Arcs, Not Systems, for Chronologically Grand Thinkers

Many people into alternative political philosophies will find themselves struggling to get specific in reference to what their long-term vision. It may sound counterintuitive, but this is because their vision of politics is chronologically grand, as opposed to chronologically shallow. It is actually people with shallow vision that may feel comfortable latching onto a particular -ism that fits the time exactly, but it has been my experience that with maturity and bigger picture thought, one becomes more inclined to a broader range of possibilities (especially during times of uncertainty), and one also finds themselves falling out of the side of every political dialog, completely incapable of being limited to the small ring of thought that has become the fleeting focal point for the short-term.

The chronologically grand thinkers imagine politics in the context of history, and see the future as having deep roots. They do their best to think beyond the epoch and the <current year>. The chronologically shallow throw themselves into the political flavors of the day, and bring everything back to a series of simple questions and answers about the real and the immediate. Their frame of reference is small, and it is hard to even seriously consider them in a grand context because their views are not serious enough to be thought of as immutable. They are the definition of ephemeral. We can imagine them getting on another bandwagon before the end of the decade.

The chronologically grand thinkers cannot name a specific system or ideology with precision if they still have doubts. This is a weakness, but also a strength, because it allows them to be open to potentialities. While being specific and calling your short is admirable, one of the more impressive political books I read, Dugin's Fourth Political Theory, is joyfully open to the future, and many of the other thinkers of the New Right have also been greatly open to the future. 

Moreover, it's also a humble gesture, viewing the future as something that they do not get to forge themselves, but as something that is still in the process of being born. 

Thus the chronologically grand dissident thinkers (1a) are just plain open to the future, and we tend to look at the rising head of a powerful movement which is reflective of our views as (1b) providential. Whether it is the restoration of a monarch, a military coup, a democratic victory, or an outright revolution, we can see ourselves adjusting our tastes to the zeitgeist, instead of making the times and reality be adjusted to our views. The spirit of the times, of course, should not necessarily be understood as the end of history or even a temporary end goal for a generation... It might not even be correct at all. But because it might be correct, at least for this time, we have to throw our muscles into it in order to try to create any kind of alternative. For the fact of the matter is that any movement which opens the door to change is more dynamic than the status quo which is by its very nature closed to change. 

Eye of Providence, by Anastasia Voynovska (available here)

Our individual preferences must be ready to change when anything that is remotely reflective of our alternative view comes along, and, moreover, those of us who believe in God may believe that the first major opportunity for change that we see is something that has been ordained by God. Of course, all things are ordained by God, the question is whether we are to benefit from it in terms of achieving a better reality through its success, or being punished by the bad idea, and achieving a better spiritual reality as a result of its failure. 

The chronologically grand thinker has to have the humility to accept that a great myriad of systems have been practiced, many of them with good results (at least for a time), and that the future can hold for a return of one of these systems, or a fusion of two or more of them. 

(2) Another major reason that we dislike labels is because everything that is dissident that becomes systemized seems unnecessary, potentially contentious, pretentious, and cringe. People without any political power or influence coming up with detailed visions are ultimately contributing only to their own sadness, and they come off as people who are not in touch with reality. Nobody wants to be led by someone who sounds far away from his goal, and nobody wants to follow someone that comes off only as a dreamer. 

Thus, it is actually be better to conceive of dissident political philosophies as having an 'Arc,' not necessarily a particular system. They have goals, and visions, and some may be surprisingly particular, butt even when they are, they should be open to change. 

This practice could even be a useful explanation for people trying to negatively characterize their opposition. E.g., 

• the Social Democrat has Marxist arc
• the Republican has a Fascist arc
• the Libertarian has an Anarchist arc 

Explaining your opponent's arc in negative terms and accusing them of secretly aiming for the marginalization or destruction of something that most people generally value is already one of the most common forms of political critique.It is also one of the most dangerous forms, because it dislodges people from their own frame of reference and imposes upon them a set of accusations that they now have to defend against. 

In the case of the dissident right, the accusations are predominant and so toxic that there's really no way to escape it other than denial, which has you chasing your tail like a dog, or through fully accepting the narrative with as little spin as possible, which basically just has you looking insane for you have accepted a conclusion that the rest o the country views as absurd. 

In conclusion, it is best to think of any set of political philosophies or values as potentially just a large arc toward a distant goal. Maybe not even an arc, but rather it functions just as an explanatory arc, in which there is no goal, but simply an observation about reality that you believe repeats or holds steady.

The arcs allow us to relate back to contemporary realities while maintaining contact with the bigger vision. For instance, if we say that we have an 'authoritarian right' arc, it could easily indicate that the local political party or candidate X will tend to get our vote, but the overall vision can be far more long-term and aimed at greater ends. We can participate and talk about chronologically soon politics in a way that makes sense to others without abandoning the grander vision that we may have. 

It also helps us understand how politicians actually compare standing next to each other, and how they may even have very exceedingly different arcs in spite of their short-term similarities. And it is also through this system that we can also have the benefit of being detached from overly rigid systems which would honestly only harm us -- being hyperfocused on a future that might not happen, and missing all of the potential benefits of the real future that is truly providential.