Anti-Statism: A Political System

The Advancement presents several strong arguments regarding Bush’s claims on modern naturalism. Bush’s strongest argument lies within his view that the modern naturist worldview as relative and deceitful. The presentation of the logical conclusion of the evolutionary worldview, which led to the Nazi movement in Germany, was an extremely powerful way to expose the logical trappings of this advancement mindset. The gauge in which humanity views its progress and achievement through naturalistic thought is subjective and skewed to this atheistic philosophy. Bush unveils advancement thinking as false by revealing the lack of inevitable progress within human history. The continued advancement of

The book, Beyond Suffrage; Women in the New Deal, presents the role of women in the 1930’s in a much different light than many people think of it. The goal of this book is to enlighten the reader as to what role women played in politics during the New Deal. Because of it’s broad view I have taken several specific examples from the book and elaborated on them in order to give you a better understanding.

It should be humanities concern to correct this progression as it is in benefit of all life (Wrights, 2004, pg. 131). The rapacity is advancing so fast, not taking initiative to correct mistakes is fatal. Wright’s proposed prevention seems simplistic, yet humans are avoiding the change. The reform is merely the conversion from short-term thinking to long-term (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). It is the conscious switch from using and abusing resources, to moderation and precautionary principle (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). Understanding the outcome based on historical civilizations should easily allow influx of changes, but present day we are still trapped in the recurring

After reading “What we have to lose” By Theodore Dalrymple, I can conclude that it is a defense of civilization from barbarism. Dalrymple puts forward his main arguments which many come from his own experience with details and examples. Also, the article helps convey to the reader that the greatest threat to our great society comes from within. Dalrymple's article helped enlighten me that today's society has grown so used to civilization that it seems impossible to conceive that it is actually a delicate thing. Dalrymple’s article gives us an important lesson that even though we have countless amount of resources and technology in today's world, society is not unconquerable, and it can vanish.

I dare to hope my descendents will not be hopping around hostile planets in powered suits dropping thermonuclear weapons onto alien creatures; that homo sapiens will be as cruel and violent a species in the future as they are presently is a concept almost enough to kill hope. I would kill if I have to; but I will live for my fellow

Do we belong to a race that is destined for failure? Or are we meant to have permanent success? As human beings, we aren’t destined to have unlimited triumph because in order to succeed we must fail, but does that mean that our failures are bound to outweigh our achievements? Our failures are evident; our national governments are crumbling to pieces, there is always a constant threat of disease and illness, there will always be the warnings of war and contention, and there is no such thing as peace. Do these failures define us? Have we had success that has been constant? Success that has been beneficial and not destructive? We may consider our technology, medical advances, new discoveries, and new culture as accomplishments, but have these items always contributed to the betterment of mankind or have they been the root to greed, disobedience, crime, and evil? We live in a world that is in constant need of correction and without the bandages that we consistently bind it with, it would disintegrate and cease to exist. So what exactly is the fate of the human

Man loves to kill. In response to the question asked, man will continue to commit such atrocities as a genocide. Man will never learn from past mistakes or all of a sudden stop mass killings or genocides. Humans have always killed and they will continue to do it. Humans will not all of a sudden be pacifists and stop killing. This has happened with the Rwandan genocide and with the Holocaust in Night by Elie Wiesel. Man will not stop committing such atrocities and have a brighter future and these are only a few reasons why.

A civilization featured on hate and suffering will eventually cease to exist. Nazi Germany failed to survive as a

The book, Beyond Suffrage; Women in the New Deal, presents the role of women in the 1930's in a much different light than many people think of it. The goal of this book is to enlighten the reader as to what role women played in politics during the New Deal. Because of it's broad view I have taken several specific examples from the book and elaborated on them in order to give you a better understanding.

Many of us are either too focused on the future or too scared to talk about it. Abolition is inevitable, multiple authors and scientists have a similar theory. For example in Stephen Vincent Benét’s short story “By the Waters of Babylon” he describes a world where a war destroyed all the cities of the world. In this story they describe these burnt down cities as “the dead places”; these cities of ash and rubble are considered treacherous yet sacred. By the year 2116 war will have destroyed our society, just as “By the Waters of Babylon” foretells.

War has been a part of human history since humans have had a history. Yet it has devolved from survival of the fittest into something baseless and cruel,

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

We see leaders and members of religions encourage aggression and hate. Religion often is misused for power. Hundreds of millions of human beings on our planet increasingly suffer from unemployment, poverty, hunger, and the destruction of their families. Hope for a lasting peace among nation’s slips away from us. There are tensions between the sexes and generations. Children die, kill, and are killed. More and more countries are shaken by corruption in politics and business. It is increasingly difficult to live together peacefully in our cities because of social, racial, and ethnic conflicts, the abuse of drugs, organized crime, and even anarchy. Even neighbors often live in fear of one another. Our planet continues to be ruthlessly plundered. A collapse of the ecosystem threatens

Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the leader or leaders have exclusive power concerning matters of the state. Although these

The society in which Americans live in today, is in certain aspects far more complex than it ever was for our ancestors. This new complexity is seen on both a micro and macro level and everything that falls in between. Perhaps American society is inherently more complex due to the fact that most if not every societal problem that is encountered, tends to gear towards a political nature in the method of solving. It seems that Americans no longer abide by the do it yourself mentality, and as times goes by we as a people look to the government leaders to solve our problems when they are beyond our capabilities, not realizing that in doing so we also bestow the power upon them to make decisions for society as a whole. When you have an issue