It would seem clear to me that a fundamental reason for the absolutely confounding confusion found among the broad mass of peoples in all nations is due to their respective cultures. When I say culture I do not merely refer to the aesthetic qualities and output of them: the music, dances, plays, rituals and various other forms of expression (although these forms may demonstrate particularly prevalent values). Rather, I refer to the core values contained at the root of cultures whereby these secondary expressions sprout from.
To move towards the heart of this issue, it is my view that a key problem with practically all value systems expressed by established cultures today and throughout history has been their inconsistency. Many a philosopher has noted the inconsistent value positions pushed by established cultural hegemonies all the way from tribal associations and onward, towards and through the apparatus of modern state systems. During his formative years, the individual within that society is taught that he must not commit violence, theft and other increasingly numerous acts both simple and complex. Yet it is for the clear-sighted all too vibrantly depicted that the system itself is based upon the very same acts the teachers claim to detest and oppose in order to maintain the system which allows them to transmit and inculcate such a collection of values. It is then clear that there is a fundamental inconsistency and an outright hypocrisy at the heart of all currently notable societies.
A key problem for the individual in all of this is that if he does at all come to consciously acknowledge this fact he must make a decision on how to respond to it. Much of the time it appears that the individual retreats into apologetics, recognising these inconsistencies and imperfections and accepting them for what they are for fear that to dissent may create an even worse situation. This is the most popular position of traditional (Burkean) ideological conservatism. He may also choose to push his apologetics further and switch it from a negative, defensive argument into a positive crusading defence of great lies for the sake of incumbent societal preservation and control. That would be the core element of the neo-conservative position. Further from that he may actually begin to believe the lies he endorses and move towards the direction of fascism. Another, less common response is that which in recognition of such abhorrent inconsistencies declares them to be unacceptable and seeks to remove, overturn and create afresh a new cultural association in some form or another. This is the starting point by which the radical position germinates, leading to an exciting intellectual dérive filled with many pitfalls but also with rewards otherwise unobtainable through the denial of such truths. Furthermore, the recognition of the unacceptable nature of the great lies and inconsistencies of mass culture unclogs the brain and unchains internal reactions towards rampant hypocrisy. This freedom to be consistent is a key element in maintaining a healthy psyche free from the negative psychological effects of cognitive dissonance.
Benett Freeman has spoken of the need to establish a society which has both the necessary intellectual and physical distance from the incumbent social paradigm so that it can survive and develop in a form which explicitly opposes the violent and psyche destroying inconsistencies of the culture which surrounds us. This to me seems a perfectly just goal and indeed a far more viable and radical attempt at emancipation when compared to politics-centered tactics, base insurrectionism or clandestine operations. The idea of distance both intellectual and physical is most important here as I see it as the only way of cultivating a consistent culture whilst minimising the potential of cultural contamination from the incumbent paradigm. An intentional community founded upon this strategic idea is a project which practices the avoidance of misceculturation (misce = ‘mixed’ cultura = ‘culture’) and the cultivation of aequabilis cultura (consistent culture). Some of the key outcomes I would like to see such a project working towards are the following:
1.) A society based upon consentio congregatio; a consentient society whereby all societal-based decisions must be agreed by all and not merely a majority in order for them to be enacted. It is thus a rejection of both Fascism and Democracy.
2.) The formation of an aequabilis cultura which explicitly rejects ideological hypocrisy and exposes it wherever it may reside.
3.) The creation of a culture of adversum violentia; the absolute rejection of violence in both explicit and implicit forms to the point by which individuals would instantly find even the thought of such acts absolutely horrifying.
4.) The development of acclaro prospectus (clear sight); the profound ability of individuals to grapple with abstract ideas and develop their own selves both intellectually and psychologically.
5.) Adherence to contexo causa; the application of context to all situations which require judgement and the rejection of the thoughtless adherence to ‘law’ and ‘tradition’ for the sake of such abstractions.
That is all for this from me for now however I will return to these ideas at a point in the future.