The Philosophy of Anglo-Futurism
The essence of Anglo-Futurism as a movement aims to blend historical English cultural strengths with future possibilities to enhance communal living and cultural identity, and take us To The Stars.
You can read more about this in my book, Collected Essays on AngloFuturism Philosophy. It is exclusively published on Amazon.
Here is the link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collected-AngloFuturism-Philosophy-Alexander-DAlbini-ebook/dp/B0DPLMHK3C/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2D0ZMV2TZQSUA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.61rEf3XmLShRm8z13DBJMsjGGKqZ_XOEziPRRmFOztI.FWzsnBfcidCgwJ-idUlpVMj1H_lIFypBWzf8auoerlw&dib_tag=se&keywords=anglofuturism&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1733740587&sprefix=%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-1
All politics are local, beginning with the clan, fraternity, parish, and guild. To augment his personal power, man embedded himself within these four fundamental groups to boost his familial, martial, communal, and economic interests by boosting his brothers’ interests. A polis is an army is a church is a nation, the bedrock of greater nation. There can be no king without thanes, no federal government without a confederation of towns, no general without platoons to give them the authority, for power is always about the relationship between the authority and the subject. They are the foundation of nation for they secured the tomb of their fathers which is the source of their fatherland.
There has always been many nations in the past. Athens saw themselves not as “Athens” but as “the Athenians” and Sparta as not “Sparta” but as the “Spartans”, for the idea of abstract state divorced from the people is a very recent modern invention of the Enlightenment. It was a result of an increasing bureaucratization of the state’s functions that can survive the downfall of any personnel. What began as a means to ensure a state’s survival and effectiveness in a crisis would lead to a greater divorce between itself and the people. Before that, a state was a personal property of either a king or a people. In fact, there was no state for the first 9,0000 years of agriculture for the clan was good enough when the population density was very low. Only when the land became crowded did the clans confederated into a state that was modeled on the household. Since the clans were the creators, they enjoyed astonishing degree of immunity from the state. But the state, in order to win wars, need the clans to cooperate and obey so that it can survive with enough survivors to hold the land. A king’s worst fear is having the clans defecting in middle of a battle. So, there have always been a tension between the state and the clan, the state seeks to individualize the members by appealing to the supposed universal values and the clan guarding its particular identity and culture and liberty. This conflict is the ultimate source of the universalizing philosophy and religions.
I, an American, have often marveled at 'pre-modern Englands' accomplishment and the 'we can do anything we put our mind to' attitude. I marveled because I saw that same attitude in the American psyche of days gone by. Thank you for at least putting a name to the latest incarnation of this ideal.