Pandemiic Crisis and the Crisis of Western Civilization

Once, about a decade ago, a not so great a man said a great word: Anyone granting freedom for temporary security does not deserve and will have neither freedom nor security. Today this man (say “length of” not to confuse him with any truly great man) has robbed his citizens of their freedom for temporary security. For he is right: Men deserve neither freedom nor security.

World Pandemia (which is essentially an epidemic in Western Civilization) openly revealed what was already being discussed on the outskirts of this civilization. Its point is that Western ideas of freedom and individualism are nonsense, that liberal democracy is an ideological system which, like any other ideological system, is built on a wrong understanding of human nature, respectively that the individual is ontologically free and rationally and that it is contracted with other people by handing over certain freedoms to a common arbitrator, the state, in order to resolve the dilemma of Common Action. The state he builds thus remains only a tool in his hands. The individual acts toward the State as if he were going to roll around on his own shovel - neither worship it nor destroy it. The individual simply uses the state to achieve his own ends. The individual controls the state, changes it, and improves it so that it serves the best of this individual.

This contractual utopia doesn't differ much from the communist utopia, under which, in Communism everyone will work according to opportunity and take as necessary. The idea that the individual controls the state is rapidly being discussed daily. In our time, in all liberal democracies and those that are transiting towards them, more and more distances between citizens and the state are increasing. The citizens' trust in Western Civilisation countries towards their political system and institutions is in constant decline, as is voter turnout. People don't get to vote, because they don't believe their vote would bring any change of status quo where their civilization entered. Individuals feel neither politically nor culturally represented. As the institutional complexity of liberal democracies increases, the influence of the individual on politics and politics is steadily reduced, and all remains are the past and distorted constitutions by the activists interpretations of deeply politicised judicial systems. Citizens find themselves either stuck in an elite policy net that they are not interested in, or abandoned on the outskirts of metrosexual societies of city centers. The difference between citizens and liberal political elites has only begun to emerge politically in the form of Brex or the election of Trump as president of the United States, but this is only the tip of the iceberg of problems still under water.

But is Lockian's basic perception of liberal democracy based, the Iluminist assumption that the individual is ontologically free and rational? As we think we can't empirically test this, the idea logically has many holes. The main problem is biology: Individual is not genetically coded to be free. Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson [Jordan Peterson] goes back 200 million years to lobsters in time to show that structural organic life is a reflection of a genetic program that man inherited from his lowest ancestors in a long evolutionary process. An aristotelian definition of man calls it a social subx0>.” As such, man cannot live outside society; it places multiple limits on the individual to the formatative level. Apparently, the individual does not build society, as individual liberals would like to believe, but perhaps man is built by society, as the leftist designers imagine following the tradition of Jamaican Vicos [Gambatsta Vico] and Johann Gottfrid Herder [Johann Gottfreed Heder] who culminated with Hegel [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel] (and where according to a neo-heliani as Karl Marks, the political conscience of the class belongs to the <x> does the social individual. Experimentors have found that a group of free individuals form hierarchical structures sooner or later. This is an empirical confirmation of what is called the Iron Law of Oligarchy, formulated in 1911 by German sociologist Robert Michels.

In his book Escape From Freedom, Eric Frommi [Eric Fromm] opens a very interesting window for us. According to him, Nazism was a German phenomenon that triumphed in the context of this country, largely as a result of the authoritarian framework of German social culture. The structure of the German family led the authoritarian father, who made decisions for the entire family. He determined who the girls would marry and what career studies and paths the boys would follow. According to the same model, Kaizer was the authoritarian father of the German nation and he made decisions for all Germans. The nation's task was to obey the Kaizer and have faith in his righteous decisions. But the war was lost, the Kaizer abdicated and the newly acquired political freedoms of the Republic of Weimari introduced the Germans with the responsibility to come with them, the responsibility to choose. Experience showed that the Germans had no day to bear the burden of this responsibility, and the 1920 ' s were accompanied by a lack of political stability and the Great Depression of 1929. By the beginning of the following decade, many Germans were already tired of the burden of responsibility for freedom and decided to hand over to him who with greater fire and zeal vowed to exercise the task of election and solutions so difficult for a collective who did not know how to carry them out: Adolf Hitler. The rest is history.

But Erik Frommi was a Marxist psychologist who believed in Marxist humanity and his theoretical proposal he limited to the context of Germany of his day. His contribution would have been much greater and more respected if he would strip his analysis from the German context and include in it the individual himself, regardless of his phenotypical or socioconmic treatments. Because the fall of individual freedom and its flight from freedom are universal phenomena that have been accompanying Western civilization and its suburbs for at least five decades. This civilization has already imposed its citizens for almost five decades in the face of difficult choices such as the removal of the death penalty, the legalisation of abortion, sexual freedom, normality of homosexuality, sex marriages, and normalisation of transsexualism. All elections to these issues in the West have been conducted largely without citizen participation and even against his will. They have been dealt with political or Juridoko-political decisions by the liberal elite (on both sides of the political centre) and with the minimum consensus of citizens, who have no choice against unified elites in liberalisation.

The rewrite of history curriculums in countries of Western Civilization under the neomarketist prism of the presentation of this civilization as colonial, violator, conqueror, patriarchal, cruel, and user has caused millions of young people to grow up in a civilization in which they do not trust but who they believe is evil and must be overthrown. This lack of trust in a civilization is expressed in the form of a lack of commitment to project it, which has resulted in negative population growth in many of the countries of this civilization. In the neomarketist political culture of today's West, virtue is not in white Europeans but in people colored from other continents. Thus, along with the replacement of the European population, the replacement of values is taking place. Already in the West, the universal values of individual freedom are being replaced by the tribal virtue of being oppressed for causes that do not depend on the individual (a race, or socioeconomic class perceived as underprivileged). Marxist tradition suggests that virtue is in print. Thus, according to this view, allowing the influx of the continent by the non - European population is in fact only a retribution that the unvivilized Europeans pay to other peoples (supposed to be virtuous) for the historical injustices that have caused them over the centuries. A sense of guilt also conveys attitude toward European values and, from the most extreme circles (mainly in university life), achievements or characteristics such as mathematics, time measure, conditioned air, punctuality, 40 hours of work a week, heterosexual marriages, etc., and today are considered racist, sexist, and oppressive. The last story has shown us that in Western Civilization, those days since 20 years ago were considered to be the lunatic chatter of academics driven by the head today are embedded dogmas against which you cannot utter half a word without being labeled racist, bourgist or cysgian sexist. Today, even the fundamental value of Western civilization, the illustrative belief that the individual is free and rational, is being adopted every day in the tribalist pressure of ever more economically polarized and ethnically heterogenic societies. In the terms of this polarization, heterogenization and triblyisation, the power of the individual is not in its individuality but in the tributary in which nature or socioeconomic circumstances have placed it. Today, the Western individual and his suburbs are no longer free, so that the concept of a freedom he does not have will soon throw away, like the snake his old skin.

Kidnapping, violating and violating the most easily by governments throughout Western Civilisation countries and its suburbs of human freedoms and rights during the quarantine period question the actual existence of these values. These are the very values that liberal democracy politicians have been rocking heads to leaders of other countries for decades now. On behalf of these values, Western European and US countries have sought regime changes, declared wars, bombed opponents, and conditioned trade with other countries. These values were achieved with the blood of hundreds of millions of citizens from the barricades on the streets of Paris to the accounts of World War I from Inquisition to Holocaust. But these values were abandoned in the streets when their carriers, the gliding citizens of modern Western Civilization, walked through the holes like mice and let governments rape them according to pleasure under the prefix of protection from the invisible “enemy”, the seasonal flu virus ambalated and labeled slightly differently.

With the experience of those values that he boasted about as his greatest and unique achievement, Western civilization testified once again that individual freedom is not part of the ontological framework of man; man is not entirely free and therefore does not know how to use freedom, nor does it, and therefore does not protect him. Individual freedom is not a natural state; it is an idea and for its realisation, people are willing to die, as are other ideas. But if you get a man off this idea, he doesn't even move his finger on freedom. If freedom were our natural state (such as aging, for example), we would have achieved it organicly without war (as old age is achieved) and taking it away from us for any reason, it would have been impossible (as it is impossible to avoid aging).

Getting to that conclusion is neither easy nor stripped of meaning. With the break-up of the basic philosophical thought of Western civilization, the free and rational individual, the essence of this civilization, folded its spine, lost its essence, and the reason for its existence. The fall of Western civilization began when its countries legalized abortion (the macabre act of extracting children from mothers' wombs in the name of women's rights to choose, as a human right), and culminated in the fall from these values with the first sneezing caused by a seasonal flu. Western civilization is already an implacable corpse that infects the rest of the globe as its decomposition exposes the rest of humanity with some unprecedented or unprecedented social diseases.