However, I'm confident that humans will never make any major breakthrough in the remaining fields of philosophy and so they will remain philosophical indefinitely.

You can't know that, you just decided that on your own. No wonder you think philosophy is a waste of time.

Spending the last few decades we have pondering how to solve these problems just so that our enemies would benefit from the solutions if we hypothetically did is simply a foolish waste of time.

Different people work on different things. It's not like every person with right wing inclinations would suddenly become a philosophy expert overnight and spend his time working on the problem of consciousness. Some people will work on the intellectual aspect of things, others would work on organisation etc. Moreover, you are overlooking something - the system is already benefitting from the lack of solutions. Nihilistic postmodernism is the ideology of 21st century capitalism. The whole point is that "nothing matters, you're just a clump of cells on a rock in space, consume the product and don't believe in anything". I myself am no believer in the ability of "pure philosophy" on its own to "solve" the crisis of nihilism, but every serious, intelligent person needs at least some form of philosophical approach to life. It is a basic necessity for intellectual life.

I think, for example, that I have a pretty ingenious argument for refuting solipsism. I don't bother bringing it into the DR because there is too much of this as it is, all of which only occurs because we've been incapable of progress for decades. By this I mean that the only reason that we are scouring old books by Gentile et al. and fighting over interpretations of them, is precisely because we have not found a way into the halls of power. Literally all of this discussion would cease if we were in power tomorrow. We'd be far too busy deporting nuisances, imprisoning the old regime. We would simply forget about these books for a very long time.

This is a forum for political discussion, not for discussion of philosophy. Philosophy is relevant only insofar as it ties into politics, but a very broad range of works can fall into this category. I also think that your position on philosophy here shows you lack principles. A person with political agency should be able to define himself not only in negative terms, against what he opposes, but also in positive terms of what he wants to create and establish.

It is simply the result of hoping that within an old book an easy path is found to surpass an increasingly insurpassable wall.

It is not about finding an easy path, it is about finding a path that works. The thing is that every aspect of political theory and practice have already been examined by extremely intelligent men over the past century. Trying to reinvent the wheel is not only needless, but also futile, because the people engaging with these problems today are simply far less intelligent and learned than the previous generation. The gap in the quality of analysis and strategy is almost unbelievable.

We have no need for remaining an intellectual elite because elites that do not convince masses can never hold power.

Really? What about the current one?

It is simply impossible to convince the masses by being 'too big brained' such that they simply switch off.

The "big brained" ideas are not for the masses, they are there to convince thinkers and intelligent people, who convince driven and sensible people, who convince the masses. This is how it has always worked.