this means that many political and social problems currently being addressed by supranational organizations on international levels could and should be dealt with by newly empowered national, local, and regional governments. Subsidiarity is, therefore, consonant with localism and the decentralization of political power.
True multiculturalism makes sense—in the form of a plurality of thriving national cultures. The problem is that the multiculturalism model sold to us by the globalists is not multiculturalism at all.
The globalist variety of multiculturalism does not want a multiplicity of diverse national cultures at all. It demands a melting pot in which all cultures blend into one global civilization in which everyone wears the same global brands of clothing, shops at the same global chain stores, watches the same global movies and TV programs, plays the same global games, and listens to the same global music. The globalists do not want any real form of multiculturalism, but a global monoculture of standardized people reduced to being mere consumers of the bread and circus that the global plutocracy provides for them. This mad and manic monoculture is what the globalists call “multiculturalism.”
By contrast, multiculturalism’s subsidiarist view calls for thriving independent national, regional, and local cultures. It calls for a Europe of nations and not the European Union. It seeks a patchwork-quilt cultural landscape where local customs and cuisines flourish and are not mown down by the globalist insistence on standardization by a low standard. The global brand is invariably bland.
The globalists seek temporary multiculturalism only as a means to a global monoculture. Theirs is false and sinister multiculturalism designed to destroy the authentic multiplicity of cultures, which have grown naturally from their peoples’ soil and soul. The globalist form of multiculturalism is cultural imperialism, in which a global plutocracy imposes its will on the people and poisons the roots of all cultures it encounters. Such willful destruction of the cultural environment can be called many things, but in any case, it is Orwellian newspeak and doublethink to have the temerity to call it “multiculturalism.”
Big government is always joined by big business in the campaign to influence Western public opinion. Big business continues to support the big governments in Brussels and Washington, DC. This unholy alliance is enhanced still further by the media's power, with every single major newspaper coming out in support of the Western elite. The public is bombarded with a one-sided view of the issues during a referendum, with much more money usually spent on pro-elite propaganda than the antielite campaign. Eclipsed and outmaneuvered by the sheer financial power of the alliance of big business, big government, and big media, the antielite campaign’s arguments—usually supporting the country’s economy and its political freedom—are both unheard and unheeded. The befuddled electorate, allayed into passively accepting the claims of those making the most noise, duly ratifies the elite’s program. This ludicrous process already has a disastrous history behind it.
If the people’s representatives would announce any proposed referendum or initiative against the ruling elite’s will, their motion would immediately be declared “antidemocratic.” Stating that a constitution or some basic law makes it illegal for one segment of the electorate to make unilateral decisions that affect the whole, a court or other governmental organization will dismiss the notion that the proposed referendum is legal. “We cannot allow the will of the few to deprive everyone else of their rights.”
Such reasoning is not only dangerous but also profoundly anti-subsidiarist. Supranational bodies, such as the European Union, could, for instance, use it to declare that all referenda held by member states to decide on continued membership in the EU or independence from it are antidemocratic. According to this argument, such popular votes allow the few (for example, the British or the Hungarians) to deprive everyone else (the people of the European Union) of their rights. This reasoning is the antithesis of subsidiarity, which holds that political and social problems are best managed at the most immediate level.
A just solution to the problems caused by the globalization, centralization, and uniformization of our age is the empowerment of local and regional governments and the devolution of power away from a macro-level-oriented central state.
V. Economy: Based on Incentives
Economics is a utilitarian and materialistic branch of social studies today. It is concerned with maximizing profit, describing humans as economic beings, and explaining the allegedly inevitable results of supposedly economic laws.
The New West must practice a political economy concerned with human well-being instead of assuming that man is wholly or chiefly an economic being. The New West does not believe that abstract laws entirely determine the economic conditions people face; instead, those conditions result from human decisions—some of them being the product of corrupt politics.
Contrary to Marxists and the kinds of capitalists they decried, the New West does not believe that material conditions control man’s thoughts; instead, it considers that the human mind creates material conditions.
The New West does not think that maximum wealth is the proper goal of productive work. There are such things to be considered as widespread and comfortable prosperity and stewardship instead of full exploitation of bountiful nature. People must eat, but they do not live by bread alone. Economics is part of the moral realm and not merely technical knowledge since it is the product of human acts and decisions.
Most of all, the New West’s political economy insists that society’s health is not represented by great wealth but by widespread ownership of real and tangible physical property. Without the broad ownership of all such property, which makes the vast mass of people free and independent citizens, there could be no healthy and free society.
Still, the West has installed and is devoted today to an advanced—if distorted and manipulated—form of capitalism, which means not the free enterprise but private profit subsidized by the government.
The New West’s conception of the good society must become the central pillar of opposition to big business. In the modern pseudo-capitalistic Western world, nobody thinks of anything else except government bailout. The New West must not allow such an atrocity, nor must it approve of trade bills such as TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), or CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). The secret contents and false promises of these trade agreements are being promoted with all the tricks in big business’s inventory against the people’s will. These trade pacts will accelerate the destruction of small business enterprises and dispossess the Western workers.
Both modern liberals and socialists take for granted the enormous concentration of power over the economy by a few gigantic corporations and argue over details; in fact, there is little difference between the two political directions. Both are for preserving a system in which the masses of the people are wage earners at the owners’ mercy.
The above is the wrong kind of society. A society of independent citizens must enjoy widespread property ownership, and the New West considers private property and free enterprise as good things. However, while rejecting socialism, it is also critical of the current Western world dominated by corporate capitalism. Just as a rich country is not synonymous with happy people, a rich government is also not the same thing as a prosperous people.
Most of the Western world’s population own nothing except mortgages, perhaps; the people are at the mercy of large institutions. They are not independent citizens that would be necessary for a free, healthy, and happy society. The disparities of wealth are worse today than in 1936 and have been steadily increasing since the 1970s.
In effect, the large corporations own the countries and the politicians; they are the owners of the Western world today. Big business has never practiced free enterprise; it is too powerful to tolerate competition. Big business controls rather than participates in the free market. Giant corporations exist not solely because concentration is an inevitable result of the laws of economics. In reality, entrepreneurs and managers do not control the industry; bankers do. Wealth is made up of entries on banks’ books and securities that are incredibly manipulable for private profit.
The power of the banks, similarly to other nebulous establishments, is rarely questioned in public discussion. The giant corporations are big and powerful not because they are competent but because that is what the bankers want. It makes their control easier and firmer, and it will fortuitously also cloud transparency. It is no wonder that the same establishments support globalization, centralization, and supranational organizations.
The New West does not want to do away with private property but wants to see policies that will spread it around—that will curb the power of large corporations and multiply the number of people who have enough land, equity, and wealth to make an independent living. The New West wants to see a genuinely free market and wants to see the West become free.
This author realizes that the above program is too charitable and sounds too idealistic, too lacking of money to buy politicians and media, and too unattractive and unprofitable to the vast herd of petty intellectuals who dominate the Western discourse. It could not succeed before, and the West has gone on its current way.
A new wage-enhancement system should be introduced that directs national state (federal) money toward supplementing the income of only those people who work in qualifying low-income jobs, meaning a real increase of their—and only their—minimum-wage limit.
The idea of wage subsidies accepts the Left’s proposition that the problem is purely a monetary (economic) one; giving poor people more money merely to make them feel more comfortable in their poverty is the solution. That is contrary to a properly conceived and applied safety net offering peace of mind to the most vulnerable in case of an emergency.
Mass society and the proletarianization of the middle class are central to the twenty-first-century crisis. With its globalization and distorted capitalism, the Western political elite has dispossessed the middle class but cannot dispose of the proletarians and the social catastrophe that comes with them. The controlling elite has made interest-group politics possible, and liberal democracy had long allowed vested interests to flourish unchecked.
As has often occurred in history, the apparent antidote should be widespread ownership of productive assets—deproletarianization by gaining possession of profit-producing properties. Wherever possible, the realm of self-provision outside the market should be expanded and competition enforced.
However, the state and the economy cannot be entirely separated. Special-interest-group liberalism is damaging diversity; it does not limit the state’s power but tries to use it for its own purposes and make it subservient to those purposes.
There should be strict legal limits on the unchecked concentration of capital; preferably, expansion through organic growth only should be encouraged. “Organic growth” refers to business expansion by increased output, new product development, or customer-based expansion instead of mergers and acquisitions.
For centuries, manufacturers, artisans, builders, and owners were proud of their products’ quality and durability. Still, everywhere in the Western world today, we see a numbing sequence of new and flashy but cheap and dubious models while the sound notion of repair is disappearing. Items that are just barely damaged must be discarded and replaced by new ones—an act inimical to the human sense of self-limitation. To this, one must add the psychological plague of inflation: as labor productivity increases, prices do not fall—they rise. It is not progress but an all-consuming economic fire that razes the world.
For economies with the size and wealth of those of the United States, China, the European Union, India, Russia, or Brazil, it is possible to manage with the domestic market alone for a considerable time. Those large economies can develop and nourish the local, native industries and markets (just as it happened in the past) without exposing them to the harmful effects of international financial markets and international trade. It does not advocate protectionism or autarchy by recognizing, acknowledging, and reversing the destructive forces inherent in globalization and anti-subsidiarity.
The rebuilding of the economy requires that offshoring be reversed and the jobs are brought back to the home country, say, the United States; changing the way corporations are taxed would undoubtedly help do this. The New West will balance the budget, stabilize the currency, and produce budgetary surpluses. It will do all that by maintaining the national accounts’ order, enforcing austerity, and red-penciling waste. The New West’s economic policy will encourage and create conditions for the formation of successful family-owned business enterprises. Labor unions will not be allowed, and a minimum wage policy will not be enforced.
The tax rate on corporate profits should be determined by the geographic location where businesses add value to the products they market in the United States. If the goods are produced domestically, the tax rate should be low. If they are made offshore, the tax rate should be high to offset the lower costs of producing abroad. The lobbying power of transnational and multinational corporations, supranational institutions, and Wall Street must be broken.
The Western countries’ populations demand at least a limited welfare state, limited working hours, assured security, and affordable education and healthcare systems, to mention only a few benefits, which cost the state a significant amount of money. The governments are not able to fulfill these expectations without any individual and corporate taxation.
Corporate (and individual) tax avoidance schemes include the strategy to move overseas to a tax haven like Bermuda or Switzerland, among others. For example, by reincorporating offshore, companies avoid paying federal income tax on profits earned outside the United States.
The New West, realizing the above practice, must demand a new tax policy based entirely on incentives. These incentives must consider whether the particular investment expenditure draws money from the state (that expenditure will have to be more highly taxed) or will reduce the demand for government-provided current or future financial assistance.
The typical cases requiring due consideration would be individual savings plans for medical expenses, retirement savings plans, and savings plans for education. The issue of tax incentives for people and businesses investing in various public infrastructure projects must be considered, as should for companies investing in design, development, infrastructure, or employees’ education. These are some of the areas that require state or public expenditures one way or another; if they could be financed with more private instead of public funds, the burden on the country would decrease, and public participation and support would significantly increase.
In other words, private financing of the welfare state should be and must be encouraged. It is the only way the country’s eventual bankruptcy can be avoided and the national debt reduced.
Let us take a look at the economies of the United States and Germany. How could Germany, even though it is based on a topsy-turvy reversed social market economy, support a socialist welfare state with all its funds-draining programs and still have a booming economy for the last sixty years—at least compared to the United States?
The answer is the smart, intelligent, consistently flexible, and far-reaching German tax policy—a tax structure that, despite the high tax rate by US standards, is considered fair by most Germans. The German tax system not only encourages burden-sharing but is also synchronized with the country’s economic, financial, monetary, and social policies. This finely tuned machine is hard to reproduce, and it is the heart of the social market economy.
The German system proves that globalization can be advantageous only if a country saves and consciously strengthens its national economy; it is a zero-sum game. So much for globalization’s “benefits.”
VI. Foreign Policy: Based on National Interest, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination
The New West encourages the nation-state’s involvement in intergovernmental and supranational organizations but strictly on the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination. The New West prefers the nation-state’s scrupulous neutrality and preservation of a national army as the institution responsible for national defense. The military shall remain a militia force and should never become involved in interventions abroad.
Eastern Europe fell into a trap during the twentieth century: rather than following the Latin maxim of do ut des (“I give that you might give”), expressing reciprocity of exchange, the politics of the various Eastern European nations had to rely on other countries for the preservation of their statehood.
During the Cold War, American and British rhetoric regarding the Iron Curtain and anticommunism were just that—rhetoric. The United States and its Western allies silently conceded the total elimination of all remnants of anticommunism in Eastern Europe during the 1950s. The Soviet Union acknowledged the neutralization of communist forces in the West. Both anti-communist rhetoric in the West and anti-imperialist rhetoric in the East served domestic ends in the consolidation of political power; one can compare the Stalinist show trials in Eastern Europe to McCarthyism in the United States. The US occupied Western Europe, and the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe—Europe became a pawn of the Enlightenment’s ideological successors. Both opponents were exponents of revolutionary universalist doctrines running roughshod over the Continent’s old traditional European modes and orders.
Cold War America’s democratic pretensions can be considered to be an extension of the nineteenth-century policy of Manifest Destiny, albeit carried from the New Continent onto the Old, with deleterious effect. American liberal-democratic values in Europe were foreign, just as European socialism and liberalism were in Russia or the United States. European identity is rooted in Christianity, and its secular alter ego, socialism, and is antithetical to liberal-democratic traditions.
The West is in a blind alley today, and it will not succeed in getting out soon. For what has always distinguished the liberals, as it does the left-liberal internationalists today, is their breezy optimism that experiments, adventures, and wars will end well and make everything better.
Russia has withdrawn its military from almost all European lands occupied during World War II and permitted the peaceful secession of components of the Soviet Union. Russia has recovered, thereby, its national identity and made possible the application of statecraft to the nation’s issues rather than to the problems of managing an international imperial order. It has abolished the Soviet Union and ultimately acquiesced to NATO membership for the Eastern European satellite states and the Baltic States.
Nevertheless, real Russian liberality, i.e., liberal conservatism, would be possible only under the condition of a free, friendly, and secure Eastern Europe guaranteeing Russian safety from Western designs on its security and national identity.
Regrettably, Eastern Europe is not free because it has slowly, consistently traded away the sovereignty it had won from Moscow to the European Union and NATO in exchange for Keynesian economic stimulus, lucrative posts for its political elites in Brussels, and security guarantees from the United States. These “guarantees,” even if they were ever to be honored, would be fulfilled under the full control and in the sole interest of the West and could not prevent the destruction of Eastern Europe in any large-scale war.
Just as the Russian and Soviet Empires’ price was the subjugation of Russian national interest rightly understood, with the frequent utilization of Russian nationalism for imperial ends, so too the cost of the American Empire is the systematic impoverishment of the American people. The American imperial government is so busy trying to manage its provinces that it fails to serve its own citizens. Just as the Russian and Soviet Empires introduced foreign elements into the Russian body politic, which paradoxically led to politically paralyzing interethnic strife in the Soviet sphere, so have American imperialism, and its European marionettes now introduced tens of millions of foreign elements into the American and European body politic. There are nations within a nation that cannot and will not be assimilated but forever change the Western world’s character and demographically erase the possibility of restoration, say, of American constitutional republicanism—the defining characteristic of the United States.
Instead of antagonizing Russia to punish Vladimir Putin for standing up for Russian traditions, values, and interests, and supporting law and order in Syria, perhaps the politicians of America and Europe should undertake the real work made necessary at home by the crises of our times. These officeholders should apply themselves, for example, to the restoration of limited constitutional republicanism in the United States and the establishment of a free, independent, and healthy Eastern Europe. They should do all that instead of failing to see that law and order are preferable to the multiplication of Islamic fundamentalist strongholds, instead of setting the Middle East aflame and triggering mass Islamic migration into Western Europe, and instead of provoking a constitutional nightmare in Ukraine by creating chaos and supporting extremists.
The citizens of the Western world will have to make up their minds very soon, which of these views to trust—and then live with the consequences. Thus, in the waning days of Western unilateralism, American “unipolarism,” German arrogance, and European federalism, the diplomacy of the West sinks into a mode of semiautism, able to perceive and express its own interests, perceptions, and desires, while oblivious to the concerns of others.
The New West, therefore, refuses to subjugate national interest to ideological sentiment. Realism is often denounced as immoral, as if the crude pursuit of national interest inevitably produces terrible results. However, a foreign policy based on rational calculations of national interests is likely to alleviate hasty adventures and have more ethically desirable outcomes than one based on ideological moralizing.
VII. Leadership: Based on Proven Merit, Not on Electioneering
The Western world needs political leaders who can still manage to win through guts and determination, knowledge, and perseverance—even if they hold a weak hand at a critical moment in history. The West needs leaders with the courage to practice long-term thinking, future planning, and the making of courageous, bold, anticipatory decisions at the right time when problems have become perceptible but before they reach crisis proportions.
Great leaders, politicians, and business managers alike are born, and political science, just like management science, is more of an art than science. Calling any discipline a science gives it more perceived legitimacy and creates the false impression that by studying its structure, one can learn to be a manager or a business or political leader. Like music, one can understand it, research it, investigate it, and practice long hours playing an instrument. Still, all that does not automatically make one a great musician or a great performer. That requires more—a lot more—and this extra ability cannot be acquired solely by studying the technique. Whether this additional ability is present or not should be judged by the musician’s accomplishments—and this should be the same evaluation with political leaders.
Even theoretical work, which is not measurable by a definite rule and precedes all subsequent technical findings, is exclusively the individual brain's product. The masses do not invent, nor does the majority of them organize or think—only the individual, the person, does all that. Thus, the leadership principle is not based on the idea of the majority but on that of character.
The leadership principle may be imposed in a top-down way on an organized political community. However, this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the necessary stages for its evolution. These steps lead from the smallest cell of the state organism upward and require a body of people who have passed through a selection process lasting over several years and been tempered by the hard realities of life.
A healthy political system does not need any deceitful electioneering in the way democracy does. Referenda (at least advisory ones) can settle issues; leaders should rise gradually higher in the organizations by virtue of character, competency, and efficiency as demonstrated by their track records.
Democracy totters from one election to the next with flexible agendas. The intervals between the replacements of one person by another have gradually become shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change, the statesman’s quality in question deteriorates until eventually only the petty type of political huckster remains. In such people, statesmanship’s merits are measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they either cobble together one coalition after another or reach compromises successively. In other words, their talent lies in their craftiness of manipulating the pettiest political affairs.
There is a greater likelihood of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than of finding a good leader through a democratic election; this is a political process that, far from co-opting the best of the citizens, alienates them profoundly while promoting the most immoral and corrupt ones into the positions of power.
The leaders of the state must be developed naturally—without any democratic hypocrisy. Democracy may well mean perfect equality of opportunity, whereby every person shall have an equal chance to make himself or herself fit for the tasks he or she suited. Nevertheless, democracy does not assure that only those who have proved their talent, vigor, and character, and have emerged from all tests with the insignia of skill, shall be eligible to lead.
In a healthy political system, public officials shall be chosen not by votes or by secret cliques pulling the unseen wires of democratic pretense but by their ability as demonstrated and proven in an equal race. Nor shall any person hold office without specific training or hold high office until filling a lower office first.
Is this aristocracy? One must not be afraid of the word if the reality it betokens is good. Society wants to be led by the best. Regrettably, we have come to think of aristocracy as hereditary; it should not be the case. Instead, it should be considered a “judicious aristocracy”—an aristocracy based on merit.
Rather than blindly selecting the lesser of two evils presented to them as candidates by the ruling elite, the people themselves will be here the candidates. There is no caste, no inheritance of position of privilege, no stoppage of talent born penniless. All careers will be open to talent wherever it is born.
VIII. Rebuilding Trust
There is something different about today’s angrily bitter politics. The significant issues that have shaped the political debate for years have remained mainly the same. The finances are still in bad shape, the deficit is still growing as fast as ever, education is in shambles, and terrorism remains a top concern.
The mood of the West, however, has undergone a significant change. People are not just annoyed today but angry—very angry. They are venting their rage neither about something nor at any particular individual, but rather at classes, institutions, or groupings of people. Targets include incumbents, corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, mainstream media members, politically correct academics, clergy, or just the everyday establishment, the elite—whatever that might mean. According to this uncertain and unfocused shotgun approach, the people need to throw the bastards out and start over again to bring about real change.
The causes of this widespread discontent are likewise uncertain and unfocused; there are genuine, rational reasons for the dissatisfaction, but it usually manifests itself more through feelings than facts. There is a general (and often legitimate) sense of betrayal, dishonesty, or falseness on the part of the ruling elite and governing institutions that have failed to be responsive to an assortment of conflicting concerns. People sense that things are stagnant, lifeless, dead, and not moving forward; many people feel left behind.
The result is a divorce between the present policies shaping the Western nations and what the people of these nations genuinely need and want.
As in a broken marriage, the missing element is trust. Public confidence in the leading institutions, the media, academia, corporations, and religious groups has plummeted over the past four decades. Anti-institutional candidates and political parties are not only the rage in the Western world today, but they also win by just railing against anyone even remotely connected with the system.
The erosion of public trust has been intensifying for decades, but only now are the political implications becoming evident. The giant edifice of Western society, seemingly robust and resilient, is only as strong as the trust that binds people together for a virtuous life in common. These ties can be found in families, communities, and other intermediary associations that hold a nation, a society, together in trust. However, the strength of social ties has dramatically weakened over the years. The vital lines of communication in society have even been severed from top to bottom. The respect, affection, and courtesy flowing from these social connections no longer exist, and intermediary groups, such as parishes and local communities, are disappearing, together with the feeling of security they once contributed. People no longer identify with the surviving institutions that are usually remote, impersonal, enormous, and bureaucratic. Hence comes the sensation of alienation, decline, and desperation that is so much connected with angry politics.
For the sake of a misplaced diversity without unity, some progressive people go about defining their identity, loyalty, sexuality, and other distinguishing marks without much concern for society or the common good. Moreover, anyone opposing this “diversity disordered from above” is angrily labeled “bigoted,” “intolerant,” or worse.
The result is a frenzied disintegration of society in which people stiffen in their positions. The world becomes a meeting place for individual wills, each with its own set of attitudes, preferences, and the understanding that the world is solely an arena for fulfilling their predilections. Of course, the outcome is a political climate of mistrust that leads to polarization, which is a shattering of the Western world into thousands of little poles that make angry politics happen. This is only logical since broken trust tends to beget ever more angry distrust. Therefore, the existence of a healthy society becomes a contradiction if anger leads to the conviction that each person should become his or her own authority and law.
If we are to return to order, there will be a need for those who rise above self-interest and truly grieve for the nations. Such representative figures have always appeared in times of crisis to unite, never shatter, their countries. They will need to restore trust by remaking the social bonds and rebuilding society and its structures. I wish them good luck in rallying the Western nations around those permanent virtues that encourage moderation and build strong social bonds, such as courage, duty, courtesy, justice, and charity.
IX. Immigration: Based on National Interest, Merit, and Employment
The massive immigration streams representing millions of people worldwide searching for a better life are significant problems in the modern world. The surging numbers of migrants fleeing from hunger, poverty, social unrest, ethnic or military conflicts, and political or religious persecution are forcing even the most developed and tolerant countries to address the national question.
The entire Western world, including North America and Europe, is being forcibly changed because politicians have pushed non-Western immigration upon the people—and the people are fed up. Only the political and business elites and their elected representatives favor any policy that makes Britain into a non-British country, France into a non-French country, and Germany into a non-German country or adds a vast number of culturally alien newcomers for the sake of change. The Western elite and their politicians' neurotic instincts to debase nations and force unwanted and undesirable transformation upon many a country for the sake of business interests are not natural, healthy, or reasonable. To call out this destructive behavior, reverse these policies, and restore the Western world’s sanity and health is a praiseworthy exercise, and cheap slander should not dismiss its necessity and wisdom.
The New West demands laws that authorize the deportation of criminal foreigners and prevent immigration into the social welfare system to reduce the high proportion of foreign nationals among recipients of public insurance benefits and social welfare programs. Immigration problems can be solved only by controlling limited employment opportunities to nonresidents—against the business lobby, against big business, multinational corporations, and their vested political and business interests.
The idea of multiculturalism is ancient; all high cultures were multicultural in their end phase—and the immigration and subsequent cultural blending caused their downward leveling and eventual collapse.
Therefore, the New West demands introducing another immigration system: a strictly-controlled naturalization process based on merit and national interest; economic refugees or guest workers cannot become citizens and must return to their home countries after reaching retirement age.
X. Judiciary: Upholding the National Law
The New West fights against the increasing influence of the judiciary in politics. Mainly through international law, this control increasingly puts the sovereignty of nation-states in question and undermines the state’s functioning by rendering unconstitutional the outcome of legitimate and free elections. National public law, based on national elections, is legitimized by democratic standards and should be agreed to by the national high courts. International law, which is not democratically legitimate, must therefore always be subordinate to the national law.
The New West is critical of the judiciary as undemocratic if the courts keep ruling in the political elite’s interest—against the people’s will.
XI. Environment: Protecting from Uncontrolled Population Growth
In the context of reducing CO2 emissions, the New West supports only globally and legally binding agreements to address global climate change while demanding, as a prerequisite to any environmental agreement, controlled and enforced population growth.
Ever since the black death back in the fourteenth century, the human population has not stopped growing. The most significant boost happened in the past fifty years, and that is because of advancements in agricultural productivity and medical developments. As of January 2017, the world’s populace was estimated at more than 7.4 billion, according to the United States Census Bureau. The recent increases in the human population are triggering some serious concerns; for example, according to the UN, the local population is rising at a frenzied pace in sub-Saharan Africa. By 1960, the world population had reached three billion people; by 2040, experts of the United Nations predict that at least nine billion people will inhabit the planet. Overpopulation is a fact, not a myth. If we accept the theory that climate change is human-made, we have to concede that it is only so because there are too many human-made people.
XII. Social Policy: Return to Meritocracy
The New West will maintain a comprehensive social welfare system without further expanding the welfare state. This system is equally anti-capitalist and anti-socialist. Workers’ organizations are subordinated to state control but are made beneficiaries of various new social programs. In its social welfare policy, the New West rejects government support to “identicalize” both genders. Its education policy opposes tendencies to shift the responsibility for children’s upbringing from families to public institutions. In general, the New West supports the strengthening of all crime-prevention measures against social crimes and, particularly in social welfare and education policy, a return to meritocracy.
XIII. Self-Limitation: Emphasizing Moral Justice Instead of Social Justice
“Human rights” has become the most fashionable and most eagerly repeated slogan in the Western world. However, all have somewhat different things in mind; for example, the educated class in capital cities considers human rights in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of public assembly. Many others would angrily demand to curtail rights as ordinary people see them, such as the right to live and work where there is something to buy, bringing millions of others into the capital cities.
Human rights are an excellent thing, but how can we make sure that our rights do not broaden at the expense of others? A society with boundless rights is incapable of standing up to the adversities in life.
If society does not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each person must rein in himself or herself. No constitution, laws, or elections will by themselves assure equilibrium in society because it is human to persist in the “pursuit of happiness”—meaning one’s interests. Most people in a position to enhance their rights and seize more of them will do precisely that—hence the demise of all ruling classes throughout history.
A stable society is achieved by balancing opposing forces, conscious self-limitation, and by the principle that we are always obligated to adhere to the sense of moral justice.
Human freedom includes voluntary self-limitation for the sake of others. Our duty must always exceed the freedom we have been granted. Therefore, the New West believes that freedom is linked to our various responsibilities and self-restraint, for neither the individual nor the state can have freedom without discipline and honesty.
Humility is required for forgiveness; it shows gratitude and opens the door to truth. When people display humility, weaknesses become strengths, and the humble, because they place less importance on the self, exhibit higher self-control in many situations.
XIV. High Culture Supported by the Meritorious Elite of the Hierarchical System
There is a definite connection between a hierarchical political system and the need to maintain a high or noble culture over popular mass culture. Without high culture, the human soul deteriorates to the point where human existence does not rise above comfortable self-preservation. However, for anyone concerned with human excellence, character, spirit, magnificence, refinement, taste, or elegance, it is vital to establish a system that promotes high culture over popular culture—a culture that endorses Mozart over Madonna, or opera over rap music, or Michelangelo over Hollywood, or the classical liberal arts over professional training. Since all high culture is aristocratic culture (taking “aristocratic” in its broad sense to mean rule by the best souls rather than a mere hereditary privilege), it follows that hierarchical regimes are better at advancing high culture than purely democratic or republican forms of government.
Although one can ponder upon the freedom, prosperity, and dynamism of modern liberal democracies, no one can excuse the cultural wasteland these have produced by razing high culture—only to build a mass culture on its ruins. Nor can one absolve the even more devastating deconstruction of high culture by the educated elite of the democratic age.
Precisely the Western elite’s contempt for true and meritorious elitism makes the present arrangement so unnatural. The natural inequalities of mind and spirit cannot be eliminated from human nature. In healthier ages, the elite channeled them into great and spiritual cultures that spoke to all classes of society.
Under present conditions, the New West’s mission must be to defend high culture over popular culture and advocate traditional hierarchies wherever possible while waiting for modernity to spend its last breath on nihilistic self-destruction.
Fortuitously, modernity is not a permanent stage but a brief period in historical civilization, temporarily supported by the distortions of modernist ideologies and modern technology.
Other tools, such as the performing arts, television, cinema, and the internet, shape public opinion and set behavioral examples and standards for promoting Western cultural norms. This author is not directly advocating here some form of censorship or encroachment on the freedom of artistic creativity. Rather, the nation-states must have the right and duty to direct their efforts and resources toward resolving recognized social and public problems. That includes the formation of a worldview that binds a particular nation.
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” query 13, 120–21, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954).
Bruce K. Ward, Dostoyevsky’s Critique of the West: The Quest for the Earthly Paradise (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986).
Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 9 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962); Alexander Hamilton, “Federal Convention, 18 June 1787,” Farrand 1, from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, revised edition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937) 282–93.
Frederick Merk and Lois Bannister Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (Harvard University Press, 1963).
Worldometers (data from two major sources: United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the US Census Bureau), “Growth Rate as of 2015–2016,” accessed on January 9, 2017, http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/.