The most consistent and frequent feedback we receive from readers is a desire
to have solutions. Touching on this natural need to make sense out of your environment, most people presume that without answers,
there is no point in dealing with the significant issues of cosmology. Politics without resolutions just becomes a nasty inevitability.
The essential question that most avoid is whether it is intelligent and circumspect for anyone to hold that there are answers
to the human condition? Now it is completely understandable why individuals want to evade asking, much less answering this
question. But it does not absolve them from the consequences of the inherent reality that effects our planet.
A skeptic is one who questions, has uncertainty and often doubts assertions
of generally accepted conclusions. By now, it seems almost beyond dispute that the prudent person challenges established norms,
but also functions within society as a skeptic. If you disagree that a judicious individual is a distrustful one, the meaning
of our message has escaped your judgment.
On the other hand, resistance in accepting that the cynic adopts the sensible
approach, is not as clear. The cynic is noted for their dubious view on human nature, while popular opinion has the cynic
concluding that people are motivated by selfishness. Most people don’t want to accept this definition as an operative
basis for their own social interaction. It is much easier to take up a more broadminded view for humanity, than to face the
reality that our universal nature is intrinsically corrupt. What is missed by most is that the name cynic, stems from the
Greek sect, who believed virtue to be the only good, and self-control to be the only means of achieving it. It seems that
the modern lexicon wishes to confuse the real meaning in the word, and certainly wants to disparage any person who seeks to
achieve virtue through self control.
For the record, and for new readers, our reluctance to submit options and
alternatives for solutions is not based upon an inability to list detailed methods or specific reforms. Quite to the contrary,
that would be the easy task. The hard one is to convince and persuade the public, that the notion of answers achievable by
mankind in an absurd world of his own formation, is ridiculous and hopeless. The only valid answers that can be provided,
are spiritual in nature. Now how many secular humanists are willing to listen to political solutions based upon a renunciation
of their own conceit and a surrender to a higher authority?
False pride in the rational abilities of our species is one of the most invariable
traits of social designers for policy and legislation. They claim an objective or intellectual application, while in reality
they operate under denial; not only of basic human nature, but in their own abilities to improve that character and that of
society. Human conflict is and has always been the norm for social and political interaction. While we faithfully advocate
non violent activism, dynamic resistance and civil disobedience is wholly endorsed. The kind of reform that is practical,
acknowledges that the uniqueness and elegance of our American Revolution, recognized the amoral composition of government
and the righteous authority to rebel against tyranny.
Rebellion is a term that offends well intentioned, though misguided; reformers.
For the defenders of the established order, it strikes fear into the hearts and disturbs their invulnerability. While the
'PC' reformer may be a skeptic, they are certainly not a cynic. They are unwilling to take the leap or have cold feet to risk
the repercussions - no revolutionary patriotic action for them. Only safe and marginal approaches would do. For those weekend
reformers, the thought of becoming an agitator or radical, just goes too far. Their rationale is steeped in the fallacy that
meaningful change is still possible through the electoral system.
When the intellectual alternative - the removal of the ruling elites from
power - is presented as the only sensible approach, their response is that it is not practical, nor can it be justified if
force is employed. Since we consistently present a pacifist advocacy, it should be noted that the means of achieving an essential
objective, can observe that standard, and still be realistic in reaching that desired goal. The key is the will to
accept that the legitimacy of the current regime, has been forfeited by the criminal class that administers the reins of power.
Democracy and elections have failed miserably, for reasons of party manipulations and electorate stupidity.
The skeptic will be in the vanguard for third party activism, while the cynic
will conclude that only drastic measures can restore societies' lost virtue. Can revolutionary action be nonviolent and work?
If you are willing to endure the label of "Radical", you should agree that one can be moral, while engaged in the cleansing
of the oligarchy. History records continuous conflict for the seats of power. What name should we call the self imposed disease
that festers delusion in the failed fraud, that is called the election cycle? If you agree that meaningful redress is impossible
by electing politicians from an approved pool, then what is your reluctance with seeking a bold and honest solution? The monogram
of "insipid denial" seems to fit for most citizens.
Waiting for the cure to heal the public consciousness is as probable as eradicating
all affliction from diseases. Are all the skeptics so naive that they refuse to recognize that a scheme has already been unleashed
to cease control of political power? Or is it left to only the cynics to place the plots in proper perspective? In this day
and age, the prudent man theory, requires that we all become cynics - because virtue deserves it - and our duty demands it.
SARTRE - August 18, 2002