The inexorable decay in moral conduct is evident and undeniable to any member of the cretin society. Only a fool or a fraudster would argue that the relativism ethics, which is the operative social prescription, is healthy human development for a harmonious culture. Society has gone mad. Look around and observe. Insanity in institutions and conflicts among personal interactions has become the norm. The basis of desirable stability and fair order are virtually non-existent. Upon this stage of discontent, humans are now viewed as the ultimate dispensable creatures. Eugenics is all the rage, as human life is treated with irreverence.
It may seem that an analysis of the prepper cultural phenomena is a trite endeavor, but if you delve into the philosophical underpinnings of human instincts for survival, a worthy lesson can be the result. Since life is a gift, the conditions upon which it ends or voluntarily forfeited, are not necessarily dependent upon the will of the individual. A calculated act of placing your life at risk is not equivalent with a deliberate suicide. The functions and purpose of the prepper community is in direct conflict with those individuals that languish in hopeless despair and desperation. The response of the prepper to social turmoil is to prepare for contingencies. Yet that defensive posture avoids the essential question, what is the point of surviving if the communal environment is a hopeless wasteland.
The philosophical condemnation of the supremacy in individual liberty verses the reigning doctrine of collective dominance, is a primary cause for the destruction of Western Civilization principles. Rene Descartes preferred to do his radical doubt thinking in solitude. In today’s society, thinking is about as foreign as rational behavior. In order to understand the timeless values and precepts that fostered the underpinnings of our Western thought and heritage, the significance of Descartes needs a close examination.
At first thought, the different philosophical positions of Emma Goldman and Ayn Rand seem to be well defined. Notwithstanding, the contrast between a propensity towards anarchism with an advocacy for laissez-faire capitalism, both Russian born “Khazar Jewish” theorists and activists shared a rejection of a theist metaphysics. When Emma Goldman states: (speaking from a Detroit pulpit in 1898, quoted from Annie Laurie Gaylor, Women Without Superstition, p. 382), “I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever his mistakes, man has for thousands of years past been working to undo the botched job your God has made”, her mindset distinctly sets her apart from the main body of Western Civilization thought.
Knowing the accuracy of historical reality is difficult, but accepting the truth in that chronicle is almost impossible for most people to accept. This reluctance to deal with the stark and calculated obliteration of societal freedom is the ultimate curse of the human condition. The denial of the authoritarian plan by elites like the Bilderberg cabal is the equivalent of Satan’s greatest lie, convincing us he does not exist. Well, the days of casting the smear of conspiracy over any reporting on the secret and hidden conclave of global manipulators, is officially over.
The condition of society in the 21st century has a pronounced fear of individual freedom. The relevance of Sartre’s philosophy remains intact because we desperately need a counterweight to a world that promotes dictatorial compliance. As a seminal thinker and most celebrated existential proponent, Sartre stirred a post World War II generation to view their existence from a non-traditional perspective that caused extensive establishment criticism and apprehension. The liberation and awareness celebration that distinguishes the realization of personal freedom during the 1960’s counter culture revolution owes a debt of gratitude to the French philosopher.
If you wonder, why the world is so confused and incoherent, look no further then the concept that All Truth Is Local. “Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”
The normal condition of man ruling over men resorts to the practice of coercive force. Statism so aptly reflects this system of compliance. When you strip away all the rhetoric and institutional validation, what is left is a doctrine of kingship. Governments are fashioned to exert control over people. Contemplate the intrinsic contradiction of this structure of dominance with the message of the Golden Rule.
Culture is the fabric that binds society. Socialization or the lack thereof, is a cognitive operation of acceptance. What a person recognizes as valid is a process of giving consent to the underlying principles and norms that make up a value system. The actual method of internalizing a view of life is usually the end product of institutional design and political indoctrination. In order to define the nature of political socialization, examine some popular definitions.
According to establishment officials, the concept of the Sovereign Man philosophy is a direct threat to the authority of the State. Depending upon your perception of reality and the degree of legitimacy for government, given to the prevailing order, fundamental inalienable rights of the individual may vary widely. In the extreme, government statists consider most if not all natural rights as capricious and arbitrary, if conflicts challenge the dictates of the regime. This unending and interminable struggle to defend undeniable individual basic rights drives bureaucrats to use unconscionable measures to coerce citizen compliance.
The Gore Vidal legacy encompasses his numerous novels, literary writings, plays and essays. Few 20th century authors can match the volume of his compositions and consistency in the quality of his thoughts. If one can ignore his anti-religious beliefs and get past his complex sexuality, one can justly focus on the significance within his political viewpoints. Not since Oscar Wilde, has there been a man of letter with comparable wit and ridicule, that capsulated the age of his lifetime. Based upon a keen command of history and a flare for original insights, Vidal was the master political polemicist.
Conventional civil disobedience usually engages localized agencies and domestic government. Redress of grievances, constitutionally protected under law is a myth in practice. The courts operate as protectors of state authority, while crushing the safeguards of individual natural rights. Petition to elected officials for recourse resembles begging for sustenance. Allegiance to country is confused with deference to decadent dictates. Conscience and moral imperatives draw sincere and aware citizens to resort to necessary measures of dissent. The question is what kind of civil disobedience is appropriate and effective?