The New Society

I think it may be said first and foremost that every single movement within history has been in regards to something that has already been established. As far back as we may look in terms of the dawn of human civilization, all movements towards some end have been against some other end already in place in such a way. The very first “social movement” was of course that of the Agrarian Revolution, against that of the hunting and gathering upon which social order of the day had been based. With time would come the revolutions in the way of early mathematical thought and social organization giving way to the market revolution and with it the beginnings of the Capital market. It is worth noting that the Capital market was most definitely the necessary end of the Agrarian revolution, however that is a discussion for another time. It would be through the Capital market, as stated many times before, that the first states would arise out of the vacuum that the market provided for, thus ensuring the limitations of the first markets and the beginnings of dirigisme. Dirigisme as an institution would ebb and flow throughout the totality of human existence, with state economic institutions being found in ancient Assyria, Greece, and Rome alongside private institutions as well. With the dawn of the middle ages the Catholic Church would, of course, take on many of the functions of the former Roman empire, as would the Gothic kingdoms that saw their establishment out of the vacuum that formed from Rome’s collapse. Such kingdoms would, with time, morph into the modern nation states of today. It has been through such time that one thing has remained constant: those individuals with the capacity for the usage of the market towards their own ends will do so without regard of the other. The state as an institution arose from the economy as a means to protect and yield unto it a degree of stability and continuity from age to age. Again, as stated, this was begotten by those most powerful individuals within the market utilizing it towards the end of resource accrual and thus market domination. Through the state, then, and in the earliest societies, its integration into the market, the most powerful individuals, that is, those individuals with the greatest deal of Capital, may seek the manipulation of culture for the sake of the status quo and the maintenance of their own power.

The question, then, is to how democracy arose. The answer, really, is rather simple. With destruction of the Roman empire a number of families arose out of the resulting vacuum with positions of power such as the Fuggers, the Medicis, the Bourbons, the Capetians, and the Habsburgs. For the sake of time, I’ll talk of the Habsburgs and their rise to power. The Habsburg story begins in the 600s CE and would not end until 1900s CE. However, we trace the Habsburg beginnings to the beginnings of Burgundy, around the 300s CE. It was during this time that the Burgundians, a Germanic people, settled in the Burgundy region around this time and it would be 300 years later by means of whatever social institutions were at play within the Burgundian state that there existed a Duke of Amalgar in the region who’s family’s regional autonomy resulted in donations from King Dagobert I. As a result, both an abbey and a convent were founded, the couple installing a son and daughter at each, then finally giving birth to their third son Adalrich, who would give birth to Adalrich, Duke of Alasce. It would be this second Aldarich, also called Eticho, who would yield the Etichonid line of individuals, from which Guntram the Rich, the progenitor of the Habsburg line, would be born. Intermarriage with other families of the day then led to Habsburg supremacy throughout the middle ages and into the early modern period. The story of the Bourbons and Capetians is similar, the Bourbons being a subfamily of the Capetians, who themselves date as far back as the early 300s CE in legend with no discernible validity to any lineages prior to perhaps 415 CE, again having roots in local nobility (perhaps elected). The Fuggers and Medicis arose through banking, and to similar result, having intervened in Papal affairs and funding medieval kingdoms throughout the centuries.

What these accounts should make clear is that the majority of world power, for some time at least, have their roots in the original power vacuums from the time of the fall of the Roman empire. This again, however, does not lead us to modern democracy. American democracy, at the least, has its roots in the Parliamentarianism of Britain throughout the middle ages. In some ways greater than modern democracy but in most ways lesser, Parliamentarianism has its roots in William the Conquerer’s creation of an informal cabinet from which he could draw information to properly rule his kingdom following his acquiring of the British Isle in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings. The crown itself received support from the smaller landed noble families and, in this way, such had the real power of the state. In such time Great Councils would be called by the British monarchs to ensure the monarchy governed in a manner that had the nobility’s consent, a system that would eventually evolve into the English Parliament. In many ways it was that the King or Queen was an agent of the nobles that the Parliamentary system was greater for these individuals, as it gave such nobles the ability to revolt against the King, as they did numerous times, from the Barons Wars of the Middle Ages to the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Parliamentary model was, of course, what would inspire the representative assemblies in the United States, the first of which being the Virginia House of Burgesses, a part of the Greater Virginia Council. It is here that some may point to a distinct shift towards the mindset of the democratic ideal from the Nobles’ Parliamentarian ideal, however this wholly untrue. While, yes, election took place, there was within the Council charter the provision that it would be the landed plantation owners would be those elected towards the House, and that some provision must have been in place for land ownership as having been a requirement for the position in the house, as all elected representatives within the First Session of the House were “ancient planters,” or otherwise landed nobles, all having some land ownership within the colony. Such “planters” received their land from the Virginia Company, run by the king himself and, in this way, such land concessions would have served to make the planters beholden to the company and, by extension the King. In this way, the Burgesses barely constitute anything of a “democracy” in any sense of the word. When one looks to the list members of the House in total, one will not find a single individual who does not in some way have a noble connection, whether to the King, English nobility, or the Virginia Company through land owned locally in the colony.

Moving forward to the youngest American colony, Georgia, one sees the exact same thing. A corporate charter in its founding was granted to James Oglethorpe, whose family came to prominence in their support of Charles I against Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s and from thence married into positions affiliated with the royal family, James’ father Theophilus having been officer to the Duke of York. Later, when the colony would break away from Great Britain, the Georgia General Assembly would form and, while its general composition in terms of the status of its members remains unclear, the first elected governor after signing of the US Declaration of Independence was Archibald Bulloch, great-great-great grandfather to Theodore Roosevelt, whose father had connections to the Anglican Church. (It is further worth noting at this point that in addition to Roosevelt’s connections to the Bulloch family, within the Roosevelt line he is descended from Cornelis Geldersman, a landed noble from the Netherlands elected to local office in the late 1500s). What becomes painfully obvious in these accounts, and especially the most aforementioned pertaining to Roosevelt, is that nearly all early members of the United States government may be found to have, in some manner or another, a connection to some prior capitalistic power. For the sake of driving this idea home, I will go through the condensed ancestries of the American Founding Fathers.

(1) George Washington. Washington’s father was Augustine Washington, part of the landed gentry in Virginia. The Washington family in the United States dates as far back as John Washington, George’s great grandfather, who’s own father Lawrence was an Anglican Cleric. With repute, the earliest ancestor of the Washington line is William (de Washington) FitzPatrick Hertburn, born during the 1160s. Washingtonglass.com alleges the Washington line dates back to the King Eugenius I of Dalrieda (a Scottish Kingdom) through a long list of Scottish kings and nobility. This, however, is a stretch in my mind as I can find no reputable source declaring the existence of Eugenius, nor his connection to the Washingtons. The oldest name with which I’ve found repute seems to be Duncan of Strathearn, who’s grandson Crínán of Dunkeld was an abbot. Again, nobility connections abound.

(2) Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s line appears to date as far back as the 1500s, with Thomas Frankline. Benjamin’s father Josiah was a fabric dyer and his grandfather was a blacksmith. Nobility connections, it seems, did not find their way to the Franklin family prior to Benjamin’s rise to political power.

(3) Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, to the contrary of Franklin, seems to be one of the most nobly connected founding fathers in total, with connections to William the Conquerer, Henry VIII, Edward I, and some signers of the Magna Carta. Hamilton’s father-in-law Philip Schuyler was himself a politician and American general, part of the greater Schuyler family, a Dutch family of political and economic magnates dating back to the 1600s with Philip Pieterse Schuyler, a member of the Dutch landed nobility. The family also has connections to the aforementioned Roosevelts.

Researching these is quite tiresome, so I’m going to make the next two rather quick. John Jay has links to the Huguenot coteries in France via his merchant great grandfather Peter Jay. James Madison’s relative John Maddison immigrated to Virginia in the 1600s, his son Ambrose thence becoming an established member of the local landed gentry.

Now you may be criticizing these pieces of evidence as relics of the old system of American governance, after all, the right to vote wasn’t fully given to the totality of the US adult population until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. And while this may be a fair point, it remains to be horribly wrong. Even someone as recent as Barack Obama, being the first African American president and thus to be the first out of the possible realm of the old gentry and nobility of Caucasian Europe, remains to have a great deal of connection through his mother to various individuals having served in the United States army and government. I need not say what has been said of Donald Trump, being that many have claimed him a “fascist” for his business connections, but I will say it anyway. Trump’s grandfather immigrated to the United States in the early 1900s and pursued business practice and real estate purchase from then on; however, Trump’s grandfather Frederick was born to his great grandfather Johannes, himself a part of the lower landed nobility in Germany as a wine producer. Finally, the Bush family is perhaps one of the most connected in all of American history, an assertion I make only as I have not studied the connections of every famous family in American history. The family has connections to various US presidents (Pierce, Ford, Fillmore, the Adamses, the Roosevelts), business interests (Bill Gates, Gould), a variety of individuals in media, from Longfellow, to Jane Fonda, to PT Barnum, and numerous individuals of English and early American notoriety. The family dates back to Obadiah Newcomb Bush, a businessman and prospector of the 1800s. The family’s total Net Worth is estimated to be $400 million in total.

So, what does this mean for democracy? Given this information, the answer is simple. Democracy does not exist. Yes, given the terms and definitions for the word it may be said that yes, democracy technically does exist. However, given the overwhelming evidence that both the founding of the country colonially, independently, and in modernity all have their basis not in the common man but in the interests of wealth by people of wealth, it may be said that the “ideal” of democracy does not exist. The ideal that any man can and should be in the government is simply untrue. However, we know that this is most certainly possible, men do it quite often. But, given that much of US political figures in history and in modernity can be traced to moneyed interests, it may be said that little has changed in the way of power from the earlier Parliamentary systems of Great Britain and the partial dirigisme of earlier Greek and Roman times. The state, whether we want to believe it or not, is and forever will be an agent of the economy. Not the economy of the common man, but the economy of capital. So, then, why put forward democracy? In my eyes, I’d say for the same reason the Parliamentary systems arose in Britain, France, Venice, and even in the Catholic Church: because the rich want power. Landed power was the driving force of the commercial economy prior to the industrial revolution and, in many ways, still remains to be. The benefit of the Parliamentary system is that greater unification can be had by numerous landed elites resulting in universally (within the state) accepted territorial boundaries and unified means towards the end of the protection of all local sovereignties within the state. This was precisely what Venetian merchants did in the later middle ages when they hired military strongmen to organize military and otherwise government services for the Venetian state merchant oligarchy. What takes place in modernity is exactly the same as then, wealthy individuals finding themselves within the “democratic” state towards the same ends of furthering their own business interests.

So, again, why democracy? The numerous peasant revolts of the middle ages and the peasant uprisings of the Roman Empire resulting in military coups make clear to me that the position of election within the state is to provide little more than an illusion for the populace. Yes, there’ve been many a revolt against the state in America, most certainly. The Whiskey Rebellion, Shays’ Rebellion, the numerous marches on Washington during the economic recessions of the 1870s, 1890s, and 1930s are all indicative of movement, as said in the beginning of this writing, a movement against. But there has been, really, no large scale organized rebellion against the state to the degree that had been seen in the middle ages. During the medieval period, one may point to the Jacquerie, a series of mob revolts against the landed nobility that look place from 1356 unto 1358, the mob revolts in Flanders from 1323 – 1328, and finally the Irmandiño Revolts of Galicia from 1431 to 1467. Each of these revolts constitutes something of a wide-scale popular movement against the status quo of landed oppression, each, further had been suppressed. By contrast, the only large scale conflict in the United States pertaining to the working class appears to have been the Mine Wars, a series of isolated armed conflicts from 1890 to 1930s alongside a number of isolated single-day conflicts. It is worth noting, however, that such conflicts distinctly die down following 1950. Contrastingly, these conflicts appear with greater frequency towards the earlier years of the American state. Call it proletarian bias, call it picking and choosing, but it seems odd that the number of working class revolts should go down from the 1950s onward, especially into the modern period, when CEO salaries have actively risen exponentially at the expense of worker salaries from the 1970s onward. I’d be leery to call it a confirmation, but it, in my opinion, alludes to a cultural conciliation in that the democratic institutions of the modern liberal state have yielded “power” to the people in concept. It is through the myth of power that the people are kept in place and submissive to their “representatives” who, all the while, are part of the very same noble families and monied interests the yeoman’s ancestors revolted against so many years prior.

The state, further, is one piece of the greater power puzzle. The second piece is the economy. I need not delve further into the reality that the owners of the means of production and runners of the state have their roots in the ancient landed nobility. This is obvious. All I will leave this portion of this discussion to is thus: the world’s leading financial and economic institutions are, buy and large, American. They have demonstrable connections to the American state. The power remains to be in the same individuals as it has been for centuries.

Now, I can summarize my aforesaid statements through the following statement: Might is control. Those individuals who have economic surpluses and the means to distribute them properly into means that further their own ends are those individuals that have done so for thousands of years. Whether it was through the earliest states in the origins of the Capital market or in those most recent democratic states and their accompanying financial institutions, the mightiest of the world have always been in control of it. This is an absolute reality that cannot be ignored. It cannot be ignored by democrats. Nor the republicans. Nor the social democrats. Nor the socialists. Nor the communists. Nor anarchists. Nor the libertarians. Nor the fascists. Nor the anarcho-capitalists. Nor the minarchists. Nor the mutualists. Nor the distributists. There is, absolutely, no means towards the end of another global social institution other than that of “might is power.” Even in the attempts of social control of the means of production in the USSR and China, the “might is power” reality has manifested itself once more. Neither state was nor is democratic, nor retains democratic control of the means of production. The productions were and are controlled by the state for the interests of the state in cooperation with private capitalist enterprises outside of it. Not only was Stalin’s “socialism in one country” the socialism that has come about, but it has been wholly and truly another manifestation of the “might is power” reality of the world. The workers of the world will not unite, nor will they establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The vanguard is the means towards this end, but this is another topic for another time.

What is at present now is the reality the mighty will retain control for the foreseeable future. They have conquered the state, the economy, and now the culture. With the establishment of the liberal state in the cultural consciousness through Locke (who himself advocated for serfdom in the Americas) and Jefferson and the totality of the founding fathers, liberalism has become the norm. That is, classical liberalism. (I’d like to say in a brief aside that I do not contend that this reality has manifested itself consciously. Giving how much Locke and Jefferson wrote and the gaul with which they did write, I would state that they did believe in the liberalism which they proposed. I would go so far as to say many American politicians do as well. The furthering of the liberal agenda was perhaps not something that the elites conspired to achieve, but rather an end that manifested itself organically by means of evolution. As man evolved to fit his environment, society and its institutions evolved also.) What I mean by liberalism is, as said, classical liberalism. That is, that is the duty of the state to, in effect, fetter capital and ensure the liberties and rights of the people of the State. In many ways, to adhere to strict classical liberalism nowadays would be considered conservative, and rightly so. With the profusion of the liberal ideal in the modern world, the liberal ideal has become the norm, the groundwork upon which all further ideal may be laid.

The nu-liberal and the nu-conservative of the 21st century are both grounded in this liberalism in this manner and it is for such a reason that I dare call them both a sort of “conservative.” Conservatism is most often defined as the political or social maintenance of the traditional institutions of a culture. And, in a manner, the liberal tradition now finds itself under this umbrella. In the nu-liberal’s pushing for reforms that may be themselves considered “progressive” in countenance to the nu-conservatives, they continually propose the liberal framework and, in this manner, propose a conservation of the cultural ideals of the American state at its conception. It is at this point that the nu-liberal will be steadfast in his or her agreement with the nu-conservative on the basic concepts of liberalism, and most importantly private property. Both the nu-liberal and the nu-conservative agree that private property is a necessity to the economy and that the free market is absolutely needed for the betterment of society. Nu-conservatism remains steadfast in classical liberalism, adhering to the ideals the state’s function is merely to fetter capital and that each should be laissez-faire in his cultural, economic, and governmental ideas. It’s these people the modern US would refer to as “libertarians” (for the sake of this dissertation, they shall be called “libertarian nu-conservatives.”) The authoritarian nu-conservatives, the Republicans, contrarily adhere to a cultural conservatism, an economic liberalism (as economic conservatism would refer to state-control, I’ll talk about this in a bit, and governmental liberalism (in select respects, touched on in a bit).  The nu-liberals, the Democrats and their many flavors, adhere to a cultural liberalism, an economic conservatism, and a governmental liberalism (in select respects).

What I mean by “liberalism” by itself in the aforesaid paragraph means progressivism, movement forward, the introduction of new ideals, etc; a “general” liberalism for the sake of descriptor. “Conservatism” means the maintenance of ideal. I thus distinguish 3 types of liberalism: general, classical, and nu. The Republican cultural conservatism bleeds into the realm of identitarianism, a heavily culturally conservative ideal on both the left and the right. Republican identitarianism tends mainly to do with the “American” identity, and those things that would traditionally be assumed to fall beneath it. It is, thusly, conservative in a way that is attempting to maintain a sort of cultural liberalism. It, in many respects, deals with matters towards female and otherwise non-traditional gender and sexual proclivities and their related rights.  The Republican economic model is for the most liberal, as it aims at the introduction of reductions in the government budget, less state control of the economy, and greater expenditures towards the military. We call these generally liberal as they attempt the introduction of new ideas into the status quo, but also classically liberal as they adhere to the classical liberal model of limited government and the free market. The governmental liberalism, again, wants the introduction of new ideas in the reduction of social welfare programming and state control while increasing government control of the military and its investigative services. The Democratic cultural liberalism, like that of the Republican cultural conservatism, is a general liberalism. It bleeds into identitarianism, but in the respect that different social groups are seen as having distinctions apart from the totality of the American identity. We may call this in a certain respect a sort of general conservatism, as the ideal that membership within a group defines the self is something rooted in religious conflicts of the middle ages. It is, in a certain manner, seeking to conserve its notion of liberalism by expending greater liberty to such groups. The economic conservatism comes in two respects: first, the conservatism of the generally classical liberal economic framework and, second, in the conservation of the classical ideal that the state should exist to serve it’s people and should, thus, in some respects take on ownership of the means of production. What it alludes to, for me, is state corporations that existed throughout the middle ages and in such a way, to me, it serves as a cultural reversion to a very economically conservative mindset. The governmental general liberalism is in the introduction of new ideals towards the end of the economic reversions to state ownership, a general state growth, a reduction in military services, and an increase in surveillance services.

So, what is to come? I should continue my order of culture, economy, government, but I believe I’ll reverse it, since I’d like to touch on culture last. In the short term, government is going to grow. I suspect it will grow in a synthetic manner, but grow it will. Those things with which the nu-liberals and nu-conservatives disagree on will come to fruition in synthesis. Not too much socialization of the economy, not too much growth in the military. But grow these things will. This is a certainty. Government control of much of the economy is something I greatly foresee happening as, as I have already pointed out, much of the government is already run by the same interests that control the economy. It should be perfectly logical to anyone that the private interests of both state and economy should merge with time, the people none the wiser to the merger, as it is already taking place before our eyes, and has been for the past 200 years. Again, this will not be a conscious effort, but a mere evolution towards an end. The growth of surveillance will be a thing that will occur in much the same way, merely an evolution of state control. In the long term, The general development of the economy will remain as it has remained. There will be continued innovations in the worlds of technology, science, medicine, etc. etc. These things will come, most certainly. Continued innovation will ensure the unemployment of millions throughout the nation and, as a result, something along the lines of a Universal Basic Income will most certainly be implemented. In the grand scheme of time, those wealthy families in politics will need no longer to even maintain the state, and it too will be replaced with complex technological systems that will ensure the keeping of law and order and the status quo for eternity, if need be. I see the liberal ideal becoming obsolete, a relic of a time when we relied on meritocracy for guidance. The rhetoric of the new society will be on the perfection of machine and, in a like way, the abolition of man. The propriety of these means of governance will, like the production in the economy, be in the control of those individuals that have had primarily agglomerate control of the economy for centuries. Again, as with all things: this will not be a conscious collusion nor a conspiracy, but an evolution. It is at this time that the economy will be in the hands of the state, most wholly. Freedom to exercise economic independence may continue to exist. Then again, it may not. If all states follow suit in technological mechanization of their governances, owned by those same people owning the economy, then I see no reason why all the economy should not be given up towards the economic perfection of technology. Economic liberty then may be what state ownership was to the people of the 1800s, absolute tyranny, and a crime. All of the economy may be centralized into the state in this way, all good production deriving from technology, the market now in obsolescence. Traditional Austrian economic models may be used to program the technology that runs productions, but in this way, the traditional liberal market will be dead. With total mechanization may further come the complete dissolution of money altogether. With the means of production and governance in the hands of the elite, and with the totality of the fruits of the earth in the hands of the common man, there will be no reason for this man to have wealth. Of these elite, it may only be speculation what they may do. Depending on the ebb and flow of technology, they may be anything from simple world controllers to gods, mastering their own universes on either supercomputers or in reality, manipulating and writing data to atoms. It is all conjecture.

What is certain is that control will fall into the hands of the elite, nay, it already is in its hands, and the common man will not be the wiser. This will come with the further transformations of culture that are already in place. Even now, with the profusion of liberalism, we see that the elite’s power to control culture is absolute. Talk of things like the growth of the Roman emperor cult from the top down, or the spread of Catholicism throughout Europe and, in a like way, the opposing spread of Protestantism. It is not conspiracy to believe that culture organically models itself after those who have the greatest power in society. It is merely a truth that must be accepted. The pain and suffering of 1984 will not be, nor will the staunch limitation of rights, as rights will not exist as we now conceptualize them. Many have likened modern identitarianism to 1984 speech and thought control, but I say otherwise. The nu-liberalism of identitarianism on the left is merely a reaction to the longstanding identitarianism that has formed on the right, and has always been present. Again, drawing backward to the Religious Wars of the Middle ages, identitarianism based on something external to the self has always been a part of western thought. Athenians vs. Spartans. English vs. French. Lutheran vs. Catholic. I see the modern leftist identitarianism as another manifestation of this and, as a liberal emanation, itself also a reaction to the New Society. It is another social movement that is coming about in a reaction, but a redirected reaction. Again, it is no mistake that working revolts have diminished entirely in the states since the 1950s, while identitarian movements have in since time gained much momentum. That in since time, racism and gender equality have become the great social causes, with inequality put on the back burner. The illusion of control and the liberal framework mean that the liberal economics cannot be questioned, only reworked for the sake of “social justice” through the all-beneficent state.

The word policing, limitations of freedom of speech, violence against certain groups, etc. by people on the left is at the moment an extreme reaction to much of the status quo cultural conservatism, but also a redirection of the class anger deriving from liberal economics, and of the continued languishing of many in poverty. These bourgeois college students fighting this fight do not truly care of the poor and underclasses, in my opinion at least. They are proponents of the fight. And, likewise, corporations are not really in favor of identitarianism, but in favor of profit. The state too is not in favor of identitarianism, but law and order. Limitations on speech will become an accepted norm as culture evolves. Again, this won’t be an Orwellian limitation. The state will most likely not limit speech, most certainly not. Culture will evolve organically to meet the needs of the identitarians and, slowly, with time, their ideas will become cultural standards and norms. Should the elite legislate such radical change, the risk the overthrow of the state altogether. A balance will be maintained in this way, as with the synthetic reforms of the economy. As new identities are manifested they will become accepted, whether racial, sexual, animal, or what have you. They will become standard, as each desires it. What will happen finally will be the hardest thing for many of you to take in, but it will become reality nonetheless. Culture will be abolished. Culture, as we know it now, will die. In many ways, it has already died. With the continued production of goods and their consumption on the capital market, such consumption has become the culture. The bourgeois liberals most certainly are drinking their starbucks, using their macs, and buying the finest clothing that their money can buy. The concept that each man should continually buy and consume to meet the carnal desires of his heart as his heart desires them has already become a standard philosophy. It will only proliferate as more goods enter the market. Concepts of the greatness of one people or another will, in my opinion, die off, as the market absorbs all greatness in commodity. All books, media, etc. etc. from the Old Society will most certainly be available, but none will desire nor need to read them. Education will be outdated. Perhaps the internet may be integrated into out minds, each of us omniscient. Perhaps only the elite will have this. Who may say? What I can say for certain, though, is that the continued myth of control will ensure people’s submission to change, and that such change will most likely come about without their knowing of it.

With this New Society will come new thought, new world, and new man. New thought will be the submission to consumption. The religion of consumption, really. Consumption will become the national pastime, as it already is. Sports teams, TV shows, music, media, it’s all going to be there. The world won’t change much, because we’ve been living in the beginnings of the New Society for decades now. Most of you would be fine with all of this, but would only start to take issue with the thought that the populace would not desire true knowledge. This is because they will look down upon our thoughts, as we look down on the barbarians of old. They will see us as products of our time, while they embrace the automation that they live with. Any sort of mental capacity will, truly, become obsolete as there will be no purpose to life but consumption. The growth of the self will be no longer, nor will happiness as we know it now. The struggle, the toil, to exist as one desires himself to be and for things to be will not be a concept comprehensible to the mind. The concepts of scarcity and of struggle will be relics of the Old Society, when the brutality and selfishness of money ruled over everyone’s lives. Who knows what may happen to sadness. It may be a thing to be cured with medication, it may not. What we can know of the new thought is that it will be unlike anything we’ve ever imagined, as the world around the man of the New Society will not be man as we know him now. He will be the new man, of the new world, unified to all his brethren by his desires. Unable to consider idiocy when he has the ability to read anything he wants, unable to consider dullness when he has the ability to experience anything he wants, unable to experience sadness when he has the ability to have happiness everlasting. Therein, humanity will die.

Problems with Voluntary Association in the Capital Market

When we are talking about the market of Capital wherein the means of production may be controlled privately without the accountability of the people within the market, save for their forces as consumers, I often hear a lot of talk about the freedom that individuals have to work within the market. What is often proposed is that because the market forces upon none anything whatever, there is no tyranny at play within it. There is no active “oppressive government” forcing upon the people any action that they themselves should not desire to take part in and as such there should be no question as to whether or not the concept of “the freer the market, the freer the people” is a good thing. The man that does not wish to work for another may simply start his own business and employ himself, solving his problems. To this, however, I submit issue.

First, we must agree that it is not rationally possible for all men to self-employ. Let us first look at the nature of the market. Goods are produced in factories. Sandwiches made by multiple chefs at a restaurant. Knick-nacks handmade and distributed by larger firms. In all cases there is a hierarchy at play that necessitates the distribution of the good in question. Supposing each factory worker left and had the wherewithal and resource to create his own business three things would happen to the market. First, the market would become flooded with an excess of option for the consumer. Second, by derivation, the consumer will take issue with the market and will consume less. This as a result of the fact that each man employing himself will mean none employed by another. In this scenario, there is no means to produce goods with the sheer quantity and quality of hierarchical organization, as the factory setup requires many an unskilled worker to produce goods. This thus is the third issue each man employing himself will denote: a sharp drop in the quality of the market will be necessitated. The large distributive firms will have none but the board of directors and will immediately crumble, while each man employing himself will have such a slim share of the market due to his inefficient good production that any innovation whatever will be impossible. This is supposing individuals had all-power and all-resource to create their own industry. We know, however, they do not.

Thus, I secondly submit that it is not physically possible for all men to self-employ. The distribution of resources is already unequal, this is common and accepted knowledge. The proposition that each man should employ himself if he cannot find equitable pay for his labor assumes first that he has the resources to create this employment. If we are supposing the common laborer has these resources, we are supposing all individuals or at least a very hefty portion of them, must have them as well. It is herein that I question how exactly a man is receive an equitable marketshare and thus pay when resources are not available for him to do so. Because again, supposing that these resources exist is to then suppose that all individuals could do it. If not, what is then being supposed is that all workers may self-employ unto an equilibrium point wherein they no longer can as it would be heartily agreed upon by the proposers of this theory that there would be no available resources left. To suppose otherwise would to be suppose that there exists an infinite amount of resources in the world, as we are then proposing that each man may employ himself ad infinitum. Infinite self-employment thus supposes infinite resources to that end. This, of course, we know is not the reality of the situation.

However, the capitalist proponents of this theory are aware that not every man will employ himself. He is aware that the unskilled are often unskilled because they cannot acquire skill. He is are of the third counter to his point: it is not mentally possible for all men to self-employ. He may use this point to his advantage because he may aptly use to undermine the previous arguments in that “all men will not employ! so those that may of course are aptly able to use the resources needed to do so.” And this is fantastic, however there is no data proposed to demonstrate that which qualifies a man as apt to employ himself. Not only this, but then what of the men who have the aptitude but not the means to resources? It is in these scenarios alongside the millions of unskilled that I now propose that the argument that these men may simply employ themselves is invalid for these men and thus the argument as a whole serves only towards these magical apt men with resources. The capitalist has admitted some will always be in the position of worker and not employer because of aptitude.

But the capitalist now says that no one is forcing these inapt workers to work, if they do no not wish to work, they don’t have to. Work is a choice. And to this I counter: slavery is a choice. “But the slavemaster forces his slave to work. The slave as not the freedom to not work.” But of course the slave does! If the slave wished not to work, the slave could simply kill himself. No man, no problem! Slavery is a choice. The slave most the certainly has the freedom to die, of course he does. The worker, likewise, doesn’t have to work. He can die! He needs not his food, he needs not his house, he needs not anything because he has the choice not to. If the worker wished not to work, the worker could simply not work and face starvation, homeless, and death. No man, no problem! Work is a choice. The worker most certainly has the freedom to die, of course he does!

Now to anyone with a proper mind, these arguments are preposterous. To call the freedom to die a “freedom” is to inherently say that freedom is a thing that can be experienced in death. Freedom is a thing derivative of the conscious and rational. The dog does not have the freedom to think anything other than what biology has been designed of him. The grass has not the freedom to think whatsoever. The vacuum void of space is quite literally nothing and, as nothing, nothing can be derived from it. Likewise, when we die, the consciousness ceases and we become nothing without any ability to derive any freedom. Hence, the freedom to die may be said to be said to be the freedom of nothing, as it is truly the freedom to be nothing. And again, as nothing, we cannot derive freedom. In other words, the freedom to die is the freedom to have no freedom. It is, inherently, the antithesis of freedom. It is the choice to abdicate from all freedom. It is the choice forfeit self. This is the choice of the capitalists: work or lose all freedom whatever. This is the “freedom” that the capitalist supposes in voluntary association. This is the “freedom” to die. This is nothing short of calling ignorance a strength and freedom a slavery. What is being stated is that the “freedom” to no longer have freedom is a thing that the human person should not only consider, but that it should be a choice that the person should be communion with.

What we now have to say is that the capitalist who proposes this theory is nothing short of a Stalinist who proposes absolute collectivization. The capitalist has rejected Locke’s and Jefferson’s natural right to life. Man has no right to life. He must work to be alive; there is nothing inherent about the human life that give it any intrinsic value or right to existence. If he does not work, has no right to be alive as he will simply die. He does, thus, have the right to die. Second, they have rejected the right to liberty. Man has no right to be alive so how may we derive that as a living being he has any liberty or rights within his own life? Its purely non sequitur. How may the capitalist justify freedom of speech if he cannot justify the right of the person to be alive to have that speech? It is now that they reject themselves, as having natural rights, they’ve rejected Locke’s right to property and Jefferson’s right to pursue happiness. Of course they have rejected the pursuit happiness as they have said that man who only has the capacity for menial work has but the option to work or die. He has no real ability to pursue his life elsewhere and, as such, if he derives no happiness from his work, this really means nothing. The right to pursue happiness, thus, is not a right to the capitalist. But now, they’ve too rejected property! They’ve rejected their very own right to be alive. Man has nothing to himself in life. He is owed no life. He has the freedom to die. How then may we say that you, the capitalists, have the right to own anything? Why can no one simply kill you? You, as you have said, have no right to be alive as you have the freedom to die.

The capitalists may now say that natural rights do not exist and affirm that the status quo is fine. To this I then say that the bombing of your corporations and the murdering of your wives and children will now not be a crime except by your own imagination, as you had no right to your property and they had no right to be alive.

The Human Disconnect

We are very egotistical beings. Very much so. And I don’t mean in the traditional sense of a man placing his ego upon some pedestal that he has created for himself, so that he may seek the positioning of himself atop those around him. Yes, we are inclined to this as well as materialistic and individualistic people, yet there is something more in the way of the ego that very few people have spoken of, let alone realized. It is a reality that I believe must be publicly exposed, and is one that we must all recognize: we are animals.

And what’s more, we are not different from animals (in most respects). More specifically, we are apes and in the vast majority of respects we are no different from them either. For some of you, this may seem obvious. Evolution gave rise to our existence from older animals and we were the result (for the time being) of the related evolutionary processes. Yet for the majority of people and for the culture in which we live, this is not the case. Conceive of something in this minute. Think of your grandparents, the individual with whom you express utmost affection,  or some other human individual within your life. When you conceive of these beings, you conceive of a certain distinctness that has been taught to you. Whether by conscious effort or by natural necessity, there exists a subconscious pattern of thought that aims to seek the distinction of the human person away from the rest of the kingdom Animalia.

And while, yes, we do find that there is an extremely viable reason for this distinction to be made in our processes of rational and intelligent thinking, we lose a lot when we make these distinctions. The earliest conceptions of such a distinction in the western mindset come amidst the ancient Jews of the near east, whose writings in the B’ereshith, known now to the Christians as Genesis, spoke of a distinct human origin created in the image and likeness of God. In this view, humanity was created autonomously and prior to all other life on the planet and, as the pinnacle of God’s creation, the imago dei, man was thought to experience a distinct separateness from all other animals. The paradigm that this view of the world brought about and which nearly all of western society still remains in adherence to is the dichotomy of man and nature. This view was much further expounded upon by the Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas, whose cosmological and theological beliefs as written in his Summa Theologica would be adopted by the Church in the years following its publication, and are summarized curtly in the Catholic Catechism: “The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator.” (CCC 1978). The natural law theory itself was born in the ancient Scholastic tradition of synthesis between classical, traditionally Aristotelean philosophy with that of Biblical dogma, perfectly epitomized in the quotation provided, Aristotle’s “particular customs, institutions, and interests which tend to realize the ideal of each constitution” as cited in Rhetoric synthesized with the imago dei as proposed in Genesis: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…'” (Genesis 1:2 NIV). It is the amalgam of the “particular” custom of Aristotle with the “image and likeness of the divine” that allowed the transformation of the former into the “Divine” custom of the Scholastics, as Aquinas writes: “it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.” (Summa Theologica, Article. 2 – Whether there is in us a natural law?) It is in this quotation that Aquinas and thus the totality of Catholic Christendom makes clear a pronounced distinction that the rationality of humanity, which itself bespeaks of a means of separation, experiences an inherently divine separation from the rest of the world; hence, the dichotomy of man and nature.

Now with the pervasive nature of the Catholic Church during the Medieval period and arguably into Modernity, it is quite clear that the Catholic understanding of man’s separation from nature should find itself into culture as we find it now. The earliest universities, of course, were founded for the sake of religious education and towards that end many of the teachers within such institutions were the very same Scholastics that had long been educated in the classical literature and thought of Aristotle and his contemporaries, alongside commentaries by Aquinas, Scotus, and the like, Martin Luther’s position at the University of Wittenberg being a fantastic example. It is thus being that not only did the Catholics enact near “catholic” hegemony on the cultural ideals of Europe throughout much of its maturation, the Church having a great stranglehold in state affairs well into the 1600s, but also that it enacted educational institutions further disseminating its ideals, that much of the thinking of the Church manifested itself in European culture. Even now when we speak of things like the “silver tongue” or “Ockham’s razor” we are speaking of ideals disseminated by the Scholastic tradition: the former deriving from a Biblical adage (“The tongue of the righteous is choice silver, but the heart of the wicked is of little value.” (Proverbs 10:20 NIV) and the latter deriving from the writings of Catholic Scholastic William of Ockham in his Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (“Plurality is never to be posited without necessity.”) Again, however, as with the approach to Natural Law, Ockham’s razor too arrives to us in modernity via the works of Aristotle (“We may assume the superiority of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.” (Posterior Analytics 86a32) alongside earlier postulations by Duns Scotus, who actually developed the aforementioned quotation in his De Primio Principio (“To show that this division is adequate, I propose this third generalization well known to Aristotle: (Fifteenth conclusion) Plurality must never be assumed without necessity.”)

Now, what of all of this? What matter should it make that the ideal that human’s are distinct from nature has been taught through the Church? The matter that is made is clear and distinct: the matter is an idea. That is to say, it is not an absolute. What’s more, it is an thusly an inabsolute whose roots are themselves found in philosophical constructions themselves synthesized with religious literature in order that that such literature’s proportions may be grounded in greater logical thought processes. With the diminishing of church power and the secularization of culture over the past 200 years, the conceptualization of man’s distinctness being the result of his god-given nature has waned, while the distinctness of his nature has not. The effect this has had is two-fold.

Firstly, what we now seen in culture to varying degrees is the application of “human” characteristics towards that of animals, whether that be in popular media or in some sort of niche cultural faction. Search for any popular children’s film featuring animals and you will most definitely find something of this sort. Not only will the animals see the application of human immaterial characteristics, upright walking, language, etc., but also to them is applied human facial features and otherwise biological symbolisms that are indicative of their anthropomorphized nature. While in many cases this is a marketing ploy, it speaks in a larger degree to the greater malformation of mind that the continued embedded image of the imago dei has in our society. The new, secular imago dei has given unto us the understanding that our characteristics are distinctly our own. “It is we who talk. It is we who think. It is we who stand upright and think consciously of it. These are not the things of animals! Ha! Animals do not think! These are the things of Man, and so let us apply them to those lowly animals who cannot, for our own amusement!” But this is certainly not true. Animals may feel emotion (even now I do not believe it is I write it, though I know it is true, as I’ve been taught for so long that emotion is a human capacity intimately connected to so many other things distinctly human, such as conscious crying), animals have their own means of simple communication (we’ve taught some apes sign language), animals have their means of locomotion, and animals do many, many of the things that we typically relegate to the “human condition.” It is not that we understand ourselves to be the product of the ongoing forces of evolution, but that our so-called condition arose nearly spontaneously. Despite many professing belief in evolution, I’ve been hard-pressed to find even among my own Biology teachers the belief that our own conditions arose evolutionarily out of those of our compatriots in the greater Kingdom Animalia. Our culture does not see what is of humanity as being in animals in a lesser degree, but of humanity as a disconnected, separate entity that shares space with the Animals, despite his own ever-apparent animalistic tendencies and the obvious realities of evolution.

It is thus from this basis of the human disconnect that we, rightly yet for the wrong reasons, shutter at the further application towards the animal those things that we ourselves now consider to be distinctly human. It is without shortage that I’ve been made aware of the popular conception of decadence and degeneracy in the sensualization and sexualization of the animal form (and even now as I describe it, I describe it in a manner that mentally connotes images of that which is in-human in its nature, simply anther iteration of how the dichotomy has entered into our patterns of thought). It is first that I criticize society’s conception of the matter by first attacking its premise of the allowance of the application of certain human characteristics to the inhuman. Embodied in the sens/sex-ualization of the inhuman is first the concept that these concepts are inhuman and thus that these things may be applied to them for the sake of thus bringing them into the greater sphere of that which we may consider human-like. Second, I criticize the societal status quo that these things are strictly human. Now this is not to say that I approve of the portrayal of animal in a manner human, but that I question the mental dichotomy of animal-human that we are basing this postulation on. It is thus that I criticize the approval and disapproval of anthropomorphization. I find it odd firstly that we should speak of these beings as blank slates with which we may apply our own minds to and secondly that when our minds apply those things we think of them to them that in select cases we should disapprove on the grounds some things are too human for their application to the inhuman while others are not.

But does man not have a distinct nature that disconnects him from the rest of nature? To this I will say no. Conscious and rational thought are a product of natural evolution. Rationality is nature. We are material, material being nature. Our rationality is only distinct insofar as it is not present among any other form of life with which we have contact to the degree it is present within us. It is at this very moment that society runs with what I believe to be the reality of the situation and goes on to propose that the lack of acquaintance with man’s nature in things lack it denotes a disconnection that promotes us to a pseudo-divine level, a concept that is a vestige of the imago dei as conceived of by the Catholics.  It is in this near-divinity that we say that the things of man are only of man, and that we may apply them as we wish.

It is, as a result, that I take a second issue with the current mindset. We (as alluded to) see the human form in a manner quite wholly distinct from the animal form. When we look into the eyes of another, we do not see an advanced ape. We do not even think “advanced ape” because the conception of ourselves as apes reduces us to the level of the inhuman. We dare not reject our pseudo-divine disconnectedness from nature and think that we ourselves have forms that arose out of nature. We are not to find in nature form that we find in man, because man to the modern mind is not of nature. Man is of man. But again, this is wholly false. I’ve found it both sobering and jarring when I’ve found myself  walking about in a large crowd or watching a video and thought “we are all apes.” It is the strangest thing for a few moments, yet afterwards all I can think is, “of course, what else may we be?” And of course I still have my own mental vestiges. If I look at the anatomy of the human form when compared in the evolutionary sequences to the inhuman I still notice difference between the two, difference that I now question whenever I think of it.

But after all of this, surely man has within nature something distinct? Yes, rationality is certainly a the distinction from man to animal, most certainly. Well, I should more clearly say the degree of rationality is the distinction, as we do see tool use and primitive culture in many apes. And it is from this grounds that, most certainly, man has a distinctly rational nature that we may criticize animal sexualization as it does suppose a greater perceived real-world rationality in animals that simply does not exist. But as I stated before in older posts, the potentiality for rationality in the animal will always exist. It is not that rationality is a thing that man uniquely experiences, but it is that it is a thing that all animals experience to a degree, man simply experiencing the most superlative degree of that condition.