Can the end be seen; is it visible? Is there a path? Is it even discernible? Sorting the truth from the non-truth, and all the variations therein, seems self-defeating. It seems, most times, that there is no hope. Man has always lived in a condition of servitude, the wealthy have always held power, the ratios haven’t changed.
“So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You’ve been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don’t have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It’s not wrong. And it’s certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn’t that fuck me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It’s all just the same thing over and over; we can’t help ourselves. And you and I can’t control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot of money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there’s ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same. “
– Jeremy Irons as John Tuld from the movie “Margin Call.”
Let me begin by saying that if there is no solution, nihilism wins, the universe will get colder, and humanity is a temporary condition in a losing proposition. If there is an end goal to our technological progression, if there is a long-term reason for our ingenuity, be it immortality, or time travel, whatever, if there is a summum to our bonum, then we must figure out a way to attain our potential instead of being held back by our own particular ‘destinies.’
Let’s assume, for the benefit of this article, that there is a way for us to beat the system, that we can become emancipated from the continuous drudgery of life as we have come to accept it, and that we can improve the human condition. This is quite an assumption (for many reasons,) but let’s just start from there; it will simplify the discourse.
The one thing which we must consider at this point is that every war ever fought (yes, even the French revolution and the American war of secession) was a contrivance. There is no war possible but a class war, otherwise we are simply fighting to protect the interests of those who hold us in bondage. The struggle for freedom is class-based, and there can be no other way to sovereignty.
“And his hands would plait the priest’s entrails, For want of a rope, to strangle kings.”
“Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois.”
Les Éleuthéromanes, in Poésies Diverses (1875) – Denis Diderot
There is a relationship which exists between the crown and the cross. From ancient Egypt to modern England, there has always been an interplay between the divine and the sovereign. To deny the monarchy exclusive access to the divine is an emancipation of our very souls.
“For who is there that does not see, to whose benefit it conduceth, to have it believed, that a King hath not his Authority from Christ, unlesse a Bishop crown him?” Leviathan (1651) – Thomas Hobbes
If there is to be any freedom, not only the people who control the system, but the very system itself must be brought down, not to be replaced with a surrogate, but with something so completely novel that power itself is seen in its true light. Nationalism, religion, food distribution, inequality, and all the other divisive pillars of what we call civilisation must be re-examined. To be a patriot is to abhor all that is not native to one’s culture. To follow a flag is an exercise of submission. A pledge of allegiance is a denial of equality. Religious sectarianism is nothing more than cultism, no matter how convincing the rhetoric. The golden age of Hegelistic thought must end for there to be any semblance of equality and personal sovereignty.
If centralization has not worked under any economic system, perhaps we must go in another direction. If Americanism (disaster capitalism*) has not fulfilled the needs of the populace, there must be another way, and we owe it to ourselves to find it. Whether that way be metallism, anarchy, direct democracy, autonomous collectivism, controlled despotism, or a return to a monarchistic city-state, we must, eventually, find a path which will protect the rights of all, allow co-operation rather than competition, glorify good deeds over good deals, and bring actual meaning to our lives, not just ‘progress’ – whatever that means, ‘growth,’ and personal profit.
[Perhaps, if man were immortal, he would think more of others. He wouldn’t be gone by the time his deeds were known; he would have to live with them forever.]
Would you sell weapons for profit, thus helping your family to buy food? Would you steal rations from dead soldiers to feed your family? Would you kill to protect them? What is evil, then? Evil can be justified as pre-emptive self-defence. If there is no aggression, there is no need to defend. Co-operation, then, is critical to ensure peace, competition will inevitably lead to war. Defence, on the other hand, is essential to a free life. Self-defence is an unalienable right… that doesn’t make it more desirable as a means of communication.
Negotiation always comes from a position of power, authority, or truth. We need not negotiate for that which is already ours.
Can we change the world? We say we always have. But have we really? It’s like painting the walls of a very old house. It’s a change, technically speaking, but the architecture remains in place.
* An example of disaster capitalism:
Derivatives insure crops against failure by multiples of the value of said crop, so a field with one million dollars worth of wheat can be worth two million in insurance if disaster strikes. At the same time, insurance companies in Calgary funded cloud-seeding projects in order to move hailstorms away from the city and down-wind into the farms because it was cheaper to insure failed crops than a parking lot full of SUVs. Not only was it cheaper, the derivatives against the crop hedged for huge profits.) When it is in the best interests of shareholders of a corporation to lay waste to crops (in order to cash in on the derivatives taken against them,) all manner of geo-engineering is undertaken and food-security is lost to the populace. Not only do these companies profit from natural disasters, they are financially motivated to cause them. This is very similar to the scenario which brought Lehman down.