Political Neoism

At the core of political Neoism there are three interrelated spheres. The first is the desire to regulate what Neoists hold to be the inherently anarchic international system. As a result they favor the creation of independent tribunals of human rights that hold regulatory power within national states. The second is a perpetuated, distinctly humanitarian, loyalty to humanity as a whole. The third is characterized by an initiative to synergize non-governmental organizations and other non-state actors into an initiative that advocates the creation of a planetary organization to extend the influence of humanitarian formations over world affairs.
Origins
Neoists pride themselves in the ambiguous roots of their movement. Various legends and myths have arisen around the foundation of Neoism. Some Neoists claim that the movement was founded as an ancient Greek secret society that refined and applied the doctrine of cosmopolitanism to how they could forge “a human state” in Asia Minor. According to this myth, the secret society was found out and put to death by a mob that priests had riled up. Other Neoists abhor the secret society myth as incompatible with the inclusive nature of Neoism. Some thus claim that the ideology itself originated from a 2004 speech given by a disgruntled UN peacekeeper to a group of NGO workers calling for a human organization to protect human interest. No such speech was ever recorded so it is impossible to know the truth behind the foundation of Neoism. In reality, the first recorded and verifiable Neoist avocation took place in Vienna, Austria between a group of political science students who purportedly wanted an alternative ideology and a new political platform. Hence the name Neoism. Reportedly, the group assigned Neoism as a temporary name to their project that was going to be renamed something else as the new conceptual framework was gradually pulled together. However, the name didn’t change and in early 2008 the group launched a website outlining its new platform.
Attempts to put a human face on Neoism have been futile. Nobody has yet claimed participation in the synthesis of the doctrine suggesting that Neoism is still in a formative stage.
The Planetary System
The seed of the alternative system that Neoists advocate lies in an influential article written in 2000 by Italian cardinal Carlo Maria Martini . He argued in the Roman daily newspaper La Repubblica for an alternative to the current international system that he described as “anachronistic and unhistorical.” “Before national interests, there are individual persons with their inalienable dignity,” Martini wrote, “and before the particular interests of individual groups is the universal human community and its obligation to work for justice, solidarity and peace.” While Neoists have a rather ambivalent attitude toward the concept of world peace, they favor the creation of an organization that primarily protects civilian lives from maladies that the chaotic interaction of governments may incur. Thus, they call for a “synthesis” of NGOs, which they proclaim to be the “ultimate vanguards of the human condition,” to link their actions and lobby for a strong international institution. Once this institution is created, Neoists hold that united NGOs will build a collective human basis for Neoism to function on the local level and attain what has been described a “significant stake in society" which will be the basis of ensuring the success of a larger, global institution defending the collective well-being of humanity. Neoism also argues for nations to become more inward-facing and domestic, accept rational regulations of their sovereignty, and to allow international institutions to defend and define the state of humanity. Collectively, Neoists describe these functions and roles as the “planetary system.”
NGO Synergy
This is referred to within Neoist circles as the Global Equinox Agenda. In its most benign and informal form it is a coalition of various individuals working within Non-governmental organizations to facilitate greater connection and synergy between them. In its most radical form the GEA proposes the collectivization of NGO resources in an elected council that allocates the assets toward coordinated Neoist initiatives that aim to “incite fundamental human progress without any of the sordid agendas found in conventional politics.” For their generic contributions to Neoist initiatives, Neoists claim that NGOs will receive more publicity and a greater donor base as a result. The prevailing model for this is that NGOs treat Neoist institutions like an investment bank. They pay in assets, Neoist organizations invest these assets in their coordinated initiative, and the NGOs are eventually paid back in the form of publicity, public support, membership, and raw finance. Moreover, Neoists extol the fact that this will result in a greater non-governmental power in world affairs which they claim is unfairly marginalized.
However, none of the “big” initiatives of Global Equinox have been currently executed due to the relatively small size of the Neoist network. Rather, the GEA, in practice, seems to be an almost secret society of workers and advocates operating within non-governmental and international organizations that have an ambition toward the GEA’s more pretentious goals but presently exist more as a social club.
Cults and Identity
Although political Neoists claim no links to the art movement of the same name, they do share several characteristics when it comes to publicity-gaining activities, pranks, cults, and creativity. As a central doctrine, political Neoists postulate that it is necessary to back up political and social activities with epic feats, creative outsourcing, self-discipline, and a strong work ethic. Socially, Neoists are known to abhor laziness, sterile social interactions, and an overly-comfortable society. Consequently, some Neoists devote themselves entirely to dismantling preconceived social norms by either forming their own subculture or participating in or venerating satirical accounts of society, often politically incorrect and subversive in nature.
Neoism encourages its members toward an engaged and centralized policy of individual-perfectionism. By these means, it is evident that Neoism seeks to gain an upper hand over other movements in being highly organized, trained, skilled, and devoted. It is not discernable whether or not Neoists stick to the rigorous regime of personal, psychical, and mental training that is informally encouraged amongst its members.
Loyalty to Collective Humanity
Neoists are not at all optimistic of humanity’s capacity to flourish under the system of nations. They hold that the destiny of humanity cannot even begin to be understood, harnessed, or even predicted as long as it is decided by the actions and reactions of national states, that in the Neoist view are devoted to ensure their short term gains at the expense of universal logic. However, Neoists hold that nations and politicians are the minions of “isolated superficial rationality.” They hold that under the current system death, destruction, and bad decisions are an inevitability of the political world because decisions are made in terms of a division of peoples, which due to the increasing interconnectedness of humanity, is a folly. Consequently, Neoists claim that unity is the natural state of humanity and that the current configuration of the human species is only the result of self-ignorance and tribalism. Thus, they also declare that the most progressive mode of decision-making and the most effective way to manifest resources is on the “human level.” They hold that not only is it possible to rule in the best interest of humanity through adhering to its fundamental needs and necessities of survival and evolutionary means, they believe that due to technological improvement a universal system of consensus will eventually be possible. Neoists see the world at present as a zero-sum game, the goal as they see it is to turn it into a positive-sum game by elevating the fundamental political unit from nations to humanity.
Perpetual Evolution and Recurring Revolution
Some fundamental Neoists have come to the conclusion that Neoism should develop its theories over generations and manifest a system of inherent, bequeathed, and perpetually evolving observations, declarations, and innovations about the social and political system. In light of this, they suggest that Neoism should not seek power but sit back and observe it and when humanity becomes desperate enough for a change, Neoists will utilize their collective wisdom to turn the world into a perpetually evolving utopia . This view is rejected by mainstream Neoists and certainly not embraced by official Neoist ideology. They do, however, advocate a the creation of a guild of ideologues that document the events and wisdom of the age, develop wisdom, and build an enormously complex account of how humanity works so that a sort of “fluid science” can emerge by which humanity can perfect itself. But this conviction does not, as most Neoists see it, preclude the ideology from expanding and building its power and membership base in conventional spheres.
The guilds of ideologues are also expected to manifest recurring revolutions that refresh and remind Neoists and humanity of objectives and necessities, both new and old. The ideology and its progress are, by these means, evaluated by independent panels of the ideologues that come up with an action plan for how Neoism may “re-revolutionize itself.”

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu